Reading PAGE

Peer Evaluation activity

Trusted by 1
Reviews 1
Emailed by 1
Downloads 5921
Views 235
Full text requests 3
Collected by 2
Followed by 6
Following... 20
Funded by 3

Total impact ?

    Send a

    J. Britt has...

    Trusted 1
    Reviewed 4
    Emailed 1
    Shared/re-used 1
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 2

    This was brought to you by:

    block this user J. Britt Holbrook

    Other / britt.holbrook@unt.edu

    Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas
    School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology
    Philosophy of/as Interdisciplinarity Network
    Public Philosophy Network

    Re-assessing the science – society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation’s broader impacts merit review criterion (1997 – 2011)

    Export to Mendeley

    In 2005, I published the first scholarly article on the US National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Merit Review Criterion. In the intervening years, much has happened, both in terms of scholarship on the Broader Impacts Criterion and in terms of the Broader Impacts Criterion itself. Here, I revisit that original article, answering some questions, filling in some blanks, expanding some bits, contracting others, updating and generally rethinking the whole thing. The National Science Board has also rethought the Broader Impacts Criterion, and 2011 marks the gestation, if not the birth, of a much different criterion, a sort of Broader Impacts 2.0. Now, then, seems like the perfect time to think once again about NSF’s Broader Impacts Criterion and about the dialectic between the values of autonomy and accountability in the science – society relation.

    Oh la laClose

    Your session has expired but don’t worry, your message
    has been saved.Please log in and we’ll bring you back
    to this page. You’ll just need to click “Send”.

    Your evaluation is of great value to our authors and readers. Many thanks for your time.

    Review Close

    Short review
    Select a comment
    Select a grade
    You and the author
    Anonymity My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
    publish
    Close

    When you're done, click "publish"

    Only blue fields are mandatory.

    Relation to the author*
    Overall Comment*
    Anonymity* My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
     

    Focus & Objectives*

    Have the objectives and the central topic been clearly introduced?

    Novelty & Originality*

    Do you consider this work to be an interesting contribution to knowledge?

    Arrangement, Transition and Logic

    Are the different sections of this work well arranged and distributed?

    Methodology & Results

    Is the author's methodology relevant to both the objectives and the results?

    Data Settings & Figures

    Were tables and figures appropriate and well conceived?

    References and bibliography

    Is this work well documented and has the bibliography been properly established?

    Writing

    Is this work well written, checked and edited?

    Write Your Review (you can paste text as well)
    Please be civil and constructive. Thank you.


    Grade (optional, N/A by default)

    N/A 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
    Close

    Your mailing list is currently empty.
    It will build up as you send messages
    and links to your peers.

     No one besides you has access to this list.
    Close
    Enter the e-mail addresses of your recipients in the box below.  Note: Peer Evaluation will NOT store these email addresses   log in
    Your recipients

    Your message:

    Your email : Your email address will not be stored or shared with others.

    Your message has been sent.

    Description

    Title : Re-assessing the science – society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation’s broader impacts merit review criterion (1997 – 2011)
    Author(s) : J. Britt Holbrook
    Abstract : In 2005, I published the first scholarly article on the US National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Merit Review Criterion. In the intervening years, much has happened, both in terms of scholarship on the Broader Impacts Criterion and in terms of the Broader Impacts Criterion itself. Here, I revisit that original article, answering some questions, filling in some blanks, expanding some bits, contracting others, updating and generally rethinking the whole thing. The National Science Board has also rethought the Broader Impacts Criterion, and 2011 marks the gestation, if not the birth, of a much different criterion, a sort of Broader Impacts 2.0. Now, then, seems like the perfect time to think once again about NSF’s Broader Impacts Criterion and about the dialectic between the values of autonomy and accountability in the science – society relation.
    Keywords : National Science Foundation (NSF); Merit review; Peer review; Broader impacts; Scientific autonomy and accountability; Philosophy of science policy; Metrics

    Subject : Peer review
    Area : Philosophy
    Language : English
    Year : 2012

    Affiliations Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas
    Attribution Share Alike

    Leave a comment

    This contribution has not been reviewed yet. review?

    You may receive the Trusted member label after :

    • Reviewing 10 uploads, whatever the media type.
    • Being trusted by 10 peers.
    • If you are blocked by 10 peers the "Trust label" will be suspended from your page. We encourage you to contact the administrator to contest the suspension.

    Does this seem fair to you? Please make your suggestions.

    Please select an affiliation to sign your evaluation:

    Cancel Evaluation Save

    Please select an affiliation:

    Cancel   Save

    J. Britt's Peer Evaluation activity

    Trusted by 1
    • Gloria Origgi, Research Fellow, CNRS, Institut Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Paris.
    Reviews 1

    Title of the work: Research Impact: We Need Negative Metrics Too

    Emailed by 1
    • J. Britt Holbrook, Other, Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas.
    Downloads 5921
    Views 235
    Full text requests 3
    Collected by 2
    Followed by 6
    • Christophe Al-Saleh, Lecturer, Université de Picardie, Amiens, France.
    • Aalam Wassef, Publisher, Founder of Peer Evaluation, Galerie Conradi.
    • Gloria Origgi, Research Fellow, CNRS, Institut Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Paris.
    • Mario Neve, Associate Professor, Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Bologna, Ravenna Campus, Ravenna.
    • Thomas Johnson, Lecturer, University of Melbourne.
    • Kelli Barr, Junior professional, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, Center for the Study of Interdisicplinarity, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL.
    Following... 20
    • Gloria Origgi, Research Fellow, CNRS, Institut Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Paris.
    • Stevan Harnad, Professor, University of Southampton.
    • Peer Evaluation, Publisher, Peer Evaluation, Collective Developments.
    • Aalam Wassef, Publisher, Founder of Peer Evaluation, Galerie Conradi.
    • Clement Levallois, Post Doctorate, Rotterdam School of Management, E-humanities group of the KNAW, Erasmus Studio, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Gephi Consortium.
    • Christophe Al-Saleh, Lecturer, Université de Picardie, Amiens, France.
    • Nathias von Helling, Student, Ph.D. Level, speculative metaphysics.
    • Federico Viola, Student, Ph.D. Level, Philosophy Faculty, Freiburg.
    • Barry Smith, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
    • Richard Price, Independent researcher, Oxford University.
    • Marc Augier, Professor, SKEMA, Sophia Antipolis, SKEMA Business School, Suzhou, China.
    • Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Associate Professor, Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Computer Science Lab, Västerås, Sweden.
    • Claudia Koltzenburg, Multi-disciplinary, Clinic for Stem Cell Transplantation, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendrof, Hamburg.
    • Giulio Lizzi, Student, Ph.D. Level, University of Perugia / University of Lugano, University of Perugia (PhD candidate), University of Lugano (visiting researcher).
    • Markus Peschl, Professor, University of Vienna.
    • Niki Pfeifer, Post Doctorate, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Faculty 10, Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, Munich, Germany, Tilburg University, The Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
    • Mario Neve, Associate Professor, Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Bologna, Ravenna Campus, Ravenna.
    • Robert Frodeman, Professor, Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton.
    • Heather Piwowar, Post Doctorate, DataONE at NESCent, Dryad data repository, University of British Columbia.
    • Luciano Floridi, Professor, Hertfordshire and Oxford.
    Funded by 3
    • US NSF Workshop: Assessing the Broader Societal Impact of Funding Techno-Scientific Research, Grant Number 0649573 / Year 2007
    • US NSF SciSIP (MOD): A Comparative Assessment of Models for Integrating Societal Impacts Concerns into the Peer Review of Grant Proposals , Grant Number 0830387 / Year 2008
    • US NSF Transformative Research: Social and Ethical Implications, Grant Number 1129067 / Year 2011

    J. Britt has...

    Trusted 1
    Reviewed 4

    Title of the work: Citizen Science and the Academic Spring

    Emailed 1
    Shared/re-used 1
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 2
    Invite this peer to...
    Title
    Start date (dd/mm/aaaa)
    Location
    URL
    Message
    send
    Close

    Full Text request

    Your request will be sent.

    Please enter your email address to be notified
    when this article becomes available

    Your email


     
    Your email address will not be shared or spammed.