Broader Impacts

All funding agencies hope that the work they support will bring tangible benefits to society.  But no agency (in the world) has articulated this hope as clearly as the US National Science Foundation (NSF).  Since 1997, NSF will not even consider a proposal unless it explicitly includes activities to demonstrate the project's 'broader impacts' on science or society at large [from Nature article, below].  This section of the Research website is being created to help faculty design and implement the education, diversity, and outreach "broader impact" (BI) components of their research proposals.

The NSF review criterion is typically divided into five areas:
1. Integrating research and education,
2. Broadening participation of underrepresented groups,
3. Enhancing infrastructure for research and education,
4. Broad dissemination of scientific ideas and methods (general scientific literacy), and
5. Direct benefit to society.  

Pointers to NSF documents with explanations and examples, including the 2010 America Competes Act, can be found here, and an NSF-supported Broader Impacts Toolbox here. A new report (12/12/2011) to the National Science Board revises some of the categories.  The wording of the review criterion remains the same, but the categories and examples have been dropped as being "too prescriptive." Two principles are intact: 1) PIs need to collect data, when possible, to evaluate the effectiveness of projects, and 2) the institution and the individual need to "shoulder the responsibility" for BI together. 

ABOVE: Prospective PIs might think of the old "areas" above like a Chinese menu, from which one can choose one activity from each of two or three categories.  The old categories, while not exhaustive, may still be helpful. 

BELOW:  The bullets below are to resources to facilitate projects, once you settle on the broad categories that are most appropriate for your subject matter and capabilities.

I. Pointers to Broader Impacts Resources at UMass Amherst:

A. Outreach/ Diversity Resources (on-campus entities)

  • For access to minority serving institutions 
  • Partnerships with community colleges
  • Resources for minority candidates at UMA
  • Programs oriented to women and girls in science 

B. Outreach/ Diversity (off-campus, community partners)

C.  (Unconventional/ nonSTEM) Campus Allies for Broader Dissemination
C2. Campus Initiatives for Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning.

D. Directory of Community Contacts
(Spreadsheet of UMass people with contacts in Springfield and other surrounding towns, work in progress...)

E. Collaborations with Other Universities

F. Diversity Funding (for PIs)

G. "Sample Language" and other aids for NSF CAREER proposals  

II. Evaluating your BI project: Did it work?

--Campus Programs about evaluation planning and implementation

--Evaluation Resource Pages

III. Philosophical and practical discussions about BI here and elsewhere

BI and its counterparts at other funding agencies are undergoing changes in their philosophy and implementation.  Here is a recent article from Nature that summarizes some of the current discussion. 

The Nature article refers us to a 2009 issue of the journal Social Epistemology (vol. 23, nos. 3 & 4) which is devoted to a 2007 Colorado School of Mines-NSF workshop on “Making Sense of the Broader Impacts of Science and Technology.”  The journal is available through our library, but I have posted one article, "Implementation of NSF's "Broader Impacts": Efficiency Considerations and Alternative Approaches" by biologist (and dean) Warren Burggen of the University of North Texas.  I feel he lays out NSF's dilemma with helpful insight. (There's also my summary of the high points, the "Cliff Notes" version, at the link.)

Finally, an article in Change (May/June 2009) describes a model, implemented at U Wisconsin-Madison and a handful of other schools, to build the infrastructure in the university for "Leveraging the NSF Broader-Impacts Criterion for Change in STEM Education." One goal is joining a network of similar programs whose main mission is to enhance individual efforts through a strong institutional commitment.

The National Science Board Task Force on Merit Review has been evaluating these policies and conducting research to see whether they are having any impact on research projects.  The new report, delivered in December 2011 to the NSB and still not broadly disseminated by early 2012, re-confirms that we all need to keep reflecting on what changes our campus would like to see made.  Tell us what you think the institution should do to provide supports for your efforts. (email: bpearson@research.umass.edu)

>>>>These pages are still under-construction.  In fact, even after we fill some of the current holes in our listings, we anticipate that the campus' support for "BI" will be constantly progressing and changing, so we plan to keep these pages growing and changing, too.

--Maintained by Academic Liaison, Barbara Pearson, of the Office of Research Development (10/2010)