RE:Infra-structuring NSF Merit Review
The use of societal impacts considerations in grant proposal peer review: A comparison of five models
The Philosopher à la Jean-François Lyotard – Is what he suggests against the rules?
The Philosophy of the Science of Team Science: Disciplines, Peers, and SciTSeers
Knowledge kills action – why principles should play a limited role in policy-making: Journal of Responsible Innovation
56 indicators of impact
Knowing and acting: The precautionary and proactionary principles in relation to policy making
Holbrook, J. Britt. Re-assessing the science - society relation:: Holbrook, J. Britt. Re-assessing the science - society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's broader impacts merit review criterion (1997 - 2011)
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.
Open Access and Its Enemies
Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion
THE USE OF SOCIETAL IMPACTS CONSIDERATIONS IN GRANT PROPOSAL PEER REVIEW: A COMPARISON OF FIVE MODELS
Broader Impacts 2.0: Seeing—and Seizing—the Opportunity
Science's social effects
Putting darwin in his place: The need to watch our language
Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts
Funding agencies and research councils around the world rely on peer review to assess the potential
impacts of proposed research. This article compares the procedures of two major public science
agencies — the US National Science Foundation and the European Commission’s 7th Framework
Programme — for evaluating ex ante the potential societal impact of research proposals. In this paper
we survey the state of the art and discuss some of the conceptual questions that arise in using ex ante
peer review to assess the societal impact of scientific research.
Research impact: We need negative metrics too
Argues that we should broaden our thinking about impact.
Evaluating research beyond scientific impact: How to include criteria for productive interactions and impact on practice and society
NSF's struggle to articulate relevance
Lyotard and Greek Thought: Sophistry (review)
Philosophy in the Age of Neoliberalism
What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration
Designing Research Evaluation: a View from the Perspective of a Large, Multidisciplinary University in the United States of America: RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione