I left a comment* about one point I take issue with; but this is a good article, with lots of good advice.
* Just noticed the comment hasn’t shown up, yet, on the Chronicle site. Here it is:
This is a timely and valuable article that contains lots of great information and advice. I completely agree with the claim that proposers should not neglect the Broader Impacts Criterion. But it’s important to realize that NSB’s recent “Review and Revision” (NSB/MR-11-22) of the Merit Review Process actually give proposers much more latitude than this article (perhaps inadvertently) suggests.
The list of National Goals contained in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 was removed from the revised Broader Impacts Criterion during the review and revision process. As I suggest here (http://cas-csid.cas.unt.edu/?p…, that’s a good thing for those who value scientific autonomy. NSF proposers ought to embrace this freedom and own the Broader Impacts Criterion (http://cas-csid.cas.unt.edu/?p….
What the new Broader Impacts Criterion requires is that proposers identify “specific, desired societal outcomes.” Broader impacts may include, but should not be limited to, outcomes included in the list of National Goals mentioned above.This also fits with the fact that NSF is planning to do away with the list of representative activities. There’s more to it, of course. But I think it’s vitally important that proposers not feel restricted by the new Broader Impacts Criterion.