text-only page produced automatically by LIFT Text Transcoder Skip all navigation and go to page content Skip top navigation and go to directorate navigation Skip top navigation and go to page navigation
National Science Foundation
Awards
design element
Search Awards
Recent Awards
Presidential and Honorary Awards
About Awards
Grant Policy Manual
Grant General Conditions
Cooperative Agreement Conditions
Special Conditions
Federal Demonstration Partnership
Policy Office Website



Award Abstract #0830387

SciSIP (MOD): A Comparative Assessment of Models for Integrating Societal Impacts Concerns into the Peer Review of Grant Proposals

NSF Org: SBE
Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
divider line
Initial Amendment Date: September 23, 2008
divider line
Latest Amendment Date: September 23, 2008
divider line
Award Number: 0830387
divider line
Award Instrument: Standard Grant
divider line
Program Manager: Joshua Rosenbloom
SBE Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
SBE Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
divider line
Start Date: October 1, 2008
divider line
Expires: September 30, 2012 (Estimated)
divider line
Awarded Amount to Date: $393,688.00
divider line
Investigator(s): Robert Frodeman frodeman@unt.edu (Principal Investigator)
Warren Burggren (Co-Principal Investigator)
Carl Mitcham (Co-Principal Investigator)
James Holbrook (Co-Principal Investigator)
William Moen (Co-Principal Investigator)
divider line
Sponsor: University of North Texas
1155 Union Circle #305250
DENTON, TX 76203-5017 (940)565-3940
divider line
NSF Program(s): SCIENCE OF SCIENCE POLICY
divider line
Program Reference Code(s): 0000, OTHR
divider line
Program Element Code(s): 7626

ABSTRACT

Public science and engineering (S&E) funding agencies worldwide rely on the peer review of research proposals to make their funding decisions. Scientific and technical experts are best qualified to judge the scientific and technical merits of proposed research projects. Increasingly, however, society is requiring that S&E funding agencies demonstrate a return on the public investment in S&E research. In response, S&E funding agencies worldwide have incorporated considerations of broader societal impacts into the proposal review process. But asking scientists and engineers to assess the potential societal impacts of proposed research projects takes them beyond the realm of their scientific and technical expertise.

The fundamental question of this three year research project is: What is the best way to incorporate societal impacts considerations into the grant proposal peer review process? This research focuses on the ways in which different models of peer review incorporate the broader societal impacts of proposed research. The study assesses five different models of peer review across three US federal agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and two non-US contexts: the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Dutch Technology Foundation (STW). Using both qualitative and quantitative methods (data mining, literature review, surveys, and semi-structured interviews), this research develops usable knowledge by constructing a comparative matrix and analysis of these five models of peer review.

The Broader Impacts of this project include: (1) funding 2 graduate research assistants, thereby laying the foundation for continuing work in the Science of Science and Innovation Policy; (2) integrating this research with teaching at the undergraduate level (in UNT's Ethics in Science course); (3) expanding the network of researchers exploring the Science of Science and Innovation Policy; (4) enhancing the understanding of the process of grant proposal peer review by informing all stakeholders in the peer review process (scientists and engineers, funding agency officials, policy makers, and members of the general public) of the project's results; and finally, (5) improving the peer review of grant proposals, especially in terms of the capacity of various models of peer review to assess the societal impact of proposed S&E research. This project benefits society by improving the connection between the funding decisions rendered through proposal peer review and the societal impact of the funded research.


PUBLICATIONS PRODUCED AS A RESULT OF THIS RESEARCH

(Showing: 1 - 10 of 11)
  Show All

Frodeman, Robert and Briggle, Adam. "The Dedisciplining of Peer Review," Minerva, v.50, 2011, p. 3.

Holbrook, J. Britt and Frodeman, Robert. "Science: For Science's or Society's Sake?," Science Progress, 2012.

Holbrook, J Britt. "Accountable Science: The COMPETES Act Needs to Demonstrate an Accountability Attitude," Science Progress, 2010.

Frodeman, Robert and Holbrook, J Britt. "NSF and Public Accountability: New, More Prescriptive Merit Criteria May Hinder Science Progress," Science Progress, 2011.

Holbrook, J. Britt and Frodeman, Robert. "Resistance to impact criteria can lead to a tightening of the accountability noose," London School of Economics Impact of Social Sciences Blog, 2012.

Holbrook, J. Britt. "Re-assessing the science âÂ?Â? society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's broader impacts merit review criterion (1997 âÂ?Â? 2011)," UNT Scholarly Works, 2012.

Holbrook, J Britt and Frodeman, Robert. "Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts," Research Evaluation, v.20, 2011, p. 239.

Frodeman, R; Parker, J. "Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact: The National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion and the Question of Peer Review," Social Epistemology, v.23, 2009, p. 337.

Frodeman, R; Parker, J. "Intellectual Merit and Broadre Impact: The National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion and the Question of Peer Review," Social Epistemology, v.23, 2009, p. 337.

Frodeman, Robert and Holbrook, J Britt. "NSF's Struggle to Articulate Relevance," Science, v.333, 2011, p. 157.


(Showing: 1 - 10 of 11)
  Show All




BOOKS/ONE TIME PROCEEDING

Robert Frodeman, Editor in Chief. "The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity", 10/01/2010-09/30/2011, , Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham"Oxford Handbooks",  2010, "Oxford University Press".

J. Britt Holbrook. "Peer Review", 10/01/2010-09/30/2011, , Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, Carl Mitcham"Oxford Handbooks",  2010, "Pages 321-32 of The Osford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, Oxford Univerisyt Press".

 

Please report errors in award information by writing to: awardsearch@nsf.gov.

 

 

Print this page
Back to Top of page
  FUNDING   AWARDS   DISCOVERIES   NEWS   PUBLICATIONS   STATISTICS   ABOUT NSF   FASTLANE  
Research.gov  |  USA.gov  |  National Science Board  |  Recovery Act  |  Budget and Performance  |  Annual Financial Report
Web Policies and Important Links  |  Privacy  |  FOIA  |  NO FEAR Act  |  Inspector General  |  Webmaster Contact  |  Site Map
National Science Foundation Logo
The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA
Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 | TDD: (800) 281-8749
  Text Only Version