Links to BIC Best Practices

• Merit Review Broader Impacts Criterion: Representative Activities

In this July 2007 NSF publication entitled Merit Review Broader Impacts Criterion: Representative Activities, there is an attempt to list appropriate practices/activities for fulfilling BIC.  Following each of the components of BIC, examples of specific activities that would fulfill that component are given.  The authors warn, however, that “this list is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is any particular example relevant to all proposals.”  These are provided more as samples, and the authors encourage new and creative ways to fulfill the criterion.

• Response to the Report on the Committee of Visitors on Information Technology Research (2001-2003)

  This is a response from the Office of Integrative Activities to a Committee of Visitors (COV) report. COV’s are asked to evaluate and comment upon NSF program performance and results.  Note particularly that the COV suggested that there might be confusion about what “broader impacts” mean and how they could be evaluated in review.  To this the response was, “The National Science Board and NSF management purposefully articulated the ‘broader impacts’ criterion to be broad.  This criterion can be addressed in many ways (e.g., through education, training, societal impacts) depending on the scope of proposed projects, recognizing the range of project types supported by the agency.  This flexibility—in appropriately aligning science and engineering research and education with its broader impacts—is important in encouraging innovation from all science and engineering communities.”

• NSF Call for Highlights of Best Practices
• Example of Broader Impact Highlight from Chemistry

In this “nugget” from Chemistry (a nugget is basically a summary of a highlight, often with visual support) examples are given representing “technical highlights,” “non-technical highlights,” and “broader impacts highlights.”  The broader impact highlight described is a professor who contributed lectures and experiments to the California State Summer School for Mathematics and Science at the University of California, Irvine.  The broader impact lies in the fact that, “These lectures introduced high school students to the interdisciplinary area of the physical chemistry of macromolecules.”  And furthermore that, “Impact of her work is further broadened through international collaborations in Italy and the Netherlands.”

• Response to Recommendations from the Committee of Visitors for the Division of Biological Infrastructure
• NSF's "An Impressive Return on Investment"
• Grant Proposal Guide
• Working Group on Implementation on Review Criterion #2
• Capturing the Outcomes and Impacts of Publicly Funded Research
• Measuring Success in Relation to Federal Investments in University Research: AUCC Discussion Paper
• "NSF's Broader Impact Criterion"
• PSA Education Workshop Report: Algae and the Broader Impacts of Science

Phycological Society of America (PSA) Education Workshop Report: Algae and the Broader Impacts of Science July 8, 2006 Juneau, Alaska by Gisèle Muller-Parker and Rich Triemer lists “four areas of Broader Impacts activities”:
            a. Broader Impacts in General
            b. Teacher Professional Development
            c. Public Outreach
            d. Outreach to members of underrepresented groups
Aside from activities and practices, they also emphasize the role their website can play in serving as a “portal for the education and outreach activities undertaken by members of the society and as a means to bring ‘algae to the forefront’ of peoples minds.”

Making a Broader Impact: Geoscience Education, Public Outreach, and Criterion 2 Report

Making a Broader Impact: Geoscience Education, Public Outreach, and Criterion 2 Report.  Report of a workshop held at the University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley California.  May 11-13, 2005.  There is a section on best practices where they list the following:

1. Using a team approach that provides direct involvement in the planning and implementation of the EPO activity by all constituents: the researcher, the educator, and members of the intended audience.
2. Aligning EPO activities with the needs of the audience, e.g., if the target audience is formal K-12 education, activities should reference relevant science standards.
3. Involving graduate students and young scientists to promote an awareness of the importance of EPO efforts by scientists and the need for culture change.
4. Providing a menu of opportunities for researcher involvement, recognizing that not all scientists or research programs can or should be engaged in EPO at the same level or in the same role.

They add that important structural components include:

1. A venue and opportunity for dialogue between scientists and educators to focus on the benefits of bridging the two cultures of science research and education
2. Professional development opportunities for both scientists and educators to gain fluency and confidence in areas of mutual interest and professional intersection.
3. Appropriate personnel and financial support to complete the proposed activities, including strong project management.
4. Institutional commitment and incentives, including the development of a system of rewards for advancement and tenure of science faculty that recognizes the importance of public communication of science.
5. Realistic consideration of sustainability and continuity in activities.  Ongoing evaluation coupled with feedback to all partners in a timely fashion.

Recommendations for next steps are also provided.

• Broader Impacts Toolbox
• Broader Impacts Posters
• "Constructing a Broader and More Inclusive Value System in Science"
• Broader Impacts: What, Why, and How
• Integrating Research and Education
• Characterizing Broader Impacts: An Exploratory Study of Metrics and Measures for the Research on Gender in Science and Engineering Program