IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v101y2021ics0166497220300821.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the NSF broader impacts with the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion: A retrospective analysis of nanotechnology grants

Author

Listed:
  • Woodson, Thomas S.
  • Hoffmann, Elina
  • Boutilier, Sophia

Abstract

A major goal of government and non-profit scientific funding agencies is to support research and development (R&D) that has broad impacts. This study proposes a new framework, called the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion (IIC), to determine whether research benefits marginalized communities, reduces inequality, and encourages inclusive innovation. To test the framework, the study analyzes NSF sponsored nanotechnology grant abstracts from 2013 to 2017. We find that 109 out of the 300 grants feature research and grant activities that are inclusive, while 235 out of the 300 grants have research and grant activities that either maintain the status quo or predominately target advantaged groups. Of the 109 grants with inclusive broader impacts, 9 of them involve inclusive research that is intrinsic to the underlying work. In comparison there are 102 grants that feature inclusive research that is directly related to the research. Of those 102 direct-inclusive grants, 99 of them relate to broadening participation of women and underrepresented minority populations is science fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Woodson, Thomas S. & Hoffmann, Elina & Boutilier, Sophia, 2021. "Evaluating the NSF broader impacts with the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion: A retrospective analysis of nanotechnology grants," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:101:y:2021:i:c:s0166497220300821
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497220300821
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102210?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan E Cozzens, 2007. "Distributive justice in science and technology policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 85-94, March.
    2. Jue Wang & Philip Shapira, 2011. "Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 563-586, June.
    3. Genus, Audley & Iskandarova, Marfuga, 2018. "Responsible innovation: its institutionalisation and a critique," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    5. Erik Fisher & Roop L Mahajan, 2006. "Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 5-16, February.
    6. Bozeman, Barry & Youtie, Jan, 2017. "Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1387-1398.
    7. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    8. Asongu, Simplice A. & Nwachukwu, Jacinta C., 2016. "The role of governance in mobile phones for inclusive human development in Sub-Saharan Africa," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 55, pages 1-13.
    9. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    10. Thorbecke, Erik & Charumilind, Chutatong, 2002. "Economic Inequality and Its Socioeconomic Impact," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1477-1495, September.
    11. Erik de Bakker & Carolien de Lauwere & Anne-Charlotte Hoes & Volkert Beekman, 2014. "Responsible research and innovation in miniature: Information asymmetries hindering a more inclusive ‘nanofood’ development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 294-305.
    12. Edward Woodhouse & Daniel Sarewitz, 2007. "Science policies for reducing societal inequities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 139-150, March.
    13. Joshua L. Rosenbloom & Donna K. Ginther, 2017. "The effectiveness of social science research in addressing societal problems: Broadening participation in computing," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 259-273.
    14. Schaper-Rinkel, Petra, 2013. "The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 444-452.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Woodson & Sophia Boutilier, 2022. "Impacts for whom? Assessing inequalities in NSF-funded broader impacts using the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion [The Role of Governance in Mobile Phones for Inclusive Human Development in Sub-Sahara," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 168-178.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Woodson & Sophia Boutilier, 2022. "Impacts for whom? Assessing inequalities in NSF-funded broader impacts using the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion [The Role of Governance in Mobile Phones for Inclusive Human Development in Sub-Sahara," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 168-178.
    2. Owen, Richard & Pansera, Mario & Macnaghten, Phil & Randles, Sally, 2021. "Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    3. Luciana Maines da Silva & Claudia Cristina Bitencourt & Kadígia Faccin & Tatiana Iakovleva, 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    4. Genus, Audley & Iskandarova, Marfuga, 2018. "Responsible innovation: its institutionalisation and a critique," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Thais Assis de Souza & Rodrigo Marçal Gandia & Bruna Habib Cavazza & André Grützmann & Isabelle Nicolaï, 2020. "A Conceptual Proposal for Responsible Innovation," Post-Print hal-03014720, HAL.
    6. Theo Papaioannou, 2011. "Technological innovation, global justice and politics of development," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 11(4), pages 321-338, July.
    7. Rödl, Malte B. & Boons, Frank & Spekkink, Wouter, 2022. "From responsible to responsive innovation: A systemic and historically sensitive approach to innovation processes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    8. Harper, Gavin D.J. & Kendrick, Emma & Anderson, Paul A. & Mrozik, Wojciech & Christensen, Paul & Lambert, Simon & Greenwood, David & Das, Prodip K. & Ahmeid, Mohamed & Milojevic, Zoran & Du, Wenjia & , 2023. "Roadmap for a sustainable circular economy in lithium-ion and future battery technologies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118420, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    10. Dzieżyc, Maciej & Kazienko, Przemysław, 2022. "Effectiveness of research grants funded by European Research Council and Polish National Science Centre," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    11. Rodríguez, Hannot & Fisher, Erik & Schuurbiers, Daan, 2013. "Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1126-1137.
    12. Hasselbalch, Jacob Adam, 2017. "Innovation assessment: governing through periods of disruptive technological change," SocArXiv 3rj94, Center for Open Science.
    13. Irwin Feller, 2022. "Assessing the societal impact of publicly funded research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 632-650, June.
    14. Wiarda, Martijn & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2021. "A comprehensive appraisal of responsible research and innovation: From roots to leaves," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    15. Barry Bozeman & Catherine Slade & Paul Hirsch, 2011. "Inequity in the distribution of science and technology outcomes: a conceptual model," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(3), pages 231-248, September.
    16. Zhang, Stephen X. & Chen, Jiyao & He, Liangxing & Choudhury, Afreen, 2023. "Responsible Innovation: The development and validation of a scale," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    17. Genus, Audley & Stirling, Andy, 2018. "Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 61-69.
    18. Goio Etxebarria & Mikel Gomez-Uranga & Jon Barrutia, 2012. "Tendencies in scientific output on carbon nanotubes and graphene in global centers of excellence for nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 253-268, April.
    19. Olayinka David-West & Oluwasola Oni & Folajimi Ashiru, 2022. "Diffusion of Innovations: Mobile Money Utility and Financial Inclusion in Nigeria. Insights from Agents and Unbanked Poor End Users," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1753-1773, December.
    20. Simplice A. Asongu & Nicholas M. Odhiambo, 2020. "Insurance Policy Thresholds for Economic Growth in Africa," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 32(3), pages 672-689, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:101:y:2021:i:c:s0166497220300821. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.