IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i2p259-273..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effectiveness of social science research in addressing societal problems: Broadening participation in computing

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua L. Rosenbloom
  • Donna K. Ginther

Abstract

One important rationale for federal funding of social science research is its role in addressing pressing social problems. In this article we examine the impact of the National Science Foundation’s Information Technology Workforce Program (ITWF) on broadening participation in computing and IT careers. Established in 2000 in response to the declining participation of women and minorities in computer science education and IT careers, the ITWF Program awarded almost US$30 million in research funding through its final solicitation in 2004. We document the quantitative and qualitative effects of this research funding, both to illustrate the complex ways in which R&D funding can advance scientific understanding and to identify the challenges that such problem-driven social science research may encounter. The problem of diversity in the IT workforce has not been solved. Nonetheless, the ITWF program had important effects on the understanding of this problem and efforts to address it.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:2:p:259-273.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw062
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abdullah Gök & Jakob Edler, 2012. "The use of behavioural additionality evaluation in innovation policy making," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 306-318, September.
    2. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    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. 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).
    2. 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. Sergio Afcha & Jose García-Quevedo, 2016. "The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment composition," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(6), pages 955-975.
    2. Dragana Radicic & Geoffrey Pugh & David Douglas, 2020. "Promoting cooperation in innovation ecosystems: evidence from European traditional manufacturing SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 257-283, January.
    3. Kiman Kim & Sang Ok Choi & Sooyeon Lee, 2021. "The Effect of a Financial Support on Firm Innovation Collaboration and Output: Does Policy Work on the Diverse Nature of Firm Innovation?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 645-675, June.
    4. Yuri Simachev & Mikhail Kuzyk & Vera Feygina, 2015. "Public Support for Innovation in Russian Firms: Looking for Improvements in Corporate Performance Quality," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 13-31, March.
    5. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Belso-Martinez, Jose Antonio & Díez-Vial, Isabel, 2021. "Playing the innovation subsidy game: experience, clusters, consultancy, and networking in regional innovation support," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 111603, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Aalto, Eero & Gustafsson, Robin, 2020. "Innovation Promotion Rationales and Impacts – A Review," ETLA Reports 99, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    7. Sergio Afcha & Jose García-Quevedo, 2016. "The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment composition," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(6), pages 955-975.
    8. Marco Mariani & Fabrizia Mealli, 2018. "The Effects of R&D Subsidies to Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Evidence from a Regional Program," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 4(2), pages 249-281, July.
    9. Heijs, Joost, 2003. "Freerider behaviour and the public finance of R&D activities in enterprises: the case of the Spanish low interest credits for R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 445-461, March.
    10. Brautzsch, Hans-Ulrich & Günther, Jutta & Loose, Brigitte & Ludwig, Udo & Nulsch, Nicole, 2015. "Can R&D subsidies counteract the economic crisis? – Macroeconomic effects in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 623-633.
    11. Ali-Yrkkö, Jyrki, 2004. "Impact of Public R&D Financing on Private R&D - Does Financial Constraint Matter?," Discussion Papers 943, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    12. Lamberova, Natalia, 2021. "The puzzling politics of R&D: Signaling competence through risky projects," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 801-818.
    13. E. C. Mamatzakis, 2010. "The contribution of the publicly-funded R&D capital to productivity growth and an application to the Greek food and beverages industry," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 483-494.
    14. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    15. Dominique Guellec & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, 2003. "The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 225-243.
    16. Tommaso Pucci & Mara Brumana & Tommaso Minola & Lorenzo Zanni, 2020. "Social capital and innovation in a life science cluster: the role of proximity and family involvement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 205-227, February.
    17. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Bakari, Sayef, 2021. "Do researchers affect economic growth?," MPRA Paper 108788, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Bronwyn Hall & Alessandro Maffioli, 2008. "Evaluating the impact of technology development funds in emerging economies: evidence from Latin America," The European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 172-198.

    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:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:2:p:259-273.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.