Broader Impacts at MU
National Science Foundation Merit Review Principles and Criteria
The NSF Vision Statement clearly lays out the integration of education and research as its main priority: NSF envisions a nation that capitalizes on new concepts in science and engineering and provides global leadership in advancing research and education.
NSF uses two merit review criterion for evaluating research proposals for funding: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts
- The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge.
- The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.
Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria.
The following questions will be asked of BOTH CRITERIA when reviewing proposals:
- To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
- Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
- How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
- Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
Under the new GPG that took effect January 2013, broader impacts may be accomplished through:
- the research itself,
- activities that are directly related to specific research projects
- activities that are supported by, but are complementary to the project.
The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to:
- Full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (specifically African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Pacific Islanders)
- Improved STEM education and educator development at any level
- Increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society
- Development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce
- Increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others
- Improved national securit
- Increased economic competitiveness of the United States
- Enhanced infrastructure for research and education
The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
Note: Plans for data management and sharing of the products of research, including preservation, documentation, and sharing of data, samples, physical collections, curriculum materials and other related research and education products should be described in the Special Information and Supplementary Documentation section of the proposal
For questions about the new Broader Impacts guidelines in light of the older ones, go to: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/mrfaqs.jsp
Evaluation of Broader Impacts
PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities. The annual and final project reports should address progress in all activities of the project, including any activities intended to address the Broader Impacts criterion that are not intrinsic to the research.
Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.
Broader Impacts Resources
- COSEE NOW Broader Impacts Wizard
- NSF guidelines for Broader Impacts
Download the PDF
- Center for Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas Broader Impacts Criterion Resources
- National Science Board
NSF Merit Review Criteria Review and Revisions
Download the PDF
- MU Assessment Resource Center
- MU Center for the Collaboration and Development of Educational Innovations
- MU College of Education Office of Research Support
- MU College of Education List of On-Campus Evaluators
- Maximizing the Impact of STEM Outreach
- NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Information
- Broader Impacts 2.0
Download the PDF
- Quantifying the Impacts of Your Research
Download the PDF
Last Updated: August 11, 2014