2016 Broader Impacts Summit

Standard

Scientists are finding it harder and harder to get money from the federal government to support their research. Success rates have plummeted. Competition is fierce. And on top of all of this, there is increased oversight of the spending done by scientific funding agencies. The National Science Foundation in particular has come under scrutiny from Congress, with the House Science, Space and Technology Committee taking an uncomfortably close look at how the agency spends its allocated dollars. While the motivation for the committee’s specific interest in the agency’s granting process can be debated, the fact that it is happening at all points towards to a broader need for scientists to show how the funding they receive is being used properly and effectively.

Such is the impetus behind the Broader Impacts requirement for NSF grant proposals. Since 1990, applicants to the NSF have been instructed to include a description of how their proposal will have the “potential to benefit society.” While this criteria is supposed to be given equal consideration to the scientific intellectual merit of the proposal, the quality of Broader Impacts proposals are unfortunately highly variable, as is the process of reviewing these ideas.

NABI sign

The 2016 Broader Impacts Summit was held in Philadelphia, PA

Hoping to provide some level of guidance to the scientific community, the National Alliance for Broader Impacts (NABI) has, since 2013, organized an annual Broader Impacts summit that brings together outreach department directors and managers from institutions across the country (and beyond!). At this year’s summit, which took place April 20-22 in Philadelphia, PA, program officers from the NSF repeatedly emphasized that grant reviewers are becoming increasingly sensitive to the idea that Broader Impacts be taken into consideration when determining the merit of a proposal. This point was accentuated by Dr. Suzi Iacono, head of the NSF Office of Integrative Activities, who showed striking data indicating that grant panel reviewers spend more effort discussing Broader Impacts in their reports than applicants do in their proposals. However, she cautioned that the data shows high variability across the agency’s eight directorates in terms of the type and quality of Broader Impacts proposals, suggesting that there is still work to be done in order to establish a community standard.

NSF Program Director Karen Cone gives one of the keynote addresses at the 2016 Broader Impacts Summit

NSF Program Director Karen Cone gives one of the keynote addresses at the 2016 Broader Impacts Summit

During the conference, several attendees presented about ground-level efforts related to Broader Impacts, such as how to start a Broader Impacts office at an institution, and how to get involvement and buy-in from different stakeholders, including faculty, students and administrators. Other sessions focused on approaches for engaging with the local community via creation of two-way dialogues that incorporate perspectives from outside the scientific community. The ASBMB, which is a member partner of NABI and one of the summit sponsors, was represented in the form of a session co-chaired by Manager of Public Outreach Geoff Hunt on defining the role and scope of Public Engagement professionals. Other popular sessions included a breakout session on evaluation of Broader Impacts activities, and several discussions on broadening participation in STEM fields by including underserved communities.

Moving forward, the summit will continue to serve as a locus for building a community of investigators and outreach managers dedicated to strengthening and standardizing Broader Impacts. NABI is also looking to expand upon their efforts by developing resources that can improve the quality of Broader Impacts. The group recently published a freely-available guide to writing and reviewing Broader Impacts, and is in the process of developing live training workshops that can help scientists implement these recommendations. One potential place for such a training that has been discussed is at the ASBMB Interactive Mentoring Activities for Grantsmanship Enhancement (IMAGE) grant writing workshop.

Want to get/stay involved? Sign up for NABI yourself here!

ASBMB Wikipedia Edit-a-thon

Standard

Outreach from home? It’s actually not an oxymoron. Done properly, science outreach using only a computer can be incredibly effective. A number of scientists have actually had great success using different social media platforms to share their research with the greater public. The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is particularly tailor-made for scientists. Open for editing by anyone, all you need is an internet connection (and hopefully some scientific knowledge) to make a substantial contribution to Wikipedia. The site is increasingly being used by researchers and students alike as a legitimate source of reference material. Which means that Wikipedia is always in need of more content.

Edit-a-thon image

ASBMB members tackle Wikipedia editing

To focus effort on generating this content, organizers have started hosting edit-a-thons that bring together beginner and expert Wikipedians for a set amount of time that is dedicated to a specific topic area. On April 4 at the San Diego Convention Center (during EB2016), the ASBMB hosted its own Wikipedia edit-a-thon, where students and faculty attending the meeting came together to work at improving the quality (and quantity) of Wikipedia articles focused on biochemistry and cell biology. Despite some severe competition from the concurrent ASBMB Game Night, the edit-a-thon had a respectable turn-out from meeting attendees.

As of April 25, the event had resulted in:

  • 5 articles created
  • 45 articles edited
  • 180 total edits
  • 259,000 page views (!)

Even more exciting is how the edit-a-thon was able to inspire attendees to use Wikipedia in their own efforts going forward. “I’m more excited than ever about using Wikipedia in my classes!” exclaimed ASBMB member Sandi Clement from Cal State Poly, San Luis Obispo after attending the event.

Sponsorship for the edit-a-thon came from the Simons Foundation, who has helped to put on edit-a-thons at numerous professional society meetings over the past year, including those of the American Society for Cell Biology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as the Wiki Education Foundation as part of their “Year of Science” (you can read more about the “Year of Science” here). As such efforts continue, even more members of the scientific community will be willing and able to get involved and start doing outreach, even if it’s just from their couch.

Science for the Public

Standard

Education or entertainment? That was the major question facing attendees at the fourth annual International Public Science Events Conference (IPSEC), held June 1-2 on campus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Frustratingly, two days of discussion and debate failed to deliver a clear answer.

For years, those involved with organizing public outreach activities like science festivals and science cafes have fretted about what the goal of such efforts is (or should be). Certainly all event organizers and participants intend to provide content and information during their programs that educates audience participants. However, organizers are increasingly turning to unique cultural approaches that entertain first, and educate second, hoping to draw in bigger, more diverse audiences. Successful examples include You’re the Expert, a science-themed comedy show, and improvscience, a theater-based approach to public science engagement.

The issue for organizers then becomes how to reconcile such seemingly conflicting approaches, a theme that influenced all of the various sessions at IPSEC, from those on how to organize and execute an event, to how to recruit volunteers and market to target audiences, to evaluation and reporting.

In an attempt to directly tackle the tug of war between education and entertainment, one of the IPSEC sessions featured a mock debate between Darcy Gentleman (thirstDC) and Kishore Hari (Bay Area Science Festival), with each arguing in support of one side. Unfortunately, their facetious attempt to convince the audience as to the absolute benefits of entertainment or education was in vain, as the consensus was that the best approach was to aim for a balance between the two. However, no one seemed able to agree on what that balance actually should be, though there was agreement on the need for clearly defined goals for public science events in order to help reduce such conflict.

Attendees also sought to wrestle with this issue by considering the bigger question of the role science is trying to play in society, a point brought up by Story Collider founder Ben Lille. For some, public events are an attempt to integrate science within societal culture, much like the arts or sports. Such events therefore lean more towards entertainment, providing audience members the opportunity to interact with a scientist and thereby develop an interest in, or at least an appreciation of, science. A different viewpoint, espoused in particular by Meri Jenkins, Program Manager for the Massachusetts Cultural Council’s Adams Arts Program, holds that science is a necessary component of policy making, providing a pathway to robust economic benefits. Science events, therefore, should be seen as critical educational outlets that amplify formal efforts and provide a far-reaching societal impact.

Finding a middle ground between such extremes will undoubtedly be a challenge for those in this burgeoning field. Yet even though attendees left the conference with this debate unresolved, almost everyone was confident in the overall appropriateness and worthiness of their different approaches to putting on events. Moving forward, some organizers will continue to just try different ideas, figuring out what works and what doesn’t as they go. Others will rely on research and data to carefully construct the most impactful, efficient activities. Regardless of the methodology, any and all public events will definitely achieve the goal of bringing science to the public. And maybe that’s good enough.

Come Together

Standard

For those involved with public outreach, a major challenge is often just finding other people like you, even if they are at the very same institution. Last week in Arlington, VA, the Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) hosted a convening to bring these individuals together. The goal of the two day conference, born out of the last summer’s NSF Advancing Informal STEM Learning PI meeting, was to facilitate collaborations both national and regional, and allow for the sharing of ideas and best practices. A majority of attendees were education and outreach directors from NSF-funded centers and facilities, including several from NSF-supported Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs) and Centers for Chemical Innovation (CCIs), while others in attendance came from professional societies, national networks, and even the NSF itself.

Meeting facilitators began the convening by identifying a set of “knowns” and “unknowns” in the field of informal science education (ISE), as a way to nudge attendees towards developing action items that could be used to strengthen the “knowns” and turn the “unknowns” into “knowns.” Using this framework, participants then spent the rest of the meeting engaged in loosely-structured interactive discussions, focused on four primary topics:

  1. Designing and Evaluating Education and Outreach Programs at Centers and Large Facilities
  2. Working with ISE Institutions and Networks
  3. Current and Past Productive Areas of ISE Research
  4. Implications for ISE from Recent Science of Science Communication Findings

From these discussions, a prioritized list of needs was generated in order to determine actionable next steps. A lot of interest focused on the NSF’s Broader Impacts requirement for grant applications, something that will likely be a hot topic at the upcoming Broader Impacts Summit. Participants felt that it would be extremely beneficial for the community to develop resources, standardized guidelines and event trainings for Broader Impacts statements, which would not only help applicants but also reviewers and program officers.

Attendees additionally pushed for the development of a centralized repository that would allow for aggregation of all things outreach. This would include successful public engagement models and examples, resources such as evaluation tools, and potentially a map of existing networks and programs involved in any type of outreach, science communication, public engagement or informal science education. Several existing websites, including the informalscience.org website, the AAAS Trellis website and the ASBMB outreach website, are attempting to do just that.

Another area of need identified by meeting participants was the continued development of common spaces and venues that would allow for informal science professionals, STEM researchers, science communication experts and social scientists and evaluators to connect and develop activities and programs jointly. Similarly, there was much discussion of finding a way to lessen the divide between informal and formal STEM education, perhaps by working in conjunction with groups such as the National Science Teachers Association. Professional society meetings would seem to be obvious locations for such interactions, while CAISE is also looking at ways to host additional convenings.

Two of the major needs identified by participants that unfortunately lacked specific actionable items were increasing both funding resources and programmatic sustainability, common themes for those involved in the field.  However, attendees felt that building of networks and personal and institutional connections could at least help the field start coming up with solutions to these issues.

ASBMB will continue to work with groups like CAISE to help improve the practice of informal science education and expand the field of those involved with the public outreach. If you have questions about how to get involved, get in touch with us at outreach@asbmb.org.

Science Outreach Events at the 2015 ASBMB Annual Meeting

Standard

If you have ever struggled to explain your research to a family member, you know how difficult it can be to effectively explain science to the lay public. Communicating clearly about your work can be tricky even when you’re talking to another scientist. The ability to communicate effectively is also a critical skill when applying for grant funding. Figuring out how to make a meaningful connection between your outreach and your research can be particularly difficult when crafting a Broader Impacts statement as part of the application for NSF funding. Luckily for those planning to attend the 2015 ASBMB Annual Meeting, the Public Outreach Committee has organized several events to address all of these issues.

The first outreach event of this year’s meeting is the “How to Incorporate Science Outreach into Your Portfolio – Best Practices and Broader Impacts” session, running from 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM on Saturday, March 28th, in room 252B. This session will start with talks from previous HOPES, Outreach Seed Grant, and UAN Student Chapter Grant winners, showcasing ASBMB’s various funding mechanisms. An informal poster networking session will be held from 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM, followed by lunch and a group discussion until 1:00 PM. Please join us! Register here so we know how many people to expect and how much food to order.

Our next event is the Science Outreach Poster Session, held during the ASBMB opening reception on Saturday evening, March 28th from 7:30 – 9:00 PM in the third level foyer. Come see all the great outreach efforts our members (and others!) are leading across the country, and learn more about how you can get involved in your own community. More information on this session can be found here.

If you have been working on a Broader Impacts Statement, bring a draft to one of our Broader Impacts Workshops. These will be held Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday from 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM outside room 252. Mentors who have successfully won NSF funding have volunteered to help you improve your drafts and show you how to distinguish yourself from other applicants. More information on these workshops can be found here.

Our last two outreach events showcase the fun side of science. The first is the unique and highly interactive session “Improv for STEM Professionals: Creating Engaging Conversations.” Dr. Raquell Holmes, founder of improvscienceTM, will lead this session on Monday, March 30th from 12:30 – 2:00 PM in room 253B. Performed interviews, collaborative storytelling, and other exercises will help attendees learn how to create rapport with and to listen to an audience, making them more engaging speakers both in outreach activities and in professional talks.

Our final outreach event is, appropriately, open to the public. Dr. Raquell Holmes will lead “LIvE: the Living Improv Experiment” at Ned Devine’s Irish Pub, 1 Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Quincy Market Building, at 6:30 PM on Monday, March 30th. This living experiment is focused on defining how exactly improv can help science? Can it help everyone communicate more clearly? Can it be useful for starting public discussions? Come find out! Please invite your friends and colleagues, both in and outside the laboratory, to join us. This event is going to be a lot of fun, and to get the most of out it you should prepare to be very actively involved. We’ll start with group exercises and then move on to small groups, so that everyone gets a chance to practice and learn! Use this link to register.

For more information about all of our outreach events, please click here. We hope to see you in Boston!

Strengthening Teacher-Scientist Partnerships

Standard

Ask a scientist what “outreach” means to them, and the majority will mention something about working with K-12 students. Unfortunately, these types of interactions tend to be sporadic, poorly executed, and bereft of quantitative assessment and evaluation, depriving those involved of any true, long-lasting benefit. To rectify this situation, a disparate group of programs has sprung up across the country, each aiming to create substantial, sustainable partnerships between the scientific research and K-12 education communities.

ITSP Program CoverSeveral of these programs were on display at the second International Teacher-Scientist Partnership Conference, held February 11 and 12 in San Francisco, CA. Hosted by the UCSF Science and Health Education Partnership, the meeting brought together various stakeholders, including teachers, students, researchers and administrators, to share best practices and identify areas for improvement.

Highlighting the conference were the two keynote addresses, the first a discussion between former National Academies of Science President Bruce Alberts and Shirley Malcom, Director for Education and Human Resources Programs at AAAS. Both speakers applauded the formation of such partnerships, and emphasized the need for teachers and scientists to learn from each other. Malcom even went so far as to point out that implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) necessarily required such collaborations.

On the second day, Helen Quinn, former Chair of the National Research Council’s Board on Science Education, talked about the need for three-dimensional science learning that incorporated facts, practices and concepts, an approach that informed the development of the NGSS. Echoing Malcom, Quinn pointed to teacher-scientist partnerships as a necessary tool for implementing the NGSS, pointing out that the standards imposed new demands on science teachers that would be impossible to meet without the provision of additional, novel support and professional development.

The bulk of the conference was filled with overlapping sessions and workshops that showcased different approaches to forming and sustaining partnerships. Despite the differences between programs, several consistent themes did emerge:

  1. Defined roles and outcomes

Oftentimes, the biggest failing in these partnerships comes from the fact that the goals, objectives and intended outcomes have not been agreed upon by both sides beforehand, leading to confusion and ineffectiveness. All presenters pointed out that their success stemmed from jointly working with both scientists and teachers (and their students) to resolve these issues in advance of any activities, so that everyone was able to be on the same page. A second point of emphasis was that for a particular partnership to be successful, scientists need to act as resources and role models, rather than as instructors. In this way, scientists can greatly increase the accessibility students (and teachers) have to the research enterprise, helping to remove the barriers between these groups.

  1. Local, bottom-up approach

While expressing support for a concerted, national support network (such as the soon-to-be extinct NSF Graduate STEM Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12) Program), almost all presenters and attendees spoke about the need to develop programs and collaborations locally. Though all in attendance were in support of a concerted effort to effect broad change in the education system, there was a general agreement that focusing effort on working with individual classrooms, schools and even school districts allows for more fluid partnerships that are more easily able to steer clear of the messy politics so often responsible for impediments to reform in education.

  1. Sustainability (resources, participation)

Funding was a major issue for all involved, as financial support for non-traditional education activities is sporadic. Presentations from the West Virginia Health Sciences & Technology Academy and the Integrated Science Education Outreach (InSciEd Out) program at the University of Minnesota highlighted their ability to successfully raise funding from a wide variety of local sources, both big and small, again pointing to the need for local connections. Attendees added that another difficulty was in maintaining participation by both scientists and teachers, and suggested establishing pipelines that would funnel both towards each other.

  1. Evaluation and Assessment

Recognizing that assessing the impact of a particular activity or program is inherently difficult, most presenters were nonetheless able to point to a proven track record of improved STEM learning and performance for students, thanks to the ability to follow students throughout their primary education. More qualitative feedback from scientists and teachers demonstrates a nearly universal benefit in terms of professional development and willingness to engage and participate.

 

The conference will be held again in 2017, by which point even more programs will have undoubtedly arisen. In the interim, ASBMB will be using our connections and resources to increase awareness of, and participation by, our members in such partnerships. If you are interested in finding out more about these partnerships, contact the ASBMB Public Outreach Office at outreach@asbmb.org.

 

More information about the conference, including a list of participating programs, can be found here.

A summary of tweets from the meeting is available here.

Outreach Posters at Experimental Biology 2015

Standard

One of the biggest challenges in the field of science outreach is to facilitate opportunities that bring scientists and informal science education experts together. Often, each group has several members in the same local community who are interested, even willing to engage with the other, but have no way to do so. On occasion, there are individuals able to bridge this divide. Yet if the broader push to enhance science outreach as an endeavor is to succeed, it will be necessary for even more willing participants to come together and join forces.

For the past two years, ASBMB has featured a poster session at our annual meeting dedicated exclusively to showcasing outreach activities and programs, thereby providing an opportunity for our 2015-AnnualMeeting-signaturemember scientists to get a sense of all that informal science education entails. This year, we are happy to again offer this poster session on the first night of our meeting, directly following the Herbert Tabor Research Award Plenary Lecture on the evening of March 28. However, as an added bonus, this year we have made registration for the outreach poster session completely FREE OF CHARGE. That means if you have a program or activity that you want to show off to the entire ASBMB membership, all you have to do is submit an abstract. No registration fee, no abstract fee, nothing. Just fill out our online form and show up.

For those involved with outreach and informal science education, this poster session is a great opportunity to showcase your pet project and start recruiting scientists for your effort. ASBMB Annual Meeting 2014- Outreach Poster SessionMeanwhile, for scientists, this event is the perfect chance to see what outreach actually is, to meet some of the people who are doing it, and find out how you can get involved.

So if you have an outreach project, informal science education activity or community program, come join us in Boston area next spring and show off what you do to a captive scientific audience. There’s no cost, but the benefit could be priceless.

To submit your poster abstract for the outreach poster session, visit: http://www.asbmb.org/PublicOutreach/EB2015PosterSession/

A Community of Practice

Standard

Last week, dozens of informal science education stakeholders met in Washington D.C. for the biennial Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) Primary Investigator meeting, organized by the Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). The meeting provided a platform for outreach professionals to show off their National Science Foundation-supported programs, share insights and best practices, and confer with researchers and evaluators about future directions in the field.

The 2014 AISL PI Meeting ProgramThe first day featured technical assistance sessions for PIs, provided by NSF program officers and CAISE leadership. One session focused on evaluation in informal learning, one of the major themes for the conference. Attendees noted confusion about whether the intent of evaluation was to determine the effectiveness of projects for enhancing learning, or to simply determine whether the projects had met their goals. There was also a call for clarifying the distinction between evaluation of, and research on, informal learning.

On the second day, conference attendees were addressed by Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Assistant Director of the Education and Human Resources Directorate at the National Science Foundation. At the last PI meeting in 2012, Ferrini-Mundy stunned attendees with her decision to rebrand the NSF Informal Science Education (ISE) program as AISL, redirecting the program’s focus towards supporting research about learning in informal environments. This year, her remarks were much less controversial, instead touching upon on strategies for improving the visibility of informal education programs.

Attendees then split up into multiple breakout sessions:

  • Broadening Participation in Informal STEM Education
  • Connecting with Scientists: What are the Needs & Unexplored Opportunities?
  • How is Technology Building New Audiences for ISE?
  • ISE Contributions to the STEM Workforce
  • ISE Networks, Infrastructure & Resource Centers
  • Learning & Learning Environments: Research, Design & Implementation
  • Measuring Learning Across ISE Projects
  • Mining the Field: What Are We Learning?

Discussions ranged widely, though a common motif was how the lessons learned from current effective approaches can be applied more broadly to grow the field. Attendees also felt it important that the field include stakeholders beyond those supported by NSF, a point that was emphasized during a lunch panel that featured staff from several different federal agencies (including NASA, NOAA and the National Endowment for the Arts) talking about how their organizations supported informal STEM education programs.

PIs showed off their individual programs during an afternoon poster session. The diversity of programs ranged from small-scale programs at individual institutions to larger efforts like media projects and national outreach networks, covering the entire breadth of STEM fields.

For the conference’s final day, attendees got to choose from a series of open sessions nominated by their fellow PIs:

  • Cultural Competency And Cultural Relevancy Strategies For Broader Engagement And Impact
  • The Intersection Of Art As Science: Arts/Science Connection
  • STEM And Public Libraries
  • How Do You Measure Success?
  • ISE and Scientists: Helping Each Other Cross the Divide
  • What Are The “Big” Research Questions We Should Focus On Regarding Broader Participation In The Field?
  • Broadening Participation Through Media
  • Informal STEM Media/Tech/Social Media
  • Place-Based Education And Community Involvement
  • Learning In Public Places

One of the collective take-aways from these sessions was that the community needs to come up with strategies to ensure that the informal science infrastructure be set up so that existing programs and individuals can support each other. Such infrastructure should include clearly defined terms and goals, identification both of successful and unsuccessful approaches to doing informal education, making resources widely available and establishment of platforms for collaboration and interaction amongst stakeholders.

Given this infrastructure, the conference attendees determined that a logical next step is to demonstrate the importance and value of informal STEM education to those who are not currently engaged or involved. Attendees felt that both top-down and ground-up approaches could be used to build support for the informal education field and expand its reach and effectiveness. Potential ideas that were mentioned included a landscape study of existing informal education programs, a separate conference to discuss these themes, and drafting of a white paper to be shared with top administrators. Certainly laudable goals to aim for by the time the meeting returns in 2016.

A Storify of tweets from the conference can be found here.

Information about the conference can be found on the CAISE website.

Scaling the Summit

Standard

Broader Impacts. The mere mention of these two words provokes intense reactions from scientists. For some, they are a burdensome requirement unilaterally imposed on the research community by the National Science Foundation; others see Broader Impacts as a necessary attempt by the agency to justify use of taxpayer money to fund the scientific enterprise. One thing that everyone seems to agree upon is that integration of Broader Impacts within the grant funding process has been difficult, suffering from vague guidelines and inconsistent implementation.

Broader Impacts Summit 2014

In an attempt to strengthen collaboration, scholarship and policy related to Broader Impacts, leaders from the field converged last week on the NSF’s backyard of Arlington, VA for the 2014 Broader Impacts Summit. Featuring three days of presentations, panel discussions and informal conversations, the Summit hosted a mixture of Broader Impacts professionals from universities, informal science institutions, and professional organizations alongside NSF staff.

Two major themes ran throughout the meeting: what does a successful Broader Impacts program look like, and how can the different types of Broader Impacts activities and proposals be properly evaluated? A major frustration for those involved with Broader Impacts has been the massive confusion as to what type of activity actually constitutes Broader Impacts. Keynote speakers Nancy Cantor, Chancellor of Rutgers University-Newark and Freeman Hrabowski, President at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, both defined their vision of successful Broader Impacts as being achieved through the seamless integration of scientific research within local community structures. Providing grist to this mill, several presenters gave examples of how their individual programs were doing just that, ranging from the K-12 community outreach program run by the Yale Pathways to Science program to state-wide engaged scholarship activities at Iowa State University, while also explaining how such programs could be used to motivate scientist participation and engage broader communities.

Unfortunately, the NSF itself has been reluctant to provide too prescriptive a framework as to what they consider Broader Impacts to be, concerned that including explicit standards and definitions would hamper the process by excluding activities that happen to fall outside of these borders. Sadly, this reticence continued at the Summit, with agency administrators from top to bottom refusing to do more than call on the community to develop guidelines on its own, on the assumption that a bottom-up approach would be most equitable.

BIIS14 Session

Beyond creating confusion over what to include in Broader Impacts proposals, such lack of guidance also was also seen be conference attendees to be harming attempts at proper evaluation. To help improve the evaluation process, attendees debated how reviewers on grant panels could be adequately prepared so as to be able to properly evaluate the Broader Impacts portion of proposals. Individual panelists from the community were able to point to resources and strategies that they used in their evaluation efforts, though these relied on a wide range of metrics, suggesting that a unified evaluative framework is still lacking.

The grass-roots, piecemeal manner in which individual Broader Impacts programs have developed and grown is simultaneously both the source of inspiration for the Summit, and one of the overarching issues that the Summit was aiming to rectify. By bringing together leaders and program organizers from across the country, the Summit is a fantastic first step towards allowing the community to collectively move forward to address the issues that have been raised.  BIONICTo continue with the development of this process, conference organizer Susan Renoe from the University of Missouri happily announced that a Regional Coordination Network proposal had been approved for NSF funding starting in 2015. The RCN grant will allow for support of future summits along with providing more opportunities to bring together different stakeholders, expanding the pool of participants, and furthering development and dissemination of Broader Impacts resources.

There is still a mountain left to climb in terms of improving the Broader Impacts framework; at least now the community has left base camp.

For a sample of Twitter activity during the Summit, visit: https://storify.com/TheGeoffHunt/biis14