Workshop 2016

Evaluating broader impacts:
The state of the art
Feb 10 & 11, 2016

This workshop will be meeting at the Conference Center in the Carnegie Endowment, Washington, DC, as part of our on-going research. Our NSF proposal states the overall mission of this grant: 
To improve our theoretical understanding of the different ways that the broader impacts of science can be evaluated…
 __________________________________________________

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

6pm: dinner with overview of the workshop by Robert Frodeman.

Location: The Regent, Thai Cuisine
1910 18th Street, N.W., Washington DC 20009 – Google Map

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Location: Conference Center at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC  –  Google Map

8:15 am
Coffee and bites

8:45 am
Introduction to the day’s work
Robert Frodeman & J. Britt Holbrook

-Presentation on the theme by each speaker at 6 minutes each
-each presentation also receives 6 minutes for discussion
-30 minute group discussion of the theme as a whole

9:00 am – 10:00 am
Theme 1: Defining and Measuring Broader Impacts

How are, could, and should broader impacts be defined and assessed? What is the state of the art in the UK and Europe?  What is the difference between ‘research impact’ and ‘broader impact’? What sorts of behaviors do different definitions and measures of impact encourage? 

Claire Donovan, Brunel |  View Presentation and Text
Diana Hicks, Georgia Tech  |  View Presentation
Mike Taylor, Elsevier
 |  View Presentation
Stacy Konkiel, Altmetrics
J. Britt Holbrook, New Jersey Institute of Technology  |  View Presentation

10:00 am – 10:30am
Discussion of Theme 1

10:30 – 10:45am
Break

10:45 am – 12:00 pm
Theme 2: Broader Impacts, Disciplines, and the University

What is the relationship between broader impacts and academic disciplines? Do broader impacts concerns imply a new structure for universities? What role should academic peers have in defining and assessing broader impacts? Might an increasing reliance on metrics, or on including stakeholder coproduction and/or evaluation, undermine the role of academic expertise? 

Steven Hill, HEFCE
Robert Frodeman University of North Texas  |  View Presentation
Jack Spaapen, KNAW  |  View Presentation
David Budtz Pederson, Univ of Copenhagen  |  View Presentation
Dave Guston, ASU
Juan Rogers, Georgia Tech
 |  View Presentation

12:00 pm – 12:30 pm
Discussion of Theme 2

12:30 pm – 1:15 pm
Lunch
Firehook Bakery delivered to conference room

1:15 pm – 2:15 pm
Theme 3: The Politics and Ethics of Impact

What effects do broader societal impact requirements have on researchers and the research system? What are the next steps in building more responsible uses of metrics and indicators for broader impacts? How are metrics for broader impact related to responsible research and innovation? Can impact be planned? Who’s counting what counts as broader impact? What of negative impacts or grimpacts?

James Wilsdon, U of Sheffield
Rene von Schomberg, European Commission
Steve Fuller, U of Warwick
Andy Stirling, SPRU
Catriona Manville, RAND Europe

2:15 pm – 2:45 pm
Discussion of Theme 3

2:45 pm – 3:00 pm
Break

3:00 pm – 4:15pm
Theme 4: The Future of Impact

Will impact requirements at ‘higher’ levels (national research evaluation processes, funding agencies, etc.) affect universities, disciplines, or academic departments in terms of the reward system? How? Will researchers embrace broader impacts? Should they? What can the US learn from the UK/European experience? And where is this discussion headed?

Roberto Pacheco, CAPES and UFSC Brazil  |  View Presentation
Yuko Harayama, Council for Science and Technology Policy, Japan
Dan Sarewitz, ASU
Luke Georghiou, U of Manchester |  View Presentation
Adam Briggle, UNT

4:15 pm – 4:45 pm
Discussion of Theme 4

4:45 pm – 5:00 pm
Wrap-up and Recollection
Robert Frodeman and J. Britt Holbrook

___________________________________________________

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 1353796 & 1445121. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.