Notice2023-25718
Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Establish an Information Collection
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 21, 2023
Issuing agencies
National Science Foundation
Abstract
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Evaluation and Assessment Capability (EAC), National Science Foundation (NSF) Office of Integrative Activities (OIA) is inviting the general public or other Federal agencies to comment on this proposed information collection.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81108-81110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25718]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Establish an Information
Collection
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the
Evaluation and Assessment Capability (EAC), National Science Foundation
(NSF) Office of Integrative Activities (OIA) is inviting the general
public or other Federal agencies to comment on this proposed
information collection.
DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by January 22,
2024 to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date
will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to the
address below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite
E7400, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b686b7772766b6f745b75687d357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b181b0702061b1f042b05180d450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1-
[[Page 81109]]
800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365
days a year (including federal holidays).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Foundation, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Foundation's estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collecting the
information on the respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Title of Collection: Generic Clearance for the Evaluation of the
National Science Foundation's (NSF) Broader Impacts Review Criterion.
OMB Number: 3145-NEW.
Expiration Date of Approval: Not applicable.
Type of Request: New information collection.
Description: NSF is conducting an evaluation to assess (1) how
NSF's Broader Impacts review criterion is applied across the Foundation
and (2) its effectiveness in meeting the goals established in section
526 of the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote
Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Reauthorization Act of
2010 (42 U.S.C. 1862p-14) (America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010). This evaluation is congressionally directed in section 10341 of
the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors [CHIPS] for
America Fund Act 2022. As part of the evaluation, NSF is conducting a
literature review, document analysis, extant data analysis, interviews
with NSF staff, and focus groups with NSF principal investigators (PIs)
and reviewers. NSF will map findings from the evaluation activities to
current NSF policies and practices to identify strategies for improving
how NSF applies the review criterion.
The subject of this request is related to the planned focus groups
with PIs and reviewers. The focus groups will answer the following
research questions (RQs):
<bullet> RQ1. In what ways do the interpretations of the Broader
Impacts review criterion among PIs and reviewers vary, and what factors
might contribute to these variations?
<bullet> RQ2. How do external reviewers assess the Broader Impact
review criterion?
<bullet> RQ3. In what ways do PIs and reviewers perceive that
variations in interpretation and assessment can advance or hinder the
merit review of proposals?
Findings from the focus groups described in this request will be
used to inform interpretation of other evaluation activities within the
larger project (including informing interpretation of interviews with
NSF staff, document review analyses, and interpretation of extant data
analysis of review analyses). For example, we anticipate that
participants in these focus groups may raise issues around their
understanding and interpretation of Broader Impacts, which can be
compared to perceptions that NSF staff report during interviews.
Background:
NSF sets forth an ambitious vision for the United States: a nation
that leads the world in science and engineering research and
innovation, to the benefit of all, without barriers to participation.
Toward this end, NSF promotes the progress of science by investing in
research and capacity-building activities that expand knowledge in
science, engineering, and education. In fiscal year (FY) 2022, NSF
evaluated almost 40,000 proposals for research and education
activities, making nearly 11,000 new awards totaling more than $8.5
billion.
At the cornerstone of NSF's mission and its investments is its
merit review process. NSF program directors with technical and
programmatic expertise lead this process, with support from external
experts who help evaluate submitted proposals for two main criteria:
(1) Intellectual Merit--the potential to advance knowledge; and (2)
Broader Impacts--the potential to contribute to society and achieve
specific, desired societal outcomes. With these two criteria, NSF has
established a commitment to projects that provide tangible benefits to
society beyond advancing knowledge.
It is critically important that NSF implement its merit review
process in a way that is fair, thorough, competitive, and transparent,
and that those internal and external to NSF recognize the process as
such. However, as NSF noted, PIs and reviewers might lack clarity about
the Broader Impacts criterion, despite NSF's efforts to provide
additional guidance. NSF has also noted a lack of consistency in how
NSF implements the criterion across directorates, divisions, and
programs. Specific challenges related to the understanding and
application of Broader Impacts include a lack of consensus on how to
define Broader Impacts, and a disconnect between the Broader Impacts
requirements stated in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures
Guide and how panelists review these activities (National Alliance for
Broader Impacts 2018). The purpose of this work, then, is to ``assess
how the Broader Impact review criterion is applied across the
Foundation and make recommendations for improving the effectiveness for
meeting the goals established in section 526 of the America Creating
Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology,
Education, and Science Reauthorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 1862p-
14)'' (America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010). This evaluation
is congressionally directed in section 10341 of the Creating Helpful
Incentives to Produce Semiconductors [CHIPS] for America Fund Act 2022.
Methodology: Focus groups will be conducted with two types of
respondents: Pls and reviewers.
The evaluation will include three PI focus groups of up to seven
people each. Participants in these groups will be PIs who submitted a
proposal within the last five years. The study team will select
participants via a stratified random sample by NSF directorate,
institutional characteristics (such as Carnegie classification, MSI
status, and locale), and participant characteristics (such as race/
ethnicity, gender, years since terminal degree, and new investigator
status). PIs have firsthand experience addressing the Broader Impacts
review criterion in their proposals. Among this group, key insights
include the following:
1. Questions they have about how to address the Broader Impacts
review criterion in their research and proposals.
2. Strategies they have employed as a PI in addressing the Broader
Impacts review criterion in their research and proposals.
3. Resources or supports received from their respective
institutions for developing well-thought-out proposals that address the
Broader Impacts review criterion.
Reviewer focus groups will consist of three focus groups of up to
seven people each. Participants in these groups will be people who
served on a review panel within the last five years. The study team
will select participants via a stratified random sample by directorate
and participant characteristics (such as how long they have been
reviewing NSF proposals). Reviewers have firsthand knowledge about
applying the Broader Impacts review criterion. Among this group, key
insights include the following:
[[Page 81110]]
1. Interpretating and applying the criterion as a reviewer (and
compared with as a PI).
2. Reviewer training and guidance.
Affected Public: NSF reviewers and PIs.
Average Expected Annual Number of Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Estimated lower Estimated upper average Approximate lower Approximate upper
Collection method bound (number of bound (number of response time bound response bound response
responses) responses) (min) burden (hours) burden (hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focus groups........................................... 4*6=24 7*6=42 90 (24*90)/60=36 (42*90)/60=72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents: Lower-bound estimate of 24 individuals and upper-bound
estimate of 48 individuals.
Average Minutes per Response: 90.
Burden Hours: Lower- and upper-bound estimates of approximately 36
and 72 hours.
Dated: November 16, 2023.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2023-25718 Filed 11-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 21, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.