Notice2024-02500
Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request; Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Broader Impacts Review Criterion
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
February 7, 2024
Issuing agencies
National Science Foundation
Abstract
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal Register, and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8458-8459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02500]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request;
Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Broader Impacts
Review Criterion
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Submission for OMB review; comment request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second
notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal
Register, and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed
submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance
simultaneously with the publication of this second notice.
DATES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAmain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAmain</a>. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a292a3633372a2e351a34293c743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7d4d7cbcecad7d3c8e7c9d4c189c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365
days a year (including Federal holidays).
Comments: Comments regarding (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the NSF, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the NSF's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
use, and clarity of the information on respondents; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology should be addressed to the points
of contact in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
number, and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to
the collection of information that such persons are not required to
respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Evaluation of the National Science
Foundation's (NSF) Broader Impacts Review Criterion.
OMB Number: 3145-NEW.
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
[[Page 8459]]
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: PIs
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:
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 minutes (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: January 3, 2023.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2024-02500 Filed 2-6-24; 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 February 7, 2024.
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.