↓ Skip to main content

“Broader Impacts” or “Responsible Research and Innovation”? A Comparison of Two Criteria for Funding Research in Science and Engineering

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
“Broader Impacts” or “Responsible Research and Innovation”? A Comparison of Two Criteria for Funding Research in Science and Engineering
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11948-013-9480-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Davis, Kelly Laas

Abstract

Our subject is how the experience of Americans with a certain funding criterion, "broader impacts" (and some similar criteria) may help in efforts to turn the European concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) into a useful guide to funding Europe's scientific and technical research. We believe this comparison may also be as enlightening for Americans concerned with revising research policy. We have organized our report around René Von Schomberg's definition of RRI, since it seems both to cover what the European research group to which we belong is interested in and to be the only widely accepted definition of RRI. According to Von Schomberg, RRI: "… is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)." While RRI seeks fundamental changes in the way research is conducted, Broader Impacts is more concerned with more peripheral aspects of research: widening participation of disadvantaged groups, recruiting the next generation of scientists, increasing the speed with which results are used, and so on. Nevertheless, an examination of the broadening of funding criteria over the last four decades suggests that National Science Foundation has been moving in the direction of RRI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 104 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 25%
Researcher 16 15%
Other 7 7%
Student > Master 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 29 28%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Engineering 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,469,784
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#337
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,193
of 215,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 215,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.