This research explores the intersection of several truths: 1) American research universities are complex organizations with long-standing traditions that guide faculty behavior. 2) For the US to remain competitive in the global economy, education systems must prepare a diverse STEM workforce to conduct innovative research and development activities. Educators, students, and all citizens must understand the importance of and pathway to STEM careers. 3) Faculty rely on external funds to support their research. 4) The US government distributes tax dollars to support university research activities. The National Science Foundation (NSF) allocates the second largest percentage of federal research funds. 5) The NSF proposal review process includes Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts Criteria, through which faculty must address areas of national need.
These realities are merged in the experiences of new faculty in engineering colleges at research universities in the United States. Junior faculty members who hold a prestigious NSF Faculty Early Career Development or CAREER award frequently struggle to develop a broader impacts strategy that satisfies the expectations of NSF and the expectations of their university. This work examined broader impacts from three perspectives: CAREER awardees from four institutions, faculty and staff who assist awardees with broader impacts planning and implementation, and current and former NSF officials who clarified the Agency's intent in maintaining broader impacts as a factor in distributing funds. The findings revealed many tensions or inconsistencies. Broader impacts is described as "annunciating existing behavior" or as a mechanism to "change the mindset" of faculty. Faculty perceptions, attitudes and behaviors are shaped by messages, often conflicting, that are sent by NSF and colleagues. CAREER holders had positive opinions of broader impacts but provided many different explanations of the intent. Their combined comments suggest changes that could ease tensions related to broader impacts work. Although the goal of broader impacts was not to change universities, this is a consequence as institutions have created mechanisms to support broader impacts work. Faculty noted broader impacts activities are not necessarily considered in promotion and tenure decisions, suggesting that changes represent resource-dependence responses and not true transformation of university traditions and expected behaviors.
|Commitee:||Armacost, Mary-Linda, Nair, Indira|
|School:||University of Pennsylvania|
|Department:||Higher Education Management|
|School Location:||United States -- Pennsylvania|
|Source:||DAI-A 76/01(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Higher Education Administration, Public policy, Higher education|
|Keywords:||Broader impacts criterion, Faculty attitudes, Federal funding, NSF merit review criteria, Research university, University community partnerships|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be