skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Boutilier, Sophia"

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Abstract It is important for funding agencies to evaluate if scientists accomplish their research goals. By comparing a representative sample of National Science Foundation abstracts and project outcome reports (PORs) from 2014 to 2017, this article investigates whether scientists attain the broader impacts they propose. We find that the number of broader impacts proposed in the abstracts is significantly higher than the number of broader impacts reported in the PORs. The trend is common across directorates and type of impact, except when impacts serve advantaged groups. Only the number of broader impacts for advantaged groups increases from the abstract to the POR. Despite the difference between proposed impact and reported impact, our study does not conclude that scientists are delinquent or disingenuous when they propose their research. Rather, we question the capacity of current frameworks to capture the quality of impacts and to weigh the relative importance of impacts that serve marginalized groups versus those that sustain the status quo. 
    more » « less
  2. null (Ed.)
    A major goal of government and non-profit scientific funding agencies is to support research and development (R&D) that has broad impacts. This study proposes a new framework, called the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion (IIC), to determine whether research benefits marginalized communities, reduces inequality, and encourages inclusive innovation. To test the framework, the study analyzes NSF sponsored nanotechnology grant abstracts from 2013 to 2017. We find that 109 out of the 300 grants feature research and grant activities that are inclusive, while 235 out of the 300 grants have research and grant activities that either maintain the status quo or predominately target advantaged groups. Of the 109 grants with inclusive broader impacts, 9 of them involve inclusive research that is intrinsic to the underlying work. In comparison there are 102 grants that feature inclusive research that is directly related to the research. Of those 102 direct-inclusive grants, 99 of them relate to broadening participation of women and underrepresented minority populations is science fields. 
    more » « less