Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives

• Published in: Research policy Vol. 46; no. 8; pp. 1387 - 1398
• Main Authors: Bozeman, Barry, Youtie, Jan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 01.10.2017
• Subjects: Broader impacts; Evaluation; National science foundation; Evaluation; National science foundation; Broader impacts
• ISSN: 0048-7333; 1873-7625
• DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.003

•Presents case studies of four US National Science Foundation (NSF) pertaining to socio-economic impacts of research.•A framework is presented to understand socio-economic impacts of research.The framework includes seven criteria for assessment.•Discusses problems in developing empirical evaluations of social impacts of research. Interest in evaluating non-economic social outcomes of science and technology research has risen in policy circles in recent years. The interest in social impacts of research has not yet given rise to a great proliferation of useful, valid techniques for evaluating such impacts. This study presents detailed case studies of four US National Science Foundation (NSF) programs/initiatives to provide a framework for understanding diverse efforts at addressing social impacts, and to suggest some important gaps in our research approaches for assessing socio-economic impacts of research. The four cases studied − the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the Innovation Corps (I-Corps), the Arizona State University Center for Nanotechnology in Society, and the NSF “Broader Impacts” criteria—were chosen for their diversity in intent and modality but operating within a single agency. The cases are compared based on criteria important for assessing socio-economic outcomes: the initiative’s modality, enabling policy vehicle, benefit guarantor, distribution and appropriability of benefits, specificity of beneficiary, social-economic range, and timing of the benefit stream. The paper concludes with a discussion of the most pressing methodological and theoretical issues that need addressing for greater progress in assessing social impacts.