```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8458-8459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAmain. 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 
[email protected]. 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):
     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?
     RQ2. How do external reviewers assess the Broader Impact 
review criterion?
     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
```