NSF Reviewer Implications
- NSF reviewers should expect that the first five items stated in the BICF implication section for faculty should be described in the Broader Impacts statement and then further elaborated on in the Broader Impacts narrative.
- NSF reviewers should expect faculty and other who submit NSF proposal to have a Broader Impacts Program / Portfolio rather than just random activities.
- There should be evidence in the letter of support that all stakeholders involved, including the researcher, will obtain a benefit - that is intentional, will happen in a finite amount of time, and how it will be measured. If this cannot be determined in the proposal then the claimed broader impact is an impact, or potential indirect impacts. Impacts are consistent with the linear model of research and certainly could eventually benefit society. Therefore words like eventually should not be used in the Broader Impacts statement and narrative unless it is accompanied with the stated indirect Broader Impacts.
Remember that BICF implies that Broader Impacts are intentionally planned, beneficial, happen in a specified time, and are/can be measured.