Why Diversity Matters: Understanding and Applying the Diversity Component of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion
Abstract
Despite the National Science Foundation’s recent clarification of the Broader Impacts Criterion used in grant evaluation, it is not clear that this criterion is being understood or applied consistently by grant writers or reviewers. In particular, there is still confusion about how to interpret the requirement for broadening the participation of under‐represented groups in science and scepticism about the value of doing so. Much of this stems from uncertainty about why the participation of under‐represented groups is desirable or beneficial in the first place. This paper distinguishes three different rationales for the importance of diversity in science and draws out the implications for the kind of diversity that is desirable, as well as how the diversity requirement of the Broader Impacts Criterion should be applied and weighed against other criteria in reviewing particular grants. I argue that there are epistemic, as well as social, benefits to diversity that can help promote scientific progress.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Diversity in STEM has been proposed to be important for ameliorating socioeconomic disparities, increasing the total number of talented scientists, and minimizing bias in scientific findings.
“Diversity in STEM has been proposed to be important for ameliorating socioeconomic disparities, increasing the total number of talented scientists, and minimizing bias in scientific findings by having individuals from diverse backgrounds counteract each other’s biases (Intemann, 2009).”
From Building Better Bridges into STEM: A Synthesis of 25 Years of Literature on STEM Summer Bridge Programs (2017) · cites this paper as Intemann, 2009
Cites
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry
Longino, H. E. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9780691209753 · Cited by 3,092 · see citing works
Longino, H. E. (2002) · doi:10.1515/9780691187013 · Cited by 1,622 · see citing works
Interviewer Effects in a Cohort Study: Results from the Massachusetts Women's Health Study
Johannes, C. B., Crawford, S. L., & McKinlay, J. B. (1997) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009296 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ashley, M., Cooper, K. M., Cala, J. M., & Brownell, S. E. (2017) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.17-05-0085 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Standpoint Epistemology and Epistemic Peerhood: A Defense of Epistemic Privilege
TOOLE, B. (2024) · Journal of the American Philosophical Association · doi:10.1017/apa.2023.6 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Intemann, K.
- Corresponding author
- Intemann, Kristen
- ORCID
- Intemann, Kristen
- Venue
- Social Epistemology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 249-266
- ISSN
- 0269-1728 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5297
- OpenAlex
- W2111982668
- Cited by
- 145
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 7.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Epistemology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Keywords
- National Science Foundation, diversity in science, underrepresented groups, widening participation, grant evaluation, scientific progress
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review