Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Daniel Fidel Ferrer's avatar
  2. Ryan Mitchell Wittingslow's avatar
  3. Panu Raatikainen's avatar
  4. Jason Stanley's avatar
  5. Daniel Greco's avatar
  6. Nobody's avatar
  7. Roger of Invisible America's avatar

Still more on whether there have been changes in NSF funding related to “diversity” etc.

Brian Leiter

Two mathematicians had written to observe that NSF applications include an "impact" portion, in which "diversity" (etc.) was likely to be mentioned, which might explain the results of the study purporting to find an increase in such terms in funded projects.   But now other readers have written in to point out that the original study looked only at abstracts, not the full application.  As a classics professor elsewhere wrote to me:

I'm not a scientist or mathematician, and I've never applied to the NSF and am never likely to, but your correspondents' critique of this study seems to be entirely off the mark.

It took me less than 5 minutes…to find and download the same data set as the study uses (https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/download.jsp).  From which I discovered that the data set comprises ONLY the general abstracts, describing the topic of research. It does NOT comprise the entire grant application which include the "broader impact" statements.  Hence it is immune from criticism on those grounds.

A fairer criticism might be that at least some of the terms searched for in the study have broader meanings than the "social justice" one. For example, if one does a simple search for "diversity" in the entire data set, the first two results listed are studies of "phylogenetic diversity" (respectively in phytoplankton and prairie grass). If we search for "inclusion", the first result concerns "melt inclusions in crystals of plagioclase".  Clearly the funding of such projects tells us nothing about the so-called "politicization" of science.  (The study makes a cursory acknowledgement of the problem when it comes to "diversity", but not with "inclusion", and in any case makes no attempt to quantify it.)  But the study does break down its results by individual terms, and some of those terms are less susceptible to double meanings of that sort.  To that extent the results are likely to have some validity.

I'm opening comments for further thoughts from readers about the study and its methodology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 responses to “Still more on whether there have been changes in NSF funding related to “diversity” etc.”

  1. Michael Risch

    In looking at the results, there are a couple things that pop out at me:
    1. The absolute percentage of word appearance, though growing, is still very small except for two words: diversity and underrepresented (followed by "women")
    2. Diversity growth is driven largely by bio, and then by education
    3. With two exceptions, all other growth is driven almost entirely by education – so much so that the aggregate graphs lose all meaning
    4. Underrepresented and women (the exceptions), seem to be growing in all fields (though it looks like women saw the steep rise in 2005, and that's since given way to underrepresented, which has had a more recent rise) – They have both a largish absolute gain and a large year over year gain.

    IMO, if you want to understand what's happening, a close read of the abstracts that contain underrepresented, woman, or women would be interesting. My gut says that many of them are about how to increase the representation among scientists – a goal worthy of study.

    Reply
  2. Math professor from elsewhere

    Some abstracts mention broader impacts (not necessarily under that name), and others do not. It is true that in my particular area of mathematics, a quick perusal of the abstracts shows almost no mention of broader impacts of the project. But I glanced at some from other branches of math (and also physics and biology) and did see mention of broader impacts in some of the abstracts (regarding funding of postdocs and grad students to be involved in the project).

    So at this point one would really need to delve into the database to see what's really going on (something I don't have time to do, maybe another reader does). Another issue is that (I think) the database includes projects with postdoc funding and conference funding, which are more likely to include such terms in reference to hiring and conference attendees (but not directly related to the scientific question itself).

    Reply
  3. yet another mathematician

    Here are instructions that I received from the NSF for writing the award abstract for a funded proposal a couple of years ago. (BTW, the abstract isn't part of the proposal; rather it's a statement intended for public consumption that is written after the actual proposal is recommended.)

    "The NSF award abstract has two paragraphs, which should appear in the following order:

    -Paragraph 1: A nontechnical description of the project, which explains the project's significance and importance. This description also serves as a public justification for NSF funding by articulating how the project serves the national interest, as stated by NSF's mission: to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; or to secure the national defense. This part of the abstract should describe the fundamental issues the project seeks to address, as well as other potential benefits, such as how the project advances the field, supports education and diversity, or benefits society. This part should be understandable by a broad audience.

    -Paragraph 2: A technical description of the project that states its goals and scope, the methods and approaches to be used, and its potential contribution. In many cases, the technical project description may be a modified version of the project summary that is submitted with the proposal. However, the technical description should reflect any changes in the project's goals made after the review process."

    This is consistent with the presence of Broader Impacts and Intellectual Merit sections in the proposals themselves, though those specific phrases are not used. Given that the NSF explicitly lists diversity as something that one might want to mention in the abstract, it is not so surprising that abstracts are mentioning diversity.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress