What exactly do we mean by "impact"?
The word "impact" is thrown around scientific and academic circles, both in publications as a weak, generic verb that provides very little information about the relationships between quantities, as well as to describe the societal relevance of research. While I hope the former usage of the term becomes less popular, I will discuss the latter. Over the past few months, I have had the tremendous opportunity to be the "Lead Science Content Writer" for an exhibit on the Boulder Creek watershed at the Museum of Boulder. In this role, I synthesized a large body of work across a variety of scientific disciplines to create relevant and engaging content for a public audience of all ages. Through this process, I realized that in the sciences there are at least two distinct definitions of what constitutes impactful research.
One school of thought defines "impactful research" as work that relates specifically to a particular community. For example, water quality assessments are extremely important for individual watersheds. The USGS publication "State of the Watershed: Water Quality of Boulder Creek, Colorado" provides a tremendous amount of insight into the factors that threaten past, present, and future water quality in the Boulder Creek watershed. Most residents of Boulder County would be very interested to read at least some of the findings from this report. However, this type of research does not produce general knowledge about the nature of the universe (nor does it seek to).
I fall mostly in a camp that defines "impactful research" as work that generates "universal knowledge," truths about nature that apply broadly to systems throughout the world, solar system, galaxy, universe etc. For example, my current research seeks to characterize the relationship between snowpacks and soil freezing dynamics across a range of geographical variables (e.g. elevation, slope, north- vs. south-facing, vegetation). While this research is developed using data from sites in the steep, high-elevation mountains of Colorado, the knowledge we have produced can apply to low-elevation hills of New Hampshire, frigid plains on the North Slope of Alaska, and coastal mountains of Patagonia, basically anywhere snow falls. We seek to add to the "bookshelf" of knowledge about the universe.
I think the first definition is more widely held; the second definition may be better described by a word like "universality" or "applicability". Fulbright projects typically fall under the first definition, while allowing for the possibility that knowledge of the second type may be produced: my streamflow projections in Patagonia were relevant for the Rio Coyhaique watershed, but did not generate much in the way of universal knowledge. In an ideal world, site-specific studies would provide utility to the local community while generating broader knowledge. The folks who invented transistors (arguably the most "impactful" scientific advance of the 20th century), were working on improving the efficiency of telecommunications, an exercise that was largely disconnected from any particular local community. Many of the world-changing inventions of the 20th century were accidental, but not tied to a local community. The environmental sciences, however, are unique in that in many cases, problems are very localized. Thus, much of the knowledge we generate comes from a handful of sites. For example, the discovery that trees communicate with each other via soil fungal networks was made at a small number of forest plots in Canada. Much of the knowledge we have about the interaction of climate, snow, and vegetation in mountain regions was produced at Niwot Ridge in Colorado. The National Science Foundation (NSF) now requires a statement about the "Broader Impacts" of research for most proposals. Thankfully, NSF recognizes that "impact" comes in a number of forms:
Scientific progress comes in all shapes and sizes. Researchers peer at the microscopic gears of genomes, scan the heavens for clues of our origins. They unearth wind-weathered fossils, labor over complex circuitry, guide students through the maze of learning. Disparate fields, researchers and methods united by one thing: potential. Every NSF grant has the potential to not only advance knowledge, but benefit society -- what we call broader impacts. Just like the kaleidoscopic nature of science, broader impacts come in many forms. No matter the method, however, broader impacts ensure all NSF-funded science works to better our world.
One school of thought defines "impactful research" as work that relates specifically to a particular community. For example, water quality assessments are extremely important for individual watersheds. The USGS publication "State of the Watershed: Water Quality of Boulder Creek, Colorado" provides a tremendous amount of insight into the factors that threaten past, present, and future water quality in the Boulder Creek watershed. Most residents of Boulder County would be very interested to read at least some of the findings from this report. However, this type of research does not produce general knowledge about the nature of the universe (nor does it seek to).
I fall mostly in a camp that defines "impactful research" as work that generates "universal knowledge," truths about nature that apply broadly to systems throughout the world, solar system, galaxy, universe etc. For example, my current research seeks to characterize the relationship between snowpacks and soil freezing dynamics across a range of geographical variables (e.g. elevation, slope, north- vs. south-facing, vegetation). While this research is developed using data from sites in the steep, high-elevation mountains of Colorado, the knowledge we have produced can apply to low-elevation hills of New Hampshire, frigid plains on the North Slope of Alaska, and coastal mountains of Patagonia, basically anywhere snow falls. We seek to add to the "bookshelf" of knowledge about the universe.
I think the first definition is more widely held; the second definition may be better described by a word like "universality" or "applicability". Fulbright projects typically fall under the first definition, while allowing for the possibility that knowledge of the second type may be produced: my streamflow projections in Patagonia were relevant for the Rio Coyhaique watershed, but did not generate much in the way of universal knowledge. In an ideal world, site-specific studies would provide utility to the local community while generating broader knowledge. The folks who invented transistors (arguably the most "impactful" scientific advance of the 20th century), were working on improving the efficiency of telecommunications, an exercise that was largely disconnected from any particular local community. Many of the world-changing inventions of the 20th century were accidental, but not tied to a local community. The environmental sciences, however, are unique in that in many cases, problems are very localized. Thus, much of the knowledge we generate comes from a handful of sites. For example, the discovery that trees communicate with each other via soil fungal networks was made at a small number of forest plots in Canada. Much of the knowledge we have about the interaction of climate, snow, and vegetation in mountain regions was produced at Niwot Ridge in Colorado. The National Science Foundation (NSF) now requires a statement about the "Broader Impacts" of research for most proposals. Thankfully, NSF recognizes that "impact" comes in a number of forms:
Scientific progress comes in all shapes and sizes. Researchers peer at the microscopic gears of genomes, scan the heavens for clues of our origins. They unearth wind-weathered fossils, labor over complex circuitry, guide students through the maze of learning. Disparate fields, researchers and methods united by one thing: potential. Every NSF grant has the potential to not only advance knowledge, but benefit society -- what we call broader impacts. Just like the kaleidoscopic nature of science, broader impacts come in many forms. No matter the method, however, broader impacts ensure all NSF-funded science works to better our world.
Comments
Post a Comment