Case Study 17.2 — A Tale of Two Proposals

A composite, illustrative case constructed to isolate one variable — the broader-impacts plan — and show its effect. Dr. Reyes is composite; the NSF processes are real. Verify current details at nsf.gov.

Why this case: isolating the variable

Case Study 17.1 showed a CAREER proposal that did everything right. This case does something different and more pointed: it holds the science constant and varies only the Broader Impacts, so you can see, almost as a controlled experiment, how much the second criterion matters. Meet Dr. Reyes, an environmental scientist who submits essentially the same strong research proposal twice — first with a checkbox broader-impacts plan (declined), then with a genuine one (funded). Nothing about the Intellectual Merit changes meaningfully between the two. The broader-impacts plan is the difference.

Round 1 — The "A0": strong science, checkbox impacts

Reyes proposes fundamental research on a coastal ecological process — genuinely strong work, with a clear question, a sound approach, and good preliminary data. The Intellectual Merit is real. But Reyes, trained to believe the science is what matters, treats Broader Impacts as a formality. The entire plan is three sentences at the end of the Project Description:

"The results of this research will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national conferences. A graduate student will be trained in the course of the work. The findings will contribute to the public understanding of coastal ecosystems."

The Project Summary's Broader Impacts block is similarly thin — a sentence echoing the same generic promises.

At the panel: the Intellectual Merit ratings are strong ("Very Good" to "Excellent"). But the panel summary is pointed about the broader impacts: generic, not specific to the project, no concrete activities, no plan, no evaluation; "training a graduate student" is a normal part of doing the research, not a broader impact in itself; dissemination through publications is expected, not a distinguishing societal benefit. In a competitive program full of strong science, Reyes's proposal lands in the "competitive but not fundable this round" zone. The program officer, building a portfolio of proposals strong on both criteria, declines it. Reyes is stunned — the science was excellent. That reaction is the threshold concept knocking.

Between rounds — crossing the threshold

Reyes does what good applicants do: reads the reviews honestly. The message is unmistakable — the science was never the problem; the broader-impacts plan was. Reyes reframes, crossing the threshold from "broader impacts is a formality" to "broader impacts is half the proposal." Reyes asks: given my actual research, my actual location, and my actual strengths, what genuine societal benefit can I commit to and evaluate?

The coastal fieldwork happens near communities with local schools and a regional environmental-education center. Reyes builds a real plan around that reality.

Round 2 — The resubmission: the same science, genuine impacts

Reyes resubmits the next cycle. The Intellectual Merit section is essentially unchanged (with minor clarifications). The Broader Impacts, however, is now a genuine, specific, resourced, evaluated plan:

  • A partnership with the regional environmental-education center to co-develop coastal-ecology learning modules from the project's actual data, piloted with local schools.
  • A summer research experience for students from a nearby under-resourced school district, with a named partner organization handling recruitment — real broadening participation, not a vague promise.
  • Open data and materials released as infrastructure for other coastal researchers and educators.
  • An external evaluator measuring participation, learning gains, materials adoption, and partnership sustainability.

Each activity is costed in the budget and placed in the timeline. The Project Summary's Broader Impacts block now matches the Intellectual Merit block in specificity.

At the panel: the science rates as well as before — but now the broader-impacts plan rates strongly too, the panel summary calling it specific, genuinely tied to the research and the region, and properly evaluated. The program officer, now looking at a proposal strong on both criteria and well-aligned with the program's interest in coastal-community engagement, recommends it for funding. Reyes is funded — with the same core science that was declined a year earlier.

What this case teaches

  1. Broader Impacts can be the whole difference. Hold the science constant, fix only the broader impacts, and a declined proposal becomes a funded one. That is the threshold concept made visible.
  2. "Training a student" and "publishing results" are not broader impacts. They are normal parts of doing research. A broader impact is a distinguishing societal benefit you plan, resource, and evaluate.
  3. Genuine beats grand. Reyes didn't promise to transform science education nationally. Reyes made specific, local, real commitments tied to the actual research and place — which is exactly what reviewers believe.
  4. The reviews are the gift. Like Hernandez's NIH summary statement (Chapter 16), Reyes's panel summary named the exact weakness. Reading it honestly, rather than defensively, made the funded resubmission possible.

🚪 Threshold reminder: Reyes's two proposals are the threshold concept as a controlled experiment. The science that was "not fundable" became fundable when — and only when — the broader impacts became real. At the NSF, broader impacts is co-equal with the science. Believe it before the panel teaches it to you the expensive way.

🔄 Retrieve: Why did the panel say "training a graduate student" did not count as a strong broader impact, and what three features turned Reyes's Round 2 plan from checkbox to genuine? (Answers above.)