Broader impacts (BI) policies generate debate on the purpose of science, measuring the impact of research, and is an important topic for the science policy community. However, BI policies often fail to determine if R&D funding helps marginalized communities. This paper introduces a new framework, the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion, that assesses who benefits from research impacts as divided into three groups: (1) advantaged groups; (2) the general population; and (3) marginalized groups. The study analyzes National Science Foundation (NSF) project outcome reports and finds that advantaged groups are the most likely to benefit from NSF-funded research. The study also shows that certain areas of NSF research, such as Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, more efficiently generate impacts for marginalized groups compared to other directorates. This paper further argues that persistent inequalities in BIs limit the potential of R&D to increase prosperity and well-being, two of NSF’s mandated goals.

中文翻译：

---

对谁有影响？使用包容性直接标准评估 NSF 资助的更广泛影响的不平等

更广泛的影响 (BI) 政策引发了关于科学目的、衡量研究影响的辩论，并且是科学政策界的一个重要话题。然而，商业智能政策通常无法确定研发资金是否有助于边缘化社区。本文介绍了一个新框架，即包容性-即时性标准，该框架评估谁从研究影响中受益，分为三组：（1）优势群体；（二）一般人群；(3) 边缘化群体。该研究分析了美国国家科学基金会 (NSF) 的项目成果报告，发现优势群体最有可能从 NSF 资助的研究中受益。该研究还表明，与其他部门相比，NSF 研究的某些领域，如社会、行为和经济科学，更有效地对边缘化群体产生影响。