Writing Stronger Broader Impacts Statements: Lessons from the Webinar

By: Caitlin Mayernik, Mazvita M. Chikomo, Kelly Garvey

As scientists, we want our work to be impactful and meaningful. Our impact comes in the form of advancing our scientific understanding and contributing in positive ways to society. The latter measure of impact is arguably under-valued in today’s society, but no less important (Nadkarni & Stasch, 2013). Perhaps a large part of closing the gap in value and importance of our scientific impact is to communicate our science in a way that makes it clear why our work matters—and ensuring that our work gets funded so we can continue doing our impactful work. On August 28 2025, the AGU Hydrology Student Section JEDI Subcommittee hosted a webinar in partnership with CUAHSI titled "Reframing Research Language for Impactful and Relevant Broader Impact Statements". We had an astounding 225 participants attend the webinar, where we had meaningful and thoughtful guided discussion prepared by the facilitators, Caitlin Mayernik, Kelly Garvey and Mazvita Chikomo. The facilitators will present outcomes of and reflections on the webinar discussion in a session titled “Navigating Broader Impacts in the Current Political Climate” at the upcoming AGU Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

The overarching message from the webinar discussion was that there are fundamental components to Broader Impacts (BI) that transcend any political climate or funding priority. There is an art to being able to write in a way that matches the funding mission and language, while remaining authentic to your research and your values for community engagement. The webinar discussion highlighted useful strategies for students and early career researchers (ECRs) to navigate changes in funding landscapes, while also providing specific advice on Broader Impact (BI) statements from a group of panelists who brought diverse perspectives and expertise. The panelists included: Laura Lautz, National Science Foundation Program Director; Billy Williams, American Geophysical Union Executive Vice President of Ethics and Organizational Advancements; Heather Golden, EPA Research Scientist; and Kelly Caylor, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research in Earth, Environmental, and Sustainability Sciences, Professor in the Bren School and the Department of Geography. The panelists shared insights from their experience reviewing successful grants, writing research proposals, and performing research at different institutions (e.g., university, government) where funding decisions influence the type of programs their organizations can hold. Through their lived experiences, we explored what makes successful BI statements and how to successfully navigate changes in the funding landscape. Below we outline primary themes from our conversation with the panelists.

How to Write Successful Broader Impact Statements: Why Specificity Matters

When it comes to writing BI statements, the National Science Foundation makes their expectations clear: the best statements demonstrate how the work contributes to society, what outcomes are reasonable to accomplish during the duration of the proposed project, and how those outcomes will be measured. Yet, translating these criteria into a compelling, achievable plan is often more challenging than it first appears.

One of the main takeaways of the conversation was the emphasis on specificity. Many ECRs fall into the trap of trying to achieve too much in their proposal — promising to transform K–12 education, build a globally competitive workforce, strengthen public health, and improve food security, all at once. These BI goals are challenging for ECRs to achieve due to limited resources and connections in the communities they propose to engage  at their career stage. Overly ambitious goals are the opposite of what NSF is looking for. At times, those statements end up feeling vague, unachievable, and disconnected from reality. Instead, the panelist’s advice was to start small, to focus on one or two activities where you can clearly demonstrate how the work will be done, how you can measure its tangible impact, and how the impact will persist after the project is complete. A letter of collaboration from a partner school, for example, or a line in the budget set aside for community outreach, can be a powerful signal that your plan is both serious and achievable.

What Broader Impact Activities Look Like

We also talked about what those impact activities can look like in practice. Education and outreach remain central pillars, whether that means developing classroom modules for middle school science teachers or running public workshops that spark curiosity in local communities. However, broader impacts also extend to improving the STEM workforce, supporting public health through applied research, or forging partnerships with industry and community organizations.

Additional examples the panelists provided specific to us as hydrologists : 

In hydrology, for instance, a BI statements might involve working with local agencies to improve flood preparedness, collaborating with farmers to apply soil research to crop production, or contributing to water quality initiatives that benefit both ecosystems and public health.

Where to start as a Student or Early-Career Scientist

The best way to begin is often close to home for students and early-career researchers. Start by engaging in your local news channels, paying attention to the issues of concern from your local community. Consider how your research might intersect with those needs and what pathways may already exist for broadening your research impact. Talk with your inner circle of mentors and how they engage with the local community, then reach out to local offices of the USGS or EPA to initiate conversations and collaborations that not only strengthen your BIs but also help ground your work in real-world problems.

How to Adapt to Shifting Priorities and Funding Landscapes 

The webinar also highlighted how Broader Impacts statements, like grant writing more broadly, must adapt to shifting scientific and funding landscapes. Priorities evolve, and funders often want to see research framed in ways that reflect their current goals. The key is not to change the science that you do but to reframe how you communicate around it.

Example shared in the webinar:

A soil chemistry experiment in the lab, for example, might be described in terms of its implications for global climate models in one proposal, and as a tool for improving soil fertility for local farmers in another. Both are valid — and both emerge from the same core science. Tailoring your framing to the priorities of a given agency or funder is not about being opportunistic; it is about understanding your audience and making your work relevant to them.

Careful consideration of wording in proposals makes a difference. In recent landscapes, terms like JEDI have been politicized, but if we use specific language to reframe our BI goals to articulate how our research is accessible, usable, and durable we communicate the same goal of broadening science participation in a way that transcends political landscapes. Broadening participation in science is based on many different factors that inherently address JEDI concepts, yet don’t explicitly call out race or gender (e.g., institution type, geography, socioeconomic status, career stage, etc.). Therefore, framing BI initiatives around how they engage these non-protected characteristics, successfully addresses current program/agency priorities in broadening participation in science. 

From a panelist:

“Practically, [broadening participation] means budgeting for partners, building capacity at multiple institutions, and co-producing data and tools in ways that actually work for diverse communities. Those impacts are resilient to political change because they’re rooted in effectiveness and equity as an operational necessity.” 

So, in practice, building relationships and connections with individuals and groups in our communities allow for increased resilience to political changes.

Tools for Success: 

1. The Role of Language

Language plays a critical role in the success of BI. At its heart, the BI section is about translational science — making complex ideas accessible to people outside of the lab or classroom. Using plain, clear language is not a weakness but a strength, one that allows policymakers, educators, and community members to better understand the importance of your work and why it matters to them. A good BI statement is not written only for NSF reviewers; it is an opportunity to communicate why your science matters to society.

2. Know Your Priorities

Understanding the priorities of the funding entity where you are submitting your proposal so that you can reframe your research priorities and BIs to best align with the program/agency priorities is key for success. To ensure you’re framing your BIs appropriately, connect with a receiving program officer at the funding entity in advance and ask for feedback on your framing. Folks in these positions want to help and can provide specific feedback on how your research fits into the funding priorities.

Program directors are, “here to help and want to support the research community in navigating the agency's changing priorities.”

3. Follow a Well-Travelled Path to BI

Use resources and connections readily available to you through your community networks. Consider what type of broadening participation activities your mentors currently do and if these excite you. If they don’t, ask your mentor to connect you with someone doing the kind of BI work you do get excited about. Finding existing support networks shows the funding entity that you are well supported to be successful in broadening participation in your research.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, what makes a Broader Impacts statement successful is not the scale of its ambition but the clarity of its vision. It is about showing not just that your work matters, but authentically (re)framing your BIs to explain how, to whom, and with what measurable outcomes. Whether you are proposing to inspire the next generation of scientists, to improve public health through hydrologic research, or to strengthen local partnerships that outlast the grant itself, specificity and sincerity will carry your statement further than sweeping promises ever could.

Reference cited:

Nadkarni, N.M. and Stasch, A.E. (2013), How broad are our broader impacts? An analysis of the National Science Foundation's Ecosystem Studies Program and the Broader Impacts requirement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11: 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1890/110106