Lessons from Working at the National Science Foundation
By Enrique S. Pumar
From March 2022 to March 2024, I enjoyed the rare opportunity to take an academic leave from Santa Clara University to serve the U.S. National Science Foundation as the Inaugural Program Director for the Build and Broaden Program in the Social, Behavioral, and Economics Directorate. My appointment was through the "rotating program," which recruits academics to join the foundation for two years with the expectation that they would later resume work at their home institution.
Working at the foundation was an honor, tremendously rewarding, and enjoyable despite the long hours and mounting responsibilities. As Program Director, I had the opportunity to define the identity of my program and formulate guidelines to consider and disperse large amounts of funding to Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) and their collaborators. I found that executing this mandate was both challenging and rewarding. Although promoting diversity in science is very worthwhile, it is a challenging thing to accomplish, for sure. One must consider the many connotations of diversity – geographical, intellectual, institutional, and social, to name a few – while simultaneously upholding the merits associated with NSF funding. In addition, I battled to promote more participation, considering the tacit and not so implicit (!) barriers that exclude minoritized scholars from funding competitions. As I reflect on my work, however, I am satisfied with my tenure's relative successes. In terms of numbers, my program received a record number of submissions in 2024 before my departure. I also recruited a large number of reviewers, and 78 percent had never reviewed for NSF and worked in MSIs, a reliable indicator of diversity and inclusiveness. On the more qualitative side, I enjoyed the satisfaction of assisting scholars nationwide, especially first-generation and junior scholars, in fulfilling their funding aspirations.
In conclusion, what does all this mean to sociology? First and foremost, it means that sociology is alive and well. Many of the skills we teach are applicable and transferable to various settings. One of the implications of promoting diversity is an appreciation, tolerance, and understanding of innovation, a core value among funding mechanisms. Bourdieu's dictum for practices and social reproduction deserves serious consideration. We also should not discount our passion for creativity and evidence-based thinking. In short, my experience leads me to agree now more than ever with Albert O. Hirschman when he cautions us to resist the tendencies to spouse "compulsive and mindless theorizing," a disease which, as Hirschman aptly points out, is debilitating and prevalent in academic inquiry.