scholarly journals Nudging transparent behavioural science and policy

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
OLIVIA M. MAYNARD ◽  
MARCUS R. MUNAFÒ
Keyword(s):  
Science Research ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Behavioural Insights ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
Research Transparency

AbstractThere are inherent differences in the priorities of academics and policy-makers. These pose unique challenges for teams such as the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), which has positioned itself as an organisation conducting academically rigorous behavioural science research in policy settings. Here we outline the threats to research transparency and reproducibility that stem from working with policy-makers and other non-academic stakeholders. These threats affect how we perform, communicate, verify and evaluate research. Solutions that increase research transparency include pre-registering study protocols, making data open and publishing summaries of results. We suggest an incentive structure (a simple ‘nudge’) that rewards BIT's non-academic partners for engaging in these practices.

scholarly journals Behavioural Insights Team: ethical, professional and historical considerations

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
LIAM DELANEY
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Policy Agenda ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Behavioural Insights ◽  
Professional Codes

AbstractThe Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) has led in the promotion and adoption of behavioural science research in public policy. This comment addresses a number of issues that must be faced by BIT and the wider behavioural public policy agenda as the field becomes institutionalised and normalised within public policy internationally, in particular issues of ethics and professional codes.

scholarly journals From libertarian paternalism to liberalism: behavioural science and policy in an age of new technology

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Dario Krpan ◽  
Milan Urbaník
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Libertarian Paternalism ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Behavioural Interventions ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Ethical Debate ◽  
Virtual And Augmented Reality

Abstract Behavioural science has been effectively used by policy makers in various domains, from health to savings. However, interventions that behavioural scientists typically employ to change behaviour have been at the centre of an ethical debate, given that they include elements of paternalism that have implications for people's freedom of choice. In the present article, we argue that this ethical debate could be resolved in the future through implementation and advancement of new technologies. We propose that several technologies which are currently available and are rapidly evolving (i.e., virtual and augmented reality, social robotics, gamification, self-quantification, and behavioural informatics) have a potential to be integrated with various behavioural interventions in a non-paternalistic way. More specifically, people would decide themselves which behaviours they want to change and select the technologies they want to use for this purpose, and the role of policy makers would be to develop transparent behavioural interventions for these technologies. In that sense, behavioural science would move from libertarian paternalism to liberalism, given that people would freely choose how they want to change, and policy makers would create technological interventions that make this change possible.

scholarly journals COBRA: A Research Accelerator for the Crustal Ocean Biosphere

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-131
Author(s):  
Julie A. Huber ◽  
Beth N. Orcutt
Keyword(s):  
Deep Sea ◽  
Earth Science ◽  
Deep Ocean ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Private Institutions ◽  
Data Systems ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Human Perturbation ◽  
Inform Decision Making

Abstract The deep seafloor covers two-thirds of Earth's surface area, but our understanding of the ecosystems and resources found in the deep ocean, as well as the ability of deep-sea ecosystems to withstand human perturbation, is limited. These deep-sea habitats demand urgent study as there are emergent human uses in the form of deep-sea mining and carbon sequestration that will fundamentally alter physical, chemical, and biological conditions that took millions of years to establish. We propose the international network COBRA, a research accelerator for the crustal ocean biosphere. COBRA will bring together diverse stakeholders and experts, including interdisciplinary academic and government scientists, private institutions, policy makers, data systems engineers, industry experts, and others to coordinate efforts that generate new knowledge and inform decision making about activities that could affect the deep ocean and, by extension, all of society. We will also train the next generation of leaders in ocean exploration, science, and policy through an innovative virtual program to carry this effort into future generations of ocean and earth science research. COBRA will inform policies relating to emergent industrial uses of the deep ocean, decrease the likelihood of serious harm to the environment, and maintain ecosystem services for the benefit of society.

scholarly journals From Libertarian Paternalism to Liberalism: Behavioural Science and Policy in an Age of New Technology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Krpan ◽  
Milan Urbanik
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Libertarian Paternalism ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Behavioural Interventions ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Ethical Debate ◽  
Virtual And Augmented Reality

Behavioural science has been effectively used by policy makers in various domains, from health to savings. However, interventions that behavioural scientists typically employ to change behaviour have been at the centre of an ethical debate, given that they include elements of paternalism that have implications for people’s freedom of choice. In the present article, we argue that this ethical debate could be resolved in the future through implementation and advancement of new technologies. We propose that several technologies which are currently available and are rapidly evolving (i.e., virtual and augmented reality, social robotics, gamification, self-quantification, and behavioural informatics) have a potential to be integrated with various behavioural interventions in a non-paternalistic way. More specifically, people would decide themselves which behaviours they want to change and select the technologies they want to use for this purpose, and the role of policy makers would be to develop transparent behavioural interventions for these technologies. In that sense, behavioural science would move from libertarian paternalism to liberalism, given that people would freely choose how they want to change, and policy makers would create technological interventions that make this change possible.

scholarly journals Multifunctionality of agriculture, public policies and scientific evidences: Some critical issues of contemporary controversies

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Laurent ◽  
Marielle Berriet-Solliec ◽  
Marc Kirsch ◽  
Pierre Labarthe ◽  
AurélieT AurélieTrouvé
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Public Policy Analysis ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
The Status ◽  
New Situation

Various theoretical models of public policy analysis are used to treat situations of decision-making in which public deciders have to take into account the multifunctionality of agriculture. For some, science-society relations are not really problematical. Others acknowledge the current attempts of these policy-makers to find adequate scientific knowledge, and the difficulties they encounter. These difficulties stem partly from the very content of knowledge produced by research. Could other modes of production be more efficient? The status of the knowledge produced by these approaches is a subject of debate. Bridging the divide between science and policy more effectively is not only a question of knowledge brokerage.Accessibility and reliability of the existing evidences are also problems to be addressed. The debates around evidence-based practices may provide some landmarks in this new situation although they also emphasize the limits of the tools that can be built for this purpose.  

scholarly journals Precincts and Prospects in the Use of Focus Groups in Social and Behavioral Science Research

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic Sagoe
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Group Method ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Behavioral Science Research ◽  
Social And Behavioral Science ◽  
Focus Group Method ◽  
Practical Recommendations

Over the past few years, the focus group method has assumed a very important role as a method for collecting qualitative data in social and behavioural science research. This article elucidates theoretical and practical problems and prospects associated with the use of focus groups as a qualitative research method in social and behavioural science research. The core uses of focus groups in social and behavioural science research are discussed. In addition, the strengths and limitations of employing focus groups in social and behavioural science research are elucidated. Furthermore, the article discusses practical recommendations for strengthening the focus group method in social and behavioural science research.

Building an Infrastructure to Support the Use of Government Administrative Data for Program Performance and Social Science Research

2017 ◽  
Vol 675 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Lane
Keyword(s):  
Community Of Practice ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Multiple Stakeholders ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Data Infrastructure ◽  
The Public ◽  
Intellectual Engagement

This article provides an overview of the elements necessary to build a sustainable research data infrastructure. I argue that it needs the financial and intellectual engagement of a community of practice. Most attention has been paid to researchers and policy-makers, but a third group—government programmatic agencies—must be a focal point since they act as both data producers and as policy implementers. I also discuss possible business models that are both consistent with serving the needs of multiple stakeholders and that are not completely dependent on the largesse of the public purse.

The Determinants of Program Success and Failure

1981 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold Wolman
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Evaluation Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Program Performance ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Program Success ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTRecent social science research – particularly evaluation research and cost-benefit analysis – has produced a substantial and very useful literature on the impact of public policy and on the relationship of program inputs to outputs and outcomes. However, the explicit focus of these analytic techniques on impacts and outcomes does not systematically yield useful information on why programs have been successes or failures. Policy-makers faced with an evaluation of program success or failure obviously need to know something about the why question if they are to make needed adjustments in the program or carry the lessons of one program to other areas. This article attempts to present a comprehensive framework for explaining and understanding program performance. It is meant to have two uses and to serve two clienteles. First, it presents for social scientists a set of research questions to guide research into the determinants of program performance. Second, it provides public policy-makers with a set of action questions which should be asked and answered appropriately in the actual formulating and carrying out of public policy, as a means of enhancing the chances of program success. The framework is divided into two parts, the formulating process and the carrying out process, although these two processes may overlap considerably, both in time and in terms of substantive concerns. Program success may be impeded by problems or inadequacies in one or more of the components in either the formulating stage or the carrying out stage or in both.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document