Three challenges for behavioural science and policy: the empirical, the normative and the political

Robert Lepenies, Kathryn MacKay, Muireann Quigley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In a ‘post-truth’ era in which personality and opinion trump evidence and reason, the need for frankness in debates about the use and boundaries of science and policy is high. We welcome the reflective and nuanced approach to behavioural science in policy-making in Sanders, Snijders and Hallsworth's (2018) piece. Despite our support for the approach in this paper, we suggest that there are deeper issues than are currently acknowledged. Our critique tackles three issues: the empirical, the normative and the political. In the first section, we examine what counts as ‘behavioural’ and how this label is used to legitimate a range of policy activities. We then look at randomised controlled trials in the next section, highlighting the extra-scientific dimensions of the empirical ‘What Works’ revolution. Finally, we question some ontological assumptions that drive empirical research and its translation into policy, asking where the collective is to be found in behavioural public policy.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)174-182
Number of pages9
JournalBehavioural Public Policy
Volume2
Issue number2
Early online date14 Aug 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2018

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Three challenges for behavioural science and policy: the empirical, the normative and the political'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this