Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Three Challenges for Behavioural Science and Po...

Electronic data

  • Final_Behavioural_Science_and_Policy_Commentary_17_Jan

    Rights statement: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioural-public-policy/article/three-challenges-for-behavioural-science-and-policy-the-empirical-the-normative-and-the-political/6934E3ED1A1FE1E5714A9309BB73D1A6 The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Behavioural Public Policy, 2 (2), pp 174-182 2018, © 2018 Cambridge University Press.

    Accepted author manuscript, 306 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Three Challenges for Behavioural Science and Policy: The Empirical, the Normative, and the Political

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineComment/debatepeer-review

Published

Standard

Three Challenges for Behavioural Science and Policy: The Empirical, the Normative, and the Political. / Lepenies, Robert; MacKay, Kathryn; Quigley, Muireann.
In: Behavioural Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2, 11.2018, p. 174-182.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineComment/debatepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Lepenies R, MacKay K, Quigley M. Three Challenges for Behavioural Science and Policy: The Empirical, the Normative, and the Political. Behavioural Public Policy. 2018 Nov;2(2):174-182. Epub 2018 Aug 14. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2018.18

Author

Lepenies, Robert ; MacKay, Kathryn ; Quigley, Muireann. / Three Challenges for Behavioural Science and Policy : The Empirical, the Normative, and the Political. In: Behavioural Public Policy. 2018 ; Vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 174-182.

Bibtex

@article{9ad5563662b74d5b8800039371ab1bc7,
title = "Three Challenges for Behavioural Science and Policy: The Empirical, the Normative, and the Political",
abstract = "In a {\textquoteleft}post-truth{\textquoteright} 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 {\textquoteleft}behavioural{\textquoteright} 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 {\textquoteleft}What Works{\textquoteright} 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.",
author = "Robert Lepenies and Kathryn MacKay and Muireann Quigley",
note = "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioural-public-policy/article/three-challenges-for-behavioural-science-and-policy-the-empirical-the-normative-and-the-political/6934E3ED1A1FE1E5714A9309BB73D1A6 The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Behavioural Public Policy, 2 (2), pp 174-182 2018, {\textcopyright} 2018 Cambridge University Press. ",
year = "2018",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1017/bpp.2018.18",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "174--182",
journal = "Behavioural Public Policy",
issn = "2398-0648",
publisher = "Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Three Challenges for Behavioural Science and Policy

T2 - The Empirical, the Normative, and the Political

AU - Lepenies, Robert

AU - MacKay, Kathryn

AU - Quigley, Muireann

N1 - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioural-public-policy/article/three-challenges-for-behavioural-science-and-policy-the-empirical-the-normative-and-the-political/6934E3ED1A1FE1E5714A9309BB73D1A6 The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Behavioural Public Policy, 2 (2), pp 174-182 2018, © 2018 Cambridge University Press.

PY - 2018/11

Y1 - 2018/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1017/bpp.2018.18

DO - 10.1017/bpp.2018.18

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 2

SP - 174

EP - 182

JO - Behavioural Public Policy

JF - Behavioural Public Policy

SN - 2398-0648

IS - 2

ER -