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
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Comment/debate › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Comment/debate › peer-review
}
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 -