实践中的行为洞察团队:推动任务和试验方法

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
S. Ball, B. Head
{"title":"实践中的行为洞察团队:推动任务和试验方法","authors":"S. Ball, B. Head","doi":"10.1332/030557320x15840777045205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Behavioural and experimental projects have become increasingly popular with policymakers. Behavioural insights teams have used several policy design and implementation tools drawn from behavioural sciences, especially randomised controlled trials, to test the design of ‘nudge’ interventions. This approach has attained discursive legitimacy in government agencies seeking to use the best available evidence for behaviourally informed, evidence-based policy innovation. We examine the practices of governmental behavioural insights teams in Australia, drawing on two research projects that included interviews with key personnel. We find that teams make strong commitments to using and promoting randomised controlled trials in government policy innovation. Nevertheless, some members of these teams are beginning to appreciate the constraints of relying solely on randomised controlled trials in the development of behavioural public policy. We conclude that while an initial focus on rigorous trials helped behavioural insights teams establish themselves in policymaking, strict adherence may represent a risk to their long-term growth and relevance.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"76 13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Behavioural insights teams in practice: nudge missions and methods on trial\",\"authors\":\"S. Ball, B. Head\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/030557320x15840777045205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Behavioural and experimental projects have become increasingly popular with policymakers. Behavioural insights teams have used several policy design and implementation tools drawn from behavioural sciences, especially randomised controlled trials, to test the design of ‘nudge’ interventions. This approach has attained discursive legitimacy in government agencies seeking to use the best available evidence for behaviourally informed, evidence-based policy innovation. We examine the practices of governmental behavioural insights teams in Australia, drawing on two research projects that included interviews with key personnel. We find that teams make strong commitments to using and promoting randomised controlled trials in government policy innovation. Nevertheless, some members of these teams are beginning to appreciate the constraints of relying solely on randomised controlled trials in the development of behavioural public policy. We conclude that while an initial focus on rigorous trials helped behavioural insights teams establish themselves in policymaking, strict adherence may represent a risk to their long-term growth and relevance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"volume\":\"76 13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15840777045205\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15840777045205","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

行为和实验项目越来越受到政策制定者的欢迎。行为洞察小组使用了从行为科学中提取的几个政策设计和实施工具,特别是随机对照试验,来测试“助推”干预措施的设计。这种方法在政府机构中获得了话语的合法性,这些机构试图利用现有的最佳证据进行行为知情的、基于证据的政策创新。我们研究了澳大利亚政府行为洞察团队的做法,借鉴了两个研究项目,其中包括对关键人员的采访。我们发现,团队对在政府政策创新中使用和促进随机对照试验做出了坚定的承诺。然而,这些团队的一些成员开始意识到,在制定行为公共政策时,仅仅依靠随机对照试验是有局限性的。我们的结论是,虽然最初对严格试验的关注有助于行为洞察团队在决策中建立自己的地位,但严格遵守可能会对他们的长期成长和相关性构成风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Behavioural insights teams in practice: nudge missions and methods on trial
Behavioural and experimental projects have become increasingly popular with policymakers. Behavioural insights teams have used several policy design and implementation tools drawn from behavioural sciences, especially randomised controlled trials, to test the design of ‘nudge’ interventions. This approach has attained discursive legitimacy in government agencies seeking to use the best available evidence for behaviourally informed, evidence-based policy innovation. We examine the practices of governmental behavioural insights teams in Australia, drawing on two research projects that included interviews with key personnel. We find that teams make strong commitments to using and promoting randomised controlled trials in government policy innovation. Nevertheless, some members of these teams are beginning to appreciate the constraints of relying solely on randomised controlled trials in the development of behavioural public policy. We conclude that while an initial focus on rigorous trials helped behavioural insights teams establish themselves in policymaking, strict adherence may represent a risk to their long-term growth and relevance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信