The field of behavioural science is evolving, blurring the boundaries of what now constitutes practice. To make the most of its potential, we need an open conversation about both the limitations and opportunities on offer to those involved in shaping policy.
An evolution in practice
Behavioural science. Behavioural insight. Behaviour change. Whatever you choose to call it, the discipline’s star is undoubtedly on the rise. Since David Cameron established the original ‘Nudge Unit’ in 2010, behavioural teams have sprung up across central governmental departments. Keen to get in on the action, research agencies have also developed and grown their own behavioural teams, including Kantar Public’s Behavioural Practice, where until recently I oversaw the qualitative aspects of the offer. The field is thriving.
During this period, practice has undergone an evolution – and with good reason. The most pressing behavioural challenges we face as a society – including those relating to Net Zero and life-long learning – involve novel behaviours, taking place in fluid environments, in which individual behaviours are nested within complex systems that are in turn shaped by the actions of state and industrial actors. As an increasing number of policymakers have looked to the discipline to inform their work, it has therefore shifted its focus from the development of individual-level nudges aimed at driving incremental change to something much broader.
This is a welcome development, enabling a richer understanding of the full range of drivers and barriers to behaviour – and underpinning the creation of potential solutions to these. Across the last few years, just some of these developments include the greater use of:
- Diagnostic tools, often leveraging qualitative research, to understand and unpick the contextual factors shaping the behaviour of individuals and other influencing actors
- Systems thinking to map the relationships between actors, interdependencies between factors and entry points for intervention at different levels
- Participatory and co-creative approaches to developing and engaging around practical solutions, particularly where these rely on delivery by industry
Blurred boundaries
For those working in the field, this evolution can feel exhilarating, creating a spirit of creativity and innovation. One aspect of behavioural work that has remained constant is the way that it has incorporated research more closely into policymaking – and recent shifts have opened up this influence to a wider range of approaches. Arguably, the practice has become a bit of a ‘magpie’ discipline, borrowing the best from other fields, including ethnography, organisational research, service design and co-creation, and tying them together into a process aimed at creating more human-centred policy.
At the same time, these changes have also blurred the boundaries of what exactly we mean by behavioural science, or insights, or just good old behaviour change. This uncertainty around the name of the discipline is, in my experience, mirrored in a wider lack of consensus around what actually constitutes behavioural work in the present day. Undoubtedly, there is some freedom in this for practitioners, allowing us to draw on whatever approach might work best to understand how to influence behaviour in any given context. However, it also creates a mystique that can sometimes lead to unhelpful expectations from clients who are less familiar with practice and for whom some of the more traditional associations of the discipline still loom large.
This is particularly the case when thinking of some of the more challenging behavioural issues outlined above. I think that most practitioners will have experience of a client looking to behavioural science to provide a quick fix to what is in reality a complex policy issue requiring a similarly complex solution. In other instances, impacts on expectations are more subtle, but there can still be a pull towards arcane technical explanations drawing on seemingly scientific models, at the expense of a nuanced understanding of how to operate with the particular contexts shaping behaviour. Another common issue is a focus on producing quantified evidence to drive forward a policy agenda before a proper understanding has been developed of how best to intervene, let alone whether that response is amenable to experimental measurement.
A call to the industry
Despite these misunderstandings, I can’t help but wonder whether as a community we are also sometimes complicit in maintaining the discipline’s mystique? Cynically, this could read as an effort to shore up our own reputation as experts. More prosaically though, it could just reflect our own uncertainty.
So I’ve started this blog as my contribution towards starting a more nuanced conversation around how the application of theory and practice from across the social sciences can help better understand and positively shape human behaviour.
In my view, the direction of the field as currently practiced presents opportunities for a more contextually sensitive and relational approach to policymaking, integrating a deeper understanding of how individual behaviour is shaped by the wider systems in which we all live and act. To make the most of this opportunity though, it is also incumbent on us as practitioners to be more open about some of the limitations of the approach as it has traditionally been practiced.
In the spirit of conversation, I would like to hear from others. How does the above resonate with your experiences? How should we define the boundaries of behavioural practice – and is that even necessary? And perhaps most urgently, can we at least agree on a name for what we do?!
Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash