Abstract
In keeping with the mission of Behavioral Science & Policy to promote the thoughtful application of rigorous social and behavioral science to policy and practice in ways that serve the public interest, the current issue offers a diverse set of articles that explore ways to effectively bridge the research–practice divide.
The first three articles identify the state of the art and the underlying challenges confronting efforts to build and disseminate research-driven enhancements to policy and practice.
The first article, by Faisal Naru, presents important and updated data on the growth of behavioral public policy initiatives around the world. He notes that in just the last 6 years, the number of organizations has tripled in size to over 600, including government departments, university and think tank–based research units, and private/corporate/multinational organizations. Going beyond describing the geographical, organizational, and thematic diversity of these efforts, Naru provides evidence that these operations not only give research-based advice but also serve by conducting original research, publicizing relevant research findings to enhance effective stakeholder engagement, and developing policy. In addition to identifying key challenges faced in trying to bridge the divide, Naru provides specific advice, such as focusing on current problems in practice (versus theory-driven problems) and prioritizing projects that have scalable pathways. Concluding that the growth of such efforts is a positive sign but that the impediments to desired impact remain significant, the article points out ways to address and overcome those impediments.
The second article, by Scott Young, focuses on the use of social and behavioral science in the private sector. Noting that the largest growth has been in the governmental sector, Young explores why the private sector has lagged in adoption and what can be done to foster the growth of demonstrably impactful private sector initiatives. Young observes that even in the health and financial sectors, where more well-established behavioral units have been created, these units have typically remained quite small. He identifies several obstacles to adoption by private sector organizations. First, he suggests that behavioral and social science has not been clearly defined for private sector objectives and, as a result, its use is not seen as distinct from good management. Whereas success in the pursuit of public sector missions has been more clearly linked to behavioral science insights and recommendations, this has been less clear in private sector settings. This leads to the second obstacle, which is that the application of behavioral and social science to private organizations is often perceived as a challenge to leaders’ competence; thus, it is unsurprising that private sector leaders would be defensive and resist such initiatives. Finally, the experimentation that often accompanies behavioral science practice is perceived as suggesting the lack of a proven solution rather than a rigorous pathway to get to such a solution. Young then proposes several actions to address these concerns, including how to enhance efficiency, foster private–public partnerships, and incorporate behavioral science more extensively into the education of future business leaders.
The third article, by Farimah HakemZadeh and Denise M. Rousseau, challenges the common practice of viewing evidence-based decision-making as a solo, individual endeavor. The authors then apply this lens to help explain what behavioral and social scientists and behavioral science organizations need to do to be more effective in disseminating behavioral science in a way that affects practice. They identify three types of networks that are essential to the promotion of evidence-based decision-making: (1) those that enable interdisciplinary collaborations and exchanges among researchers, (2) those that involve a wide array of stakeholder groups in the design and execution of relevant behavioral and social science research, and (3) those that build communities of practice for those who are working to conduct and disseminate behavioral science for practice. They then provide action guidance by specifying six phases involved in building the capability for sustained evidence-based decision-making.
The final two articles bridge the divide between behavioral science and practice by examining how to encourage universities and academics to get more involved in this type of research and dissemination. Focusing on national government policy and university structures and policies that can foster faculty involvement in research that has implications for practice, these articles recognize the importance of both the push and the pull required to get faculty more involved in social and behavioral science that can have practical impact.
Shibeal O’ Flaherty, Lizzie Martin, Syon Bhanot, Crystal Hall, Sebastian Jilke, Tyler Simko, and Mary Steffel draw on their experience in the U.S. Office of Evaluation Sciences to delineate five areas of misalignment between how academics and government researchers approach the use of research to assess and address government agency problems. Moreover, they outline potentially effective solutions to those areas of misalignment. First, the basic goals of pursuing new theory versus solving current problems can lead to incompatible research definition. But this challenge can be overcome by understanding the legitimate goals of each group and finding common ground in mutual interests. Second, the requirements of experimental rigor (e.g., random assignment) need to be tempered with attention to addressing real participant needs by adopting hybrid designs that serve both criteria. The third, fourth, and fifth issues all involve being more transparent and diligent concerning communication, data handling, and disseminating results in a variety of formats for quite varied constituencies. The authors draw on their experience in the U.S. federal government to offer potential solutions to incentive, priority, and goal incompatibilities.
The final article, by Jennifer Renick, Bruce W. Jentleson, and Emily J. Ozer, addresses a frequently overlooked obstacle to promoting behavioral and social science research that has an impact on practice and policy. Specifically, they draw on a recent study conducted for the Transforming Evidence Funders Network that reviews how historically based university structures, cultures, and policies can discourage rather than encourage the pursuit and implementation of scientifically rigorous and societally impactful research. Once they have identified the key discouraging practices, they then tap a study of 13 universities and 11 professional associations to identify promising practices that could be applied more widely to facilitate societally impactful research. For example, by revising faculty evaluation guidelines to give more attention and weight to societally impactful research, several institutions have successfully promoted proliferation of this kind of work. Other recommended strategies are to share lessons about best practices within interdisciplinary learning networks, publicize best practices and success stories, provide funding that is explicitly directed to such research, and create forums that foster engagement with the public and with policymakers.
Thank you for your interest in Behavioral Science & Policy. As always, we welcome feedback and ideas from the community and look forward to continuing to share with you the latest insights from behavioral science research for policy and practice.