Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Nudging transparent behavioural science and policy

  • OLIVIA M. MAYNARD (a1) and MARCUS R. MUNAFÒ (a1)
Abstract

There are inherent differences in the priorities of academics and policy-makers. These pose unique challenges for teams such as the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), which has positioned itself as an organisation conducting academically rigorous behavioural science research in policy settings. Here we outline the threats to research transparency and reproducibility that stem from working with policy-makers and other non-academic stakeholders. These threats affect how we perform, communicate, verify and evaluate research. Solutions that increase research transparency include pre-registering study protocols, making data open and publishing summaries of results. We suggest an incentive structure (a simple ‘nudge’) that rewards BIT's non-academic partners for engaging in these practices.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Nudging transparent behavioural science and policy
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Nudging transparent behavioural science and policy
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Nudging transparent behavioural science and policy
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
*Correspondence to: School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK. Email: olivia.maynard@bristol.ac.uk
References
Hide All
Bohannon, J. (2013), ‘Who's afraid of peer review’, Science, 342.
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R. and Altman, D. G. (2012), ‘Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials’, BMJ, 345: e5661.
Chadborn, T. and Sanders, M. (2014), Trait protocol: Contacting GPs to reduce unnecessary prescriptions of antibiotics [Online]. http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/TP2014015-Amendment-latest-1.pdf [Accessed 16 March 2018].
Foster, E. D. and Deardorff, A. (2017), ‘Open Science Framework (OSF)’, Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 105: 203206.
Franco, A., Malhotra, N. and Simonovits, G. (2014), ‘Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer’, Science, 345: 15021505.
Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D. and Ioannidis, J. P. (2016), ‘What does research reproducibility mean?’, Science translational medicine, 8: 341ps12341ps12.
Hallsworth, M., Chadborn, T., Sallis, A., Sanders, M., Berry, D., Greaves, F., Clements, L. and Davies, S. C. (2016), ‘Provision of social norm feedback to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: a pragmatic national randomised controlled trial’, The Lancet, 387: 17431752.
Hunter, J. (2012), ‘Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation’, Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2014), ‘How to make more published research true’, PLoS medicine, 11: e1001747.
Ioannidis, J. P., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D. D. and Goodman, S. N. (2015), ‘Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices’, PLoS biology, 13: e1002264.
Ioannidis, J. P., Munafo, M. R., Fusar-Poli, P., Nosek, B. A. and David, S. P. (2014), ‘Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention’, Trends Cogn Sci, 18: 235–41.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005), ‘Why most published research findings are false’, PLoS Med, 2: 696701.
Joober, R., Schmitz, N., Annable, L. and Boksa, P. (2012), ‘Publication bias: What are the challenges and can they be overcome?’, Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience: JPN, 37: 149.
Kerr, N. L. (1998), ‘HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2: 196217.
Kettle, S., Hernandez, M., Sanders, M., Hauser, O. and Ruda, S. (2017), ‘Failure to CAPTCHA attention: Null results from an honesty priming experiment in Guatemala’, Behavioral Sciences, 7: 28.
Kidwell, M. C., Lazarević, L. B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T. E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L.-S., Kennett, C., Slowik, A., Sonnleitner, C. and Hess-Holden, C. (2016), ‘Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency’, PLoS Biology, 14: e1002456.
Kriegeskorte, N. (2012), ‘Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science’, Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6.
Morey, R. D., Chambers, C. D., Etchells, P. J., Harris, C. R., Hoekstra, R., Lakens, D., Lewandowsky, S., Morey, C. C., Newman, D. P. and Schönbrodt, F. D. (2016), ‘The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review’, Royal Society Open Science, 3: 150547.
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Du Sert, N. P., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J. and Ioannidis, J. P. (2017), ‘A manifesto for reproducible science’, Nature Human Behaviour, 1: 0021.
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G. and Christensen, G. (2015), ‘Promoting an open research culture’, Science, 348: 14221425.
Rifai, N., Bossuyt, P. M., Ioannidis, J. P., Bray, K. R., Mcshane, L. M., Golub, R. M. and Hooft, L. (2014). ‘Registering diagnostic and prognostic trials of tests: is it the right thing to do?’, Clinical chemistry, 60: 11461152.
Rosenthal, R. (1979), ‘The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results’, Psychological bulletin, 86: 638.
Sanders, M., Snijders, V. and Hallsworth, M. (2018), ‘Behavioural science and policy – where are we now and where are we going?’, Behavioural Public Policy, 2(2): 144167.
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G. and Moher, D. (2010), ‘CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials’, BMC medicine, 8: 18.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. and Dobránszki, J. (2015), ‘Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review’, Accountability in research, 22: 2240.
Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J. and Molenaar, D. (2006), ‘The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis’, American Psychologist, 61: 726.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioural Public Policy
  • ISSN: 2398-063X
  • EISSN: 2398-0648
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioural-public-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed