How do behavioral public policy experts see the role of complex systems perspectives? An expert interview study

Author:

Puukko Sarmite1ORCID,Heino Matti T J1ORCID,Kostamo Katri1ORCID,Saurio Kaisa1ORCID,Sniehotta Falko F23ORCID,Hankonen Nelli1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. The Unit of Social Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University , Tampere , Finland

2. Centre of Preventive Medicine and Digital Health (CPD), Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg , Mannheim, Germany

3. NIHR Policy Research Unit, Newcastle University , Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Abstract

Abstract Amidst the global momentum of behavioral insights (BI), there has been a shift from mostly nudge-based BI applications to systemic approaches. This is particularly pressing in public health, where interacting issues regularly produce unanticipated consequences. Regardless, little is known about adopting complex systems approaches in behavioral public policy. This study aims to capture current practices of international BI experts on the definition, application, drivers, and hindering factors in adopting complex systems approaches in public policy. Semi-structured individual expert interviews (n = 12) of international BI experts with extensive experience in educating, cooperating with, and/or advising public servants were analyzed with inductive content analysis. While the working definition of BI aligned with published definitions, experts varied in their descriptions of complex systems approaches and its significance for public policy, including socioecological aspects, systematic BI use across policy stages, recognizing intertwined behavior, and lack of ready-made solutions. They emphasized the importance of systems approaches, identifying drivers (e.g. need for a broader focus) and hindrances (e.g. pressure for quick results). Embracing complex systems in behavioral public policy provides a holistic perspective, extending beyond simple nudges, sometimes presumed as universally applicable. While complexity perspectives would align with policymakers’ worldview, applications require more work to tailor to local situations and to evaluate. Recognizing that, given their distinct expertise content, BI expertise can be quite different from complex systems expertise. The field would benefit from clear descriptions and specialized training for effective integration and advocacy for these approaches.

Funder

Research Council of Finland

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3