Co-designing behavioural public policy: lessons from the field about how to ‘nudge plus’

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2021-02-10 DOI:10.1332/174426420X16000979778231
L. Richardson, P. John
{"title":"Co-designing behavioural public policy: lessons from the field about how to ‘nudge plus’","authors":"L. Richardson, P. John","doi":"10.1332/174426420X16000979778231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Behavioural public policies, known as nudges, suffer from lack of citizen consent and involvement, which has led to an argument for more reflective nudges, known as ‘nudge plus’.Aims and objectives: How can more citizen reflection be introduced\n in a way that is not itself top-down and paternalist in spite of good intentions? How might these ‘nudge pluses’ develop on the ground?Methods: This paper reports a mixed-methods case study.Findings: In the case study, there was an intervention that started\n off as a top-down nudge, using a randomised controlled trial. The nudge then evolved into a bottom-up initiative with citizen input aided by a design lab approach.Discussion and conclusion: One way to address tensions between top-down and bottom-up approaches is to let in the messiness\n and loss of direct control implied in a design lab, whereby nudge pluses might evolve naturally and without expert direction. The success of the eventual initiative points the way to more design-based nudge plus interventions. Nudge pluses may emerge naturally as a result of the evolutionary\n co-design process. There is potential for replication, with cross-fertilisation between different traditions by introducing behaviour change policies with a design-based approach.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420X16000979778231","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background: Behavioural public policies, known as nudges, suffer from lack of citizen consent and involvement, which has led to an argument for more reflective nudges, known as ‘nudge plus’.Aims and objectives: How can more citizen reflection be introduced in a way that is not itself top-down and paternalist in spite of good intentions? How might these ‘nudge pluses’ develop on the ground?Methods: This paper reports a mixed-methods case study.Findings: In the case study, there was an intervention that started off as a top-down nudge, using a randomised controlled trial. The nudge then evolved into a bottom-up initiative with citizen input aided by a design lab approach.Discussion and conclusion: One way to address tensions between top-down and bottom-up approaches is to let in the messiness and loss of direct control implied in a design lab, whereby nudge pluses might evolve naturally and without expert direction. The success of the eventual initiative points the way to more design-based nudge plus interventions. Nudge pluses may emerge naturally as a result of the evolutionary co-design process. There is potential for replication, with cross-fertilisation between different traditions by introducing behaviour change policies with a design-based approach.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
共同设计行为公共政策:如何“推动+”的经验教训
背景:被称为“助推”的行为公共政策缺乏公民的同意和参与,这导致了一种对更多反思性助推的争论,被称为“助推+”。目的和目标:如何以一种不是自上而下和家长主义的方式引入更多的公民反思,尽管出发点是好的?这些“助推效应”将如何在实际中发展?方法:采用混合方法进行个案研究。研究结果:在案例研究中,采用随机对照试验,从自上而下的推动开始进行干预。然后,推动演变成一个自下而上的倡议,在设计实验室方法的帮助下,由公民参与。讨论和结论:解决自顶向下和自底向上方法之间的紧张关系的一种方法是,在设计实验室中引入混乱和直接控制的丧失,在没有专家指导的情况下,轻推效应可能会自然发展。最终倡议的成功为更多基于设计的推动加干预指明了道路。作为共同设计过程的进化结果,助推效应可能会自然出现。通过采用基于设计的方法引入行为改变政策,在不同的传统之间进行交叉受精,存在复制的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1