Buried Academic Treasures

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Barrett and Greene: “…one of the presenters who said: “We have lots of research that leads to no results.”

As some of you know, we’ve written a book with Don Kettl to help academically trained researchers write in a way that would be understandable by decision makers who could make use of their findings. But the keys to writing well are only a small part of the picture. Elected and appointed officials have the capacity to ignore nearly anything, no matter how well written it is.

This is more than just a frustration to researchers, it’s a gigantic loss to the world of public administration. We spend lots of time reading through reports and frequently come across nuggets of insights that we believe could help make improvements in nearly every public sector endeavor from human resources to budgeting to performance management to procurement and on and on. We, and others, can do our best to get attention for this kind of information, but that doesn’t mean that the decision makers have the time or the inclination to take steps toward taking advantage of great ideas.

We don’t want to place the blame for the disconnect between academia and practitioners on either party. To one degree or the other they’re both at fault, with taxpayers and the people who rely on government services – and that’s pretty much everybody except for people who have gone off the grid – as the losers.

Following, from our experience, are six reasons we believe that it’s difficult to close the gap between the world of research and the realm of utility. The first three are aimed at government leaders, the last three have academics in mind…(More)”

Science Diplomacy and the Rise of Technopoles

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Vaughan Turekian and Peter Gluckman: “…Science diplomacy has an important, even existential imperative to help the world reconsider the necessity of working together toward big global goals. Climate change may be the most obvious example of where global action is needed, but many other issues have similar characteristics—deep ocean resources, space, and other ungoverned areas, to name a few.

However, taking up this mantle requires acknowledging why past efforts have failed to meet their goals. The global commitment to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is an example. Weaknesses in the UN system, compounded by varied commitments from member states, will prevent the achievement of the SDGs by 2030. This year’s UN Summit of the Future is intended to reboot the global commitment to the sustainability agenda. Regardless of what type of agreement is signed at the summit, its impact may be limited.  

Science diplomacy has an important, even existential imperative to help the world reconsider the necessity of working together toward big global goals.

The science community must play an active part in ensuring progress is in fact made, but that will require an expansion of the community’s current role. To understand what this might mean, consider that the Pact for the Future agreed in New York City in September 2024 places “science, technology, and innovation” as one of its five themes. But that becomes actionable either in the narrow sense that technology will provide “answers” to global problems or in the platitudinous sense that science provides advice that is not acted upon. This dichotomy of unacceptable approaches has long bedeviled science’s influence.

For the world to make better use of science, science must take on an expanded responsibility in solving problems at both global and local scales. And science itself must become part of a toolkit—both at the practical and the diplomatic level—to address the sorts of challenges the world will face in the future. To make this happen, more countries must make science diplomacy a core part of their agenda by embedding science advisors within foreign ministries, connecting diplomats to science communities.

As the pace of technological change generates both existential risk and economic, environmental, and social opportunities, science diplomacy has a vital task in balancing outcomes for the benefit of more people. It can also bring the science community (including the social sciences and humanities) to play a critical role alongside nation states. And, as new technological developments enable nonstate actors, and especially the private sector, science diplomacy has an important role to play in helping nation states develop policy that can identify common solutions and engage key partners…(More)”.

Harnessing the feed: social media for mental health information and support 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by ReachOut: “…highlights how a social media ban could cut young people off from vital mental health support, including finding that 73 per cent of young people in Australia turn to social media when it comes to support for their mental health.

Based on research with over 2000 young people, the report found a range of benefits for young people seeking mental health support via social media (predominantly TikTok, YouTube and Instagram). 66 per cent of young people surveyed reported increased awareness about their mental health because of relevant content they accessed via social media, 47 per said they had looked for information about how to get professional mental health support on social media and 40 per cent said they sought professional support after viewing mental health information on social media. 

Importantly, half of young people with a probable mental health condition said that they were searching for mental health information or support on social media because they don’t have access to professional support. 

However, young people also highlighted a range of concerns about social media via the research. 38 per cent were deeply concerned about harmful mental health content they have come across on platforms and 43 per cent of the young people who sought support online were deeply concerned about the addictive nature of social media.  

The report highlights young people’s calls for social media to be safer. They want: an end to addictive features like infinite scroll, more control over the content they see, better labelling of mental health information from credible sources, better education and more mental health information provided across platforms…(More)”.

Data-driven decisions: the case for randomised policy trials

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Speech by Andrew Leigh: “…In 1747, 31-year-old Scottish naval surgeon James Lind set about determining the most effective treatment for scurvy, a disease that was killing thousands of sailors around the world. Selecting 12 sailors suffering from scurvy, Lind divided them into six pairs. Each pair received a different treatment: cider; sulfuric acid; vinegar; seawater; a concoction of nutmeg, garlic and mustard; and two oranges and a lemon. In less than a week, the pair who had received oranges and lemons were back on active duty, while the others languished. Given that sulphuric acid was the British Navy’s main treatment for scurvy, this was a crucial finding.

The trial provided robust evidence for the powers of citrus because it created a credible counterfactual. The sailors didn’t choose their treatments, nor were they assigned based on the severity of their ailment. Instead, they were randomly allocated, making it likely that difference in their recovery were due to the treatment rather than other characteristics.

Lind’s randomised trial, one of the first in history, has attained legendary status. Yet because 1747 was so long ago, it is easy to imagine that the methods he used are no longer applicable. After all, Lind’s research was conducted at a time before electricity, cars and trains, an era when slavery was rampant and education was reserved for the elite. Surely, some argue, ideas from such an age have been superseded today.

In place of randomised trials, some put their faith in ‘big data’. Between large-scale surveys and extensive administrative datasets, the world is awash in data as never before. Each day, hundreds of exabytes of data are produced. Big data has improved the accuracy of weather forecasts, permitted researchers to study social interactions across racial and ethnic lines, enabled the analysis of income mobility at a fine geographic scale and much more…(More)”

‘Evidence banks’ can drive better decisions in public life

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Anjana Ahuja: “Modern life is full of urgent questions to which governments should be seeking answers. Does working from home — WFH — damage productivity? Do LTNs (low-traffic neighbourhoods) cut air pollution? Are policy ideas that can be summed up in three-letter acronyms more palatable to the public than those, say Ulez, requiring four? 

That last one is tongue-in-cheek — but the point stands. While clinical trials can tell us reasonably confidently whether a drug or treatment works, a similar culture of evaluation is generally lacking for other types of intervention, such as crime prevention. Now research funders are stepping into the gap to build “evidence banks” or evidence syntheses: globally accessible one-stop shops for assessing the weight of evidence on a particular topic.

Last month, the Economic and Social Research Council, together with the Wellcome Trust, pledged a total of around £54mn to develop a database and tools that can collate and make sense of evidence in complex areas like climate change and healthy ageing. The announcement, Nature reports, was timed to coincide with the UN Summit of the Future, a conference in New York geared to improving the world for future generations.

Go-to repositories of good quality information that can feed the policy machine are essential. They normalise the role of robust evidence in public life. This matters: the policy pipeline has too often lacked due diligence. That can mean public money being squandered on ineffective wheezes, or worse.

Take Scared Straight, a crime prevention scheme originating in the US around 40 years ago and adopted in the UK. It was designed to keep teens on the straight and narrow by introducing them to prisoners. Those dalliances with delinquents were counterproductive. A review showed that children taking part were more likely to end up committing crimes than those who did not participate in the scheme…(More)”.

Challenging the neutrality myth in climate science and activism

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Christel W. van Eck, Lydia Messling & Katharine Hayhoe: “The myth of a scientist as a purely rational thinker, a “brain in a jar” devoid of emotions and values, still exists in some scientific circles. However, philosophers of science have long shown that it is a fundamental misconception to believe that science can be entirely free of social, political, and ethical values, and function as a neutral entity. As Lynda Walsh explains compellingly in “Scientists as Prophets,” the question of how scientists ought to engage with society is a value judgement itself3. This is particularly true in complex crises like climate change where traditional democratic debate alone cannot ascertain the optimal course of action. Scientists often play a crucial role in such crises, not only through conducting rigorous research, but also through engaging in dialogue with society by framing their research in terms of societal values – which includes rejecting the notion of morally neutral engagement.

This school of thought was recently challenged in a comment in Nature Climate Action titled “The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism” In it, Ulf Büntgen, a Professor of Environmental Systems Analysis at Cambridge University, communicated his personal concerns about climate scientists engaging in activism. The comment sparked considerable debate on social media, particularly among climate scientists, many of whom reject the views presented by Büntgen.

We believe a response is necessary, as many of Büntgen’s assumptions are unnuanced or unjustified. It is difficult to provide a full critique when Büntgen has not clearly defined what he means by ‘climate activism’, ‘quasi-religious belief’, or ‘a priori interests’, nor explicit examples evidencing what sort of interaction he finds to be objectionable. However, whether scientists consider certain activities to be activism, and their opinions on colleagues who engage in such activities, along with the general public’s perception of these activities, has been the subject of multiple research studies. While the opinion of an individual scientist is interesting, we argue it is not representative of the broader community’s views nor does it reflect the efficacy of such actions. Furthermore, by making unilateral value-based judgements, we propose that Büntgen is engaging in precisely the activity he deprecates…(More)”

The Unaccountability Machine — why do big systems make bad decisions?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

FT Review of book by Dan Davies: “The starting point of Davies’ entertaining, insightful book is that the uncontrolled proliferation of accountability sinks is one of the central drivers of what historian Adam Tooze calls the “polycrisis” of the 21st century. Their influence reaches far beyond frustrated customers endlessly on hold to “computer says no” service departments. In finance, banking crises regularly recur — yet few individual bankers are found at fault. If politicians’ promises flop, they complain they have no power; the Deep State is somehow to blame.

The origin of the problem, Davies argues, is the managerial revolution that began after the second world war, abetted by the advent of cheap computing power and the diffusion of algorithmic decision-making into every sphere of life. These systems have ended up “acting like a car’s crumple-zone to shield any individual manager from a disastrous decision”, he writes. While attractive from the individual’s perspective, they scramble the feedback on which society as a whole depends.

Yet the story, Davies continues, is not so simple. Seen from another perspective, accountability sinks are entirely reasonable responses to the ever-increasing complexity of modern economies. Standardisation and explicit policies and procedures offer the only feasible route to meritocratic recruitment, consistent service and efficient work. Relying on the personal discretion of middle managers would simply result in a different kind of mess…(More)”.

The Arrival of Field Experiments in Economics

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Timothy Taylor: “When most people think of “experiments,” they think of test tubes and telescopes, of Petri dishes and Bunsen burners. But the physical apparatus is not central to what an “experiment” means. Instead, what matters is the ability to specify different conditions–and then to observe how the differences in the underlying conditions alter the outcomes. When “experiments” are understood in this broader way, the application of “experiments” is expanded.

For example, back in 1881 when Louis Pasteur tested his vaccine for sheep anthrax, he gave the vaccine to half of a flock of sheep, expose the entire group to anthrax, and showed that those with the vaccine survived. More recently, the “Green Revolution” in agricultural technology was essentially a set of experiments, by systematically breeding plant varieties and then looking at the outcomes in terms of yield, water use, pest resistance, and the like.

This understanding of “experiment” can be applied in economics, as well. John A. List explains in “Field Experiments: Here Today Gone Tomorrow?” (American Economist, published online August 6, 2024). By “field experiments,” List is seeking to differentiate his topic from “lab experiments,” which for economists refers to experiments carried out in a classroom context, often with students as the subjects, and to focus instead on experiments that involve people in the “field”–that is, in the context of their actual economic activities, including work, selling and buying, charitable giving, and the like. As List points out, these kinds of economic experiments have been going on for decades. He points out that government agencies have been conducting field experiments for decades…(More)”.

How to rebuild democracy to truly harness the power of the people

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Kyle Ellingson: “Many of us entered this so-called super-election year with a sense of foreboding. So far, not much has happened to allay those fears. Russia’s war on Ukraine is exacerbating a perception that democracy is threatened in Europe and beyond. In the US, Donald Trump, a presidential candidate with self-professed autocratic tendencies, has faced two assassination attempts. And more broadly, people seem to be losing faith in politics. “Most people from a diverse array of countries around the world lack confidence in the performance of their political institutions,” says a 2024 report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

On many objective measures, too, democracy isn’t functioning as it should. The systems we call democracies tend to favour the rich. Political violence is growing, as is legislative gridlock, and worldwide, elections are becoming less free and fair. Some 30 years after commentators crowed about the triumph of Western liberal democracy, their prediction seems further than ever from being realised. What happened?

According to Lex Paulson at the University Mohammed VI Polytechnic in Rabat, Morocco, we have lost sight of what democracy is. “We have made a terrible confusion between the system known as a republic – which relies on elections, parties and a permanent governing class – and the system known as a democracy, in which citizens directly participate in decisions and rotate power.” …(More)”.

China: Autocracy 2.0

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by David Y. Yang: “Autocracy 2.0, exemplified by modern China, is economically robust, technologically advanced, globally engaged, and controlled through subtle and sophisticated methods. What defines China’s political economy, and what drives Autocracy 2.0? What is its future direction? I start by discussing two key challenges autocracies face: incentives and information. I then describe Autocracy 1.0’s reliance on fear and repression to address these issues. It makes no credible promises, using coercion for compliance, resulting in a low-information environment. Next, I introduce Autocracy 2.0, highlighting its significant shift in handling commitment and information challenges. China uses economic incentives to align interests with regime survival, fostering support. It employs advanced bureaucratic structures and technology to manage incentives and information, enabling success in a high-information environment. Finally, I explore Autocracy 3.0’s potential. In China, forces might revert to Autocracy 1.0, using technology for state control as growth slows but aspirations stay high. Globally, modern autocracies, led by China, are becoming major geopolitical forces, challenging the liberal democratic order…(More)”.