Next we have a paper by Professor Chis Griffin, followed by the thoughts of Chris Holmes of C3, Collaborating for Health. All of these papers will be summarised in a later blog by the Principal Investigator Dr Fiona Spotswood.
Professor Christine Griffin, University of Bath
‘What would Stuart Hall do?’: Implications of a conjunctural analysis of
research and policy debates on Behaviour Change in the UK
There have been
many heart-felt tributes over the past few weeks to Stuart Hall, who died on 10
February, from across the worlds of politics, academia and the arts. He was, as
Martin Jacques put it: “an utterly unique figure”, as a Black intellectual,
Marxist, political activist and (co-)founder of cultural studies as a radical
trans-disciplinary project. One of the most significant intellectual and
political figures of the past 50 years, Stuart foresaw the profound
transformations of the British – and international - political systems in the
1970s, is credited with coining the term ‘Thatcherism’, and remained an
important theorist of neoliberalism until shortly before his death, writing in
the journal ‘Soundings’.
In one such
tribute, Tracy Jensen asked readers to consider “what would Stuart Hall do?” in
countering current debates and Coalition government policies around welfare and
poverty. In the influential 1978 text ‘Policing
the Crisis’, Hall, Chas Critcher and John Clarke argued that figures such
as ‘the mugger’ (or as Jensen proposes, the ‘welfare scrounger’) emerge at
times of crisis when new formations of ‘commonsense’ are coalescing. In their
preface to the new edition, Hall et al. argue: “in formerly democratic
societies, ‘becoming commonsense’ is one key route to securing popular
legitimacy and compliance and thus the basis of what Gramsci called ‘hegemonic’
forms of power” (2013: xiii).
Always working in
close collaboration with others, Stuart Hall aimed to produce ‘symptomatic
readings’ within the frame of a ‘conjunctural analysis’ (Hall and Jefferson,
2006). From this perspective, the emergence of notions of ‘behaviour change’ as
a new ‘commonsense’ discourse in approaches to public health and in other
domains, would lead us to ask ‘what might this focus on ‘behaviour change’ as a
new cornerstone of social policy be symptomatic of?’” A conjunctural analysis
would ask us to consider “why now?”, attempting to understand ‘behaviour
change’ as a response to the political, economic and socio-cultural changes of
its time, rather than focussing on the relative effectiveness of various BC
strategies as means of managing the activities of specific social groups.
Stuart Hall
famously argued that the university is a critical institution, or it is
nothing. There are certainly a number of cogent critiques of the BC agenda. The
dilemma for those operating within the field of public health is that some of
the practices we will be examining in this seminar series in greater depth
cause harm to individuals, their families and friends, in addition to the costs
to the health service etc. Is it possible to retain a clear and forceful
critique of the BC agenda, whilst engaging with policies, practices and debates
in these arenas?
Chris Holmes, C3, Collaborating for Health
The Inconvenient
Truth
Bringing behavioural science to bear on society’s big
issues, be they lifestyle behaviours or sustainability challenges, faces a
difficulty reality that will effect the future expression of our science and
may have implications for the direction of research.
The population scale of these challenges means that
intervention efficiency, whether the return is expressed in terms of quality of
life or financial savings, is overshadowed by the cash investment that would be
required to deliver interventions at a scale commensurate with the scale of the
challenges. The cash required is simply not available nor arguably will it ever
be. It is immaterial whether the return from prevention compared to treatment
is orders of magnitude greater if the available funds are struggling to meet
the current demand for services and the time frame of those returns is measured
in tens of years.
Currently the returns from the modest investments in
behaviour change are further weakened by the short-term nature of publicly
funded interventions. One year funding remains the norm and this means that the
set-up costs can represent 40-60% of funds without any confidence that these
fixed costs can be amortised over subsequent years. Providers then face the
task of finding funding for future years thereby distracting management from
their core purpose and creating uncertainty amongst trained staff with the risk
of loosing these skilled resources. This diverts further financial and
management resource into recruitment and training assuming further funding can
be found.
We, the research and policy community, can choose to
ignore these inconvenient truths of application or can look to reflect this
reality in the focus of our work. This is beginning to happen but the question
is whether we need to drive this further and faster. If we took the step of
admitting this reality into our thinking what might the implications be?
Developing Universal
Outcomes.
Often universal gets translated into a single service
provided everywhere. Yet our science clearly shows that people do not start
with an equal chance of effecting change in their behaviours. Self-efficacy
alone suggests that those on the left of the distribution curve may need much
greater support than those on the right. In the financial context outlined
above providing the necessary support to those on the left of the curve
requires a radical rethink in how we target our services and the nature and
costs of the different interventions we offer.
When designing interventions for those centre right of
the curve, the cost of delivery needs to become a primary driver in our
thinking. Simplistically, this means removing people as the medium for delivery
of interventions or, at the very least, face-to-face interactions in favour of
remotely provided support. Associated with this may be the need for
interventions to generate their own revenues to fund the higher investment
required centre left of the curve, where face-to-face support is probably a
pre-requisite.
So what costs
will the market bear? It is difficult to be precise but consumer markets
probably give us some indication. There are currently circa forty thousand
physical activity apps available on the market ranging in price from £0 to
£4.99. People are spending £19.7bn per annum in the UK on health and beauty
products, including £2.8bn on OTC medicines (Verdict, UK Health and Beauty Prospects, 2012), within an
indicative price range of £0.75 to £125 (£83/10ml). Yet, how many research
programmes begin with a clear cost envelope within which they are designing an
intervention, which isn’t the research budget but an ongoing market price?
Effect Sizes
The only recent examples of population level behaviour
change can be found in consumer markets where the availability of
infrastructure (supply chain, logistics and retailing) provides reach and
competition between organisations creates the catalyst to drive change through
an ever evolving range of product, services and promotion. One only has to
consider the changes in mobile technology use to see the evidence of the power
of these consumer dynamics.
Many of these changes, we could argue, are counter
productive to our goals and this could lead us to dismiss this system as a
platform for research and development. Yet, the single most successful public
health intervention in the last 10-years has been the reformulation of products
to reduce salt content.
How might we focus behavioural science to accelerate
the reformulation of products to reduce sugar and fat content and who would
these interventions be aimed at. Faced with Foresight’s systems map for
obesity, it is interesting that we have focused most of our effort on the
largest audience, the population, developing techniques that at best
demonstrate modest effect sizes for individuals at a cost that precludes these
techniques being scaled to population level. Yet there are far smaller
audiences in the system map, measured in 10s of people, who can have a much
greater influence on the system overall.
We are all
familiar with the Pareto effect, yet recent work by the Complex Systems Theorist
James Glattfelder and co-authors at Zurich ETH University on financial markets
(http://www.ted.com/talks/james_b_glattfelder_who_controls_the_world)
has shown that great
influence is held by an even smaller number of individuals than Pareto would
predict. What might be the opportunity for people and the planet if we were to
focus our behavioural knowledge and expertise to design interventions to
influence their perceptions of the relationship between future shareholder
value and sugar/ fat content or carbon footprint? Rather than laying siege to
the Corporate Affairs departments of companies, whose job is to keep risk at
arms length, such an approach may offer us the opportunity to harness the
competitive power between organisations to drive population level change faster
and more effectively that we could ever achieve directly.
What of new product development? Many of us are
rightfully sceptical of so called super-foods both in terms of the beneficial
claims and the motives of manufacturers and retailers in terms of enhanced
margins. Yet are we confident that we have mined primary research fully for
opportunities to create products and services that in themselves provide social
benefit and use consumer dynamics and infrastructure to achieve scale and
sustainability. For example, 2-spoons is a project underway to take our
knowledge of the development of taste acceptability in young children and turn
this into a consumer product providing the necessary 12 individual repeat tries
of single fruit and vegetable tastes in a way that overcomes parent’s
behavioural barriers to the process.
Summary
The developments in the behavioural sciences and the
keen interest being shown in their potential application represent a
significant opportunity. To realise the benefits for people and planet we may
need to reflect in our own work the reality of how and where our tools may be
applied and challenge ourselves to broaden our own perspectives on whose
behaviour we need to influence and with which other disciplines we may need to
collaborate to achieve success.
No comments:
Post a Comment