There has been a subtle, yet far-reaching, transformation in the way in which the human subject has been conceptualised within academic research and policy agendas in recent years. The growing significance of notions of behaviour change testify to a re-calibration of understandings of subjectivity; with a vision of an inadequate, irrational and fundamentally flawed human subject assuming greater significance. This conception of the attenuated capacities of humans has, moreover, gained increasing purchase within policy discourses in a number of states. While some research has been undertaken on the growing significance of a neuroliberal agenda, it possesses three major gaps, which act as the basis of our research questions. We ask:
1) To what extent is a neurological agenda informing public policy initiatives across the world and to what degree is this agenda being translated and 'stretched' into novel configurations?
We will construct a genealogical account of the emergence of neuroliberalism as a global policy rationale. The first stage will involve a documentary/web-based survey in order to establish a baseline account of the geographic distribution of neuroliberal initiatives. On the basis of this survey, six states will be chosen for further qualitative research in order to establish: the extent to which, and the mechanisms through which, ideas from the 'psy sciences' have informed recent policy initiatives; and the degree to which ideas of behaviour change have been adapted by policy-makers within those states. While we cannot, at this stage, indicate with certainty the states that we will study, we envisage that they will in all likelihood include: the US (as the alleged birthplace of behaviour change interventions); the UK (a state that makes sense given the recent prevalence of behaviour change initiatives); two European states with possibilities here including Denmark (a country with a large welfare state and a strong tradition of state intervention) and France (a country lying outside and sometimes in opposition to Anglo-American politics); India (a state from the global south); and New Zealand (a state that has experimented with and subsequently drawn back from behaviour change initiatives). A total of 35 semi-structured interviews will be conducted with governmental actors. A further 15 interviews will be conducted with key academics in each of the states researched, whose ideas have underpinned these neuroliberal policy experiments.
2) How effective are behaviour change initiatives and what methods are best used to monitor and understand their effectiveness?
We will analyse the effectiveness of behaviour change initiatives and analyse the effectiveness of different evaluative methods - including randomised control trials, online surveys, interviews and focus groups - for elucidating the actual impact that existing behaviour change initiatives have on individuals and groups. This element of the research programme will comprise two main methods; qualitative analysis of the interviews conducted in work strand 1 and a synthetic review of documents produced within each of the six states, which have sought to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural policies.
3) To what extent is it possible to develop alternative effective and empowering ways of changing behaviours; in ways that move beyond the attenuated vision of subjectivity exhibited by the behaviour change agenda?
We will evaluate the effectiveness of alternative mechanisms for changing behaviours and values. The ethical problems associated with behaviour change strategies necessitate research into the efficacy of other approaches, which engage with the values and beliefs that underpin behaviour. Action research involving 40 participants will investigate a range of alternative initiatives designed to change behaviour and values, including, but not limited to, mindfulness training, connected conversations and behavioural literacy sessions.