The Behavioral Scientist recently solicited perspectives on what the next decade with bring for the field. The entire post is worth a read, ranging from hopes for the future, important ethical considerations that will only become more pressing, reflections on how specific domains might be shaped—and shape the field in turn—by taking a behavioral slant, and questions about what constitutes “behavioral science” or “behavioral design” in a world where the discipline itself it still emergent. This was published as one of those perspectives:
The field of behavioral design currently resides in the hands of experts steeped in empirical behavioral studies and RCT analysis, but in the next decade it is likely to become increasingly commoditized. Much like “design thinking” is now ubiquitous, practitioners with more enthusiasm than formal training will increasingly start to practice behavioral design. This is not necessarily bad. Democratization promises to embed behavioral perspectives more broadly and organically into how we envision and develop offerings, organizations, and policy. More accessible entry paths to expertise may also reduce the perception of academic exclusivity or that a Ph.D. is a requirement for practice.
But this also means a shift in who owns the definition of what “good” looks like, and just as with design thinking, we’ll likely see a new proliferation of get-smart-quick programs that reduce nuance and precision to more formulaic processes and the promise of instant expertise. Defining standards, like LEED certification for architecture, and codifying methods may be one way to maintain a level of consistency and quality. But when everyone’s a “behavioral thinker,” there’s a high chance it will become increasingly necessary—and important—to communicate the value of true proficiency.