Interview with Patrick Forscher

Behavioural Science is a rapidly expanding field and everyday new research is being developed in academia, tested and implemented by practitioners in financial organisations, development agencies, government ‘nudge’ units and more. This interview is part of a series interviewing prominent people in the field. And in today's interview the answers are provided by Patrick Forscher.

Patrick works to enhance the rigour, applicability, and fairness of behavioural science through meta-research—research aimed at refining research methodologies. He does so by leading a meta-research team at the Busara Center for Behavioral Economics, a non-profit dedicated to poverty alleviation. Their group focuses on Culture, Research Ethics, and Methods (CREME) to support Busara’s mission in the Global South. Before this, Patrick served as a funding lead at the Psychological Science Accelerator, a non-profit conducting large-scale collaborative psychology studies.

---

Who or what got you into behavioural science?

I didn’t start out aiming to get into behavioural science. Initially, I thought I might end up in chemistry or math—something more traditionally seen as a hard science. But everything changed during college, thanks to an incredibly inspiring professor, Kendrick Brown. He taught a course on social psychology, which piqued my interest, but it was his course on the psychology of race in America that really shifted my perspective. It made me realize I wanted to focus on a science that could be useful to people and could tackle important problems like understanding racial dynamics. That course made a big impact on me, and I decided to pursue psychology and explore how it could be applied to these real-world issues. Following Kendrick’s footsteps, I wanted to study psychology and apply it to problems that matter, like race and gender interventions.

What is the accomplishment you are proudest of as a behavioural scientist?

I’ve been lucky to be involved in several important projects, but I’d say my biggest accomplishments fall into three categories.

• First, I co-led a significant review on implicit bias. That review found that the focus on unintentional bias, or implicit bias, may not be as effective as some hoped. It led to consultations with governments and organizations around the world, like the UK and Australian governments, and even testimony for the U.S. Office of Civil Rights. I believe this work has helped redirect people toward more promising diversity interventions.

• Second, I co-founded the Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA). I was heavily involved in securing its first major grant and helping it grow into a large, sustainable organization with members from over 400 countries. The PSA has had a ripple effect, inspiring other large, global collaborative projects across fields like ecology and even dog cognition. The movement has helped make behavioural science more global and credible.

• Lastly, my transition to work at the research non-profit Busara has been a major achievement. I’ve fused my early focus on research improvements with new areas like global diversity in behavioural science and ethical research practices in developing countries. My team is working on projects that push the boundaries of how behavioural science can be applied in real-world settings, especially in the Global South, and that’s something I’m incredibly proud of. Some of our sample products are a dashboard to track who does behavioral science and an edited book that outlines our vision for how to improve the way research is used in development.

---

What are the greatest challenges being faced by behavioural science right now?

I think behavioral science is a bit of a bubble in that many people who call themselves behavioral scientists are management consultants with different branding. I would like behavioral science to earn the credibility that comes from calling itself a "science". Many applied behavioural science practices, especially in corporate and policy sectors, lack the rigorous standards that should define scientific inquiry. For example, pre-registration—a key open science practice that prevents researchers from retroactively adjusting hypotheses after seeing the data—is still underutilized outside academia. Without practices like these, findings can be manipulated, undermining the reliability of behavioural science.

The replication crisis in psychology revealed how easily flawed methods can produce untrustworthy results, and while the open science movement has made progress in fixing this, the broader field of applied behavioural science has been slower to catch on. This creates a credibility problem. Many in the field don’t yet adopt measures like pre-registration or data sharing, which makes it harder to distinguish between solid science and findings that might be shaped by bias or the desire to sell a particular narrative.

Another significant challenge is the lack of global diversity in behavioural science. The field is dominated by researchers from Western countries, particularly the U.S. and Europe, and as a result, the issues studied often reflect the concerns and interests of those regions. This leaves out many important topics that are highly relevant to other parts of the world, like land use conflicts or public health challenges in Africa or Latin America. There’s an urgent need for more representation from researchers in under-represented regions, which would not only broaden the scope of the field but also make it more relevant on a global scale.

Finally, there’s a need for better measurement and methodological rigour. Often, behavioural science uses tools and measures developed in Western contexts and applies them to completely different populations, leading to flawed results. Proper contextualization and collaboration with local researchers are essential for creating valid, useful insights. Addressing these issues is key to ensuring behavioural science remains credible, globally relevant, and scientifically rigorous.

So looking at these challenges, how do you think (or hope) behavioural science will develop in the next 10 years?

In the next 10 years, I hope behavioral science moves beyond being seen as a "trendy" tool and becomes a field known for its rigour, transparency, and global relevance. Right now, the field is at a crossroads where credibility is a significant challenge. Practices like pre-registration, data sharing, and replication need to become standard across both academic and applied settings. This shift is essential to ensuring that behavioral science isn’t just about selling solutions or “nudges” but about delivering robust, replicable findings that genuinely improve decision-making and policies.

I also hope we see an evolution in the kinds of problems the field addresses. Behavioral science has been too focused on Western-centric issues, driven by researchers from the U.S. and Europe. Over the next decade, I’d like to see a broader representation of voices from under-represented regions like Africa and Latin America. This would not only diversify the topics we study—ranging from public health in Africa to political dynamics in Latin America—but also make the field more globally relevant.

Another key development I hope for is more integration of interdisciplinary approaches. Behavioral science needs to borrow more tools from anthropology, sociology, and other fields to deepen our understanding of complex social systems and context. We’ve been too focused on cognitive biases and decision-making heuristics, which are valuable but limit our ability to address systemic, long-term challenges.

---

What advice would you give to young behavioural scientists or those looking to progress into the field?

For those starting out, it’s important to master one method first—whether that’s quantitative or qualitative—and really understand its limitations and strengths. After that, broaden your knowledge to include other approaches. I’d also recommend picking up project management skills. If you’re planning on going the corporate or non-profit route, understanding how to manage projects effectively will be crucial, and it’s not something typically taught in academic programs.

If you’re coming from academia, know that you already have valuable skills that can transfer into other sectors. For example, the ability to synthesize evidence or mentor others is something you develop in a PhD program, and those are highly prized skills outside of academia as well. The key is to learn how to translate those skills into terms that make sense in a corporate or non-profit setting.

What skills are needed to be a behavioural scientist? Any recommendations?

I think having an integrative mindset is key. Many people in corporate behavioural science are hostile to qualitative methods because they see numbers as more objective, but if you’re studying human behaviour, you’re dealing with subjective experiences. Psychological processes are inherently subjective and putting numbers on them does not make them objective. I’ve learned that combining quantitative and qualitative approaches leads to better research. It’s also important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of various methods and to know when to use each.

For those going into the field, it’s essential to master one method before branching out. Whether that’s quantitative or qualitative, knowing your approach inside and out is the foundation. From there, you should familiarize yourself with other tools and methods. Project management is also crucial, especially if you’re working in applied settings like corporate or non-profit sectors. If you’re coming from academia, it’s important to realize you have more transferable skills than you might think, like synthesizing evidence and mentoring, which are highly valuable in other sectors.

---

What is your biggest frustration with the field as it stands?

If I had to choose, my biggest frustration would be bad measurement. A lot of the time, researchers take measures developed for one group, like college students in the U.S., and try to apply them to entirely different populations, like refugees in Somalia. It’s lazy and leads to poor results. Measurement is hard, but it’s essential to understand the context you’re working in before trying to measure something. It frustrates me when researchers think slapping numbers on subjective experiences makes them objective, without doing the proper groundwork to ensure those measures actually make sense in the context they’re studying.

If you weren’t a behavioural scientist, what would you be doing?

If I hadn’t gone into behavioural science, I probably would have ended up in a different branch of science, like chemistry or something similarly applied. I’ve always had a desire to work on problems that feel directly useful to people. So, maybe I would’ve gravitated toward something like pharmacology or drug discovery, where the connection to helping people is more immediate. But I also have this critical, problem-solving mindset, so I suspect no matter where I ended up, I would have found myself working on improving systems—whether that was in science or another field entirely. I could see myself working on research improvement or meta-research in a different scientific discipline if psychology hadn't captured my interest first.

---

How do you apply behavioural science in your personal life?

I’m naturally a sceptic, so I don’t tend to adopt behavioural science techniques without some critical thought. That said, one principle I do apply to my own life is that changing your mind is only part of the battle. It’s essential to build structures around you that support those changes. For instance, it’s not enough to decide I want to run more often; I need to build support systems like reminders or accountability structures that help me follow through. Whether it’s setting up my environment or creating routines that help reinforce new habits, I do try to apply behavioural science concepts like these in my daily life—although, I’ll admit, not always successfully.

Which other behavioural scientists would you love to read an interview by?

There are several people I find inspiring. Brian Nosek, who founded the Centre for Open Science, has been a key figure in the open science movement and would have an interesting perspective. Another is Simine Vazire, who has been deeply involved in research improvements and meta-research, particularly around personality psychology.

If you’re looking for someone outside of traditional academia, I’d suggest Nimo Muthike. She runs a team focused on agricultural resilience from a behavioural science perspective. She comes from a consulting and food science background but has applied behavioural science to very real, pressing issues. She recently gave a TEDx talk in Kenya and would be a great person to interview to understand how behavioural science can be applied in unique ways.

Other amazing people to interview would be Mario Schmidt, Joel Wambua, Sanjay Srivastava,

Valerie Taylor, Anne Scheel, Daniel Lakens, Hu Chuan-Peng, Sakshi Ghai, Anna Yalouris, Adeyemi Adetula, and Stephen Adjei.

---

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Patrick!

As I said before, this interview is part of a larger series which can also be found here on the blog. Make sure you don't miss any of those, nor any of the upcoming interviews!

Keep your eye on Money on the Mind!