The science intersection

Rachel Melinek

This podcast is on a range of issues but generally they fit into one of four categories. The four categories are: Climate change, alternative economic systems, diversity and health. On occasion the podcast has episodes which don't fit into any of these. The podcast is a mix of science and social science and other elements which impact on well-being. 

  1. -1 дн.

    From Good Ideas to Better Outcomes: Testing Social Policy in the Real World

    Send us Fan Mail In Part 2 of my conversation with Professor Michael Sanders and Julia Ellingwood, we look at what evidence can show us that good intentions, professional experience and common sense might miss. We discuss why it is not enough to ask whether a policy or intervention works we also need to know how much it works, for whom, and whether it offers value for money. Michael and Julia talk about examples including cash transfers for care leavers, education interventions, family group conferences, behavioural science and “nudge” approaches. We also explore why measuring outcomes in social policy can be difficult, especially when those outcomes include wellbeing, safety, educational progress or housing stability. Julia explains why survey design, consent, power dynamics and validated measures all matter when researchers are working with people whose lives may already be under pressure. Later in the episode, we ask how research can move beyond simply describing social problems. Why do some issues get studied again and again without changing? What makes evidence more likely to influence policy? And why do researchers need to stay involved after the paper is published? We end by talking about what gives Michael and Julia hope: better practical guidance, more accessible tools for policymakers and researchers, and the people working to make evidence useful in the real world. Support the show

    31 мин.
  2. 19 июн.

    Evidence, Ideology and Citizens’ Assemblies: How Do We Decide What Works?

    Send us Fan Mail In this episode of The Science Intersection, I’m joined by Professor Michael Sanders and Julia Ellingwood for a conversation about evidence-based policy — what it means, why it matters, and why good ideas do not always translate neatly into better outcomes. Michael is Professor of Public Policy at King’s College London. His work focuses on evidence, behavioural change, and how research can be used to improve public services and policy. Julia Ellingwood is a research fellow at the Policy Institute at King’s College London. Her work looks at how evidence and practical interventions can help improve outcomes in the real world, and her PhD focuses on wellbeing in the UK civil service. In Part 1, we talk about how evidence-based policy can help public money, professional time and people’s lives be taken seriously. We discuss why some ideas that seem obvious — like homework or reducing class sizes — may be more complicated once you look at the evidence. Julia explains why evidence-based policy does not mean stopping every policy until there is a perfect trial, but instead using evidence as a set of tools to work out what we know, what we do not know, and what we most need to test. We also look at why social policy is often harder to test than medicine, what researchers can do when a randomized trial is not possible, and how governments can act under uncertainty while still building evidence into the process. Later in the episode, we move into the relationship between evidence, ideology and democracy. Michael discusses examples including Sure Start, austerity, the Rwanda scheme and synthetic phonics, and we ask where evidence can cut through political disagreement — and where values and ideology still matter. The episode ends by looking at citizens’ assemblies, including how they can help people work through contested issues when they are informed by evidence rather than simply being a space for opinion. Listen to more from Michael on his podcast here: https://open.spotify.com/show/3Y7RSs7pBOC7hlafpGVR1G?si=85d114fba4514b27 Glossary Evidence-based policy Making policy using the best available evidence, rather than just instinct, ideology or tradition. RCT / randomized controlled trial A test where people, schools, areas or organisations are randomly put into groups, so you can compare those who got the intervention with those who did not. Randomise / randomization Choosing who gets the policy or intervention by chance, so the groups are as fair and comparable as possible. Intervention The thing being tested — for example, a new service, policy, programme, subsidy or support scheme. Causal chain The assumed path from “we do this thing” to “this outcome improves.” For example: extra support → better attendance → better grades. Causal inference Trying to work out whether the policy actually caused the change, rather than the change happening for some other reason. Quasi-experimental design A way of studying impact when you cannot do a full randomised trial, but still want a fair comparison. Econometrics Statistical methods often used in economics and policy to analyse real-world data. Regression discontinuity design Comparing people just either side of a cut-off point — for example, people just above and just below an eligibility threshold. Matching Finding a comparison group that looks as similar as possible to the group receiving the intervention. Difference-in-differences Comparing how things changed over time in one place that got the intervention with another similar place that did not. Robust data collection Collecting data carefully and consistently enough that you can trust the results. Pre and post comparison Looking at what things were like before and after a policy was introduced. Useful, but weak on its own because other things may also have changed. Comparison group A group or place that did not get the intervention, used to judge what might have happened otherwise. Units of randomisation The things being allocated to groups — people, schools, hospitals, cities, boroughs, etc. Phased rollout Introducing a policy gradually in different places or at different times, which can sometimes help researchers compare early and later areas. Observed characteristics Things you can measure about places or people, such as income, age, location, unemployment rates or population size. Municipality A local government area — roughly a city, town, borough or local authority. Food desert An area where people have poor access to affordable, healthy food. Support the show

    28 мин.
  3. 29 мая

    Violence Prevention, School Safety and the “Small Ripples” We Miss — with Robert Mahoney, Part 1

    Send us Fan Mail What if violence prevention is not only about responding to danger, but about noticing struggle earlier? In this first part of my conversation with Robert Mahoney, founder of TVTP Solutions, we talk about behavioural threat assessment, the pathway to violence, and why prevention can’t just mean cameras, metal detectors, locked doors and emergency drills. Robert explains why some interventions can backfire when they make people feel controlled or attacked, and why identity, purpose and community matter when someone is becoming isolated or drawn towards harmful ideas. We also discuss his idea of “Zen security”: making the environment calm enough that people can notice the smaller ripples before a crisis escalates. This episode looks at school safety conversations, why physical security is only one part of the picture, and how seemingly small details — from how students are greeted at the door to lighting, sound, layout and atmosphere — can shape whether a space feels welcoming or like a danger zone. In Part 2, we’ll look more at information sharing, care teams, and how schools and local services can respond before someone crosses a formal threshold. Find out more about Robert’s work and TVTP Solutions here: https://tvtpsolutions.com/ If you found this episode useful, please share it with someone who might be interested, follow or subscribe to The Science Intersection, and leave a rating or review if your podcast app allows it. You can also support the podcast using the donation link in the show notes. Support the show

    25 мин.
  4. 22 мая

    Disability, Bias and the Barriers We Build with Daniel Hodges

    Send us Fan Mail In this episode of The Science Intersection, I speak with Daniel Hodges, founder of Pieces of Me, an organisation working to eliminate stigma around disability, physical difference and chronic illness. Daniel shares his own experiences of being born with multiple disabilities, including blindness and chronic pain, and how those experiences shaped his work in disability advocacy, healthcare access and organisational inclusion. We discuss the difference between performative inclusion and meaningful systems change, why disabled people often face worse outcomes because of social and structural barriers rather than disability itself, and why accessibility should not be framed as “lowering standards.” Daniel also talks about the shocking assumptions he faced as a blind parent, including having to fight for the right to parent his own child, and how that experience deepened his commitment to helping organisations, healthcare providers and communities do better. Find out more about Daniel’s work at:  https://www.peacesofme.org/ This episode explores disability, healthcare, employment, parenting, accessibility, bias, and the human-made barriers that can  and should be changed. Daniel argues that inclusion begins with curiosity, trust and a willingness to redesign systems so people can compete and participate fairly.  A huge thank you to Daniel Hodges for joining me on this episode and for sharing his experiences, insight and advocacy work so generously. If you found this conversation valuable, please consider following The Science Intersection, sharing the episode with someone who might benefit from it, or leaving a review. It really helps the podcast reach more people and continue exploring the links between science, society and wellbeing. Support the show

    28 мин.
5
из 5
Оценок: 2

Об этом подкасте

This podcast is on a range of issues but generally they fit into one of four categories. The four categories are: Climate change, alternative economic systems, diversity and health. On occasion the podcast has episodes which don't fit into any of these. The podcast is a mix of science and social science and other elements which impact on well-being.