Interview with Elizabeth Convery
- Merle van den Akker
- Dec 7, 2025
- 8 min read
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 Elizabeth Convery.
Liz is a Principal Advisor and the Head of Research in the BIT Australian office. In addition to leading BIT Australia’s research function, she also leads major programs of work in the areas of healthcare and work health and safety (WHS). Prior to joining the Behavioural Insights Team, she was a senior researcher at the National Acoustic Laboratories, where she led projects on patient-driven hearing technologies, innovative service delivery models, and hearing aid app design for older adults. She holds a PhD in health and rehabilitation sciences from the University of Queensland and is a qualified audiologist.
Who or what got you into behavioural science?
My journey into behavioural science began long before I even knew what it was. Originally, I trained as an audiologist. I did my undergraduate degree in Canada, followed by a master’s degree in audiology in the United States. When I moved to Australia, there was a shortage of audiologists, and they were recruiting internationally, so I became part of a wave of professionals brought in from Canada, the US, the UK, South Africa, and India between 1998 and 2001.
Audiology fascinated me because it was inherently behavioural. Working with patients meant helping them adopt new habits, like using hearing aids or managing tinnitus. Later, as a clinical researcher, I realised that influencing clinicians to implement new research into practice was another form of behavioural science. In hindsight, I had been working in behavioural science all along—I just didn’t have the label for it.
In 2019, I was formally introduced to behavioural insights through the work of the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT). I was finishing my PhD, reflecting on what to do next, and realised I wanted to apply my research skills to broader systemic challenges. BIT happened to be hiring for a senior research advisor at the time, so I applied. It was a perfect fit—behavioural science brought together my love of research, human behaviour, and real-world problem-solving.
Looking back, there was no single moment where I "clicked" into behavioural science; it was more of a gradual realisation. But now, after years at BIT, I can see how my entire career has been about understanding and influencing behaviour—whether in healthcare, research, or policymaking.
What is the accomplishment you are proudest of as a behavioural scientist? And what would you still like to achieve?
Because I had been doing behavioural science before I realised it, my whole professional career is relevant here. One moment that stands out is when a patient told me about how her hearing aids had this feature that made sudden loud noises more bearable. She said, “It just feels so normal again.” I knew exactly what she was talking about because I had worked on the clinical trial for that sound processing algorithm. It made those sudden, jarring sounds—like a fork dropping on a tile floor—quieter and less intrusive.
That experience stuck with me because it’s easy to remember the hard parts of a project—the long hours designing and running a trial, sweating over the report. But when someone tells you, “Hey, my life is better because of something you did,” that makes it all worthwhile.
Going forward, I want more of those moments. The way to get there is to work on projects with greater impact. At BIT, I focus a lot on research methods, and I’m excited about the shift toward true co-design—where people aren’t just consulted at the start but are involved in shaping projects throughout. I want to help bridge the gap between doing behavioural science and actually benefiting from behavioural science.
How do you think behavioural science will develop in the next 10 years?
I was reflecting on the challenges we face as a field, and I keep coming back to the replication crisis—but not for the obvious reasons. I actually don’t like the term “replication crisis” because it makes it sound like everything is crumbling. If a study doesn’t replicate, people act like we should throw out behavioural science altogether. But science isn’t about proving something once and locking it in forever—it’s about refining our understanding.
Sometimes, a study doesn’t replicate because it was wrong, and that’s okay. Other times, it doesn’t replicate because it worked under specific conditions, and those conditions don’t exist elsewhere. That’s not a failure—it’s an opportunity to refine our theories and test them in new contexts. Behaviour is highly dependent on context, so it’s natural that interventions work in one setting but not another.
This is why I think we need to expand our methods. Traditional approaches like surveys, interviews, and trials are useful, but we need to lean more into things like field observation, contextual interviewing, and human-centred design. These methods help us understand behaviour in real-world settings and develop interventions that are actually meaningful to the people they’re designed for.
The field is also moving toward a more systems-based approach. We talk a lot about nudges, but behavioural science can and should be more than just last-mile interventions. If we focus more on systemic issues and policy design, I think the next decade could be really exciting for the field.
What are the greatest challenges being faced by behavioural science right now?
I think behavioural science has an image problem. The term “nudge” has been both helpful and harmful. It helps people understand behavioural science at a high level, but it also gives the impression that nudging is all we do—just tweaking small decisions at the last moment to get slightly better outcomes. And I think that massively undersells the field.
In reality, behavioural science has so much more potential. We can work at the systems level, designing upstream interventions that shape behaviour long before people even reach that last-mile decision point. Michael Hallsworth’s manifesto on applying behavioural science to systems thinking really resonated with me. The field should be focusing more on addressing the structural conditions that create behavioural challenges in the first place, rather than just intervening at the end.
Another challenge is the fragmentation of work across different sectors. In government, for example, different departments work on similar issues but don’t always communicate. Sometimes I’ve worked with a client who has no idea that another team—sometimes in the same department—is working on something nearly identical. There’s a push for a “whole-of-government” approach, but in practice, it’s really difficult to achieve. It’s frustrating because if we could break down those silos, we’d have a much better shot at solving complex behavioural challenges.
I’d love to see more knowledge-sharing across sectors—between government, academia, and industry—so we’re not all reinventing the wheel. Behavioural science has a lot to contribute, but we need to make sure we’re maximising its potential rather than just repeating the same isolated interventions over and over again.
What advice would you give to young behavioural scientists or those looking to progress into the field?
I’m biased by my own career, but I think having frontline experience is critical. If you’ve only ever worked in policymaking, you might not fully understand the reality of how policies play out for the people they’re meant to help. Having that first-hand perspective changes the way you think about designing interventions.
Curiosity is also key—but not just curiosity for its own sake. It has to be paired with action. It’s not enough to just ask “why?”—you also have to ask “why not?” Be willing to take risks, try new things, and push boundaries. The best behavioural scientists aren’t just observers; they’re experimenters.
Another important thing is to be comfortable updating your beliefs as new evidence emerges. Science is constantly evolving, and what we thought was true five years ago might not hold up today. We often talk about cognitive biases in other people, but we rarely turn that lens on ourselves. Recognising and challenging our own biases is just as important as identifying them in others.
And finally, behavioural science is a communication-heavy field. Whether you’re writing reports, presenting findings, or designing interventions, you need to be able to explain complex ideas in a clear and engaging way. If you can’t communicate your insights, they won’t have impact.
With all your experience, what skills would you say are needed to be a behavioural scientist? Are there any recommendations you would make?
There are a few core skills that I think every behavioural scientist needs. The first is a solid grounding in behavioural science, however you get it. Some people have formal training, and that’s great. Others come from different backgrounds and bring in complementary expertise. I don’t think there’s one right way in, but you need to understand the fundamentals.
Critical thinking is also essential. It’s not just about knowing theories—it’s about being able to question them. The best behavioural scientists are the ones who challenge assumptions and think deeply about how interventions work in different contexts.
Writing is another skill that’s non-negotiable. At BIT, we do a lot of writing—whether it’s reports, proposals, or project summaries. But it’s not just about writing well; it’s about having something to say. If you can write beautifully but don’t have a strong argument, that’s not enough. Likewise, if you have great ideas but can’t communicate them clearly, that’s a problem.
A mix of quantitative and qualitative skills is useful, but I don’t think you need to be an expert in everything. What matters is knowing which methods to use for which problems. Some projects need experiments and statistical analysis; others are better suited for qualitative research and field observation. The best behavioural scientists know how to mix methods effectively.
And finally, adaptability is key. The field is multidisciplinary, and you have to be able to work with economists, policymakers, designers, and others. Being able to translate behavioural science into practical applications is what makes the work impactful.
What is your biggest frustration with the field as it stands?
My biggest frustration is that we often talk about changing behaviour “for the better,” but we don’t always question what “better” means or who gets to define it. Too often, policies and interventions are designed without the input of the people they impact the most. We talk about helping people make better choices, but what is a better choice? There are always trade-offs. I’d love to see more co-design, where people shape both the problem definition and the solutions, ensuring we’re solving the right issues in ways that truly benefit them.
How do you apply behavioural science to your own life, if at all?
I find behavioural science incredibly useful in people management, which is a big part of my job. Techniques from cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) are great tools—not to be a therapist to your team, but to act as a cognitive circuit breaker. A common cognitive distortion is mind reading—assuming you know why someone behaved a certain way, usually in the worst possible way. I encourage my team to consider alternative explanations, breaking unhelpful thought patterns. It’s a simple but powerful way to shift thinking, and it’s something I apply in my own life as well.
If not a behavioural scientist, what else would you be?
The easy answer is that I’d still be an audiologist. I did it for 19 years, and it was a great career.
But if I go back to childhood, when adults asked, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” one of my earliest answers was: a Zamboni driver.
Yes, really. I grew up in Canada, and my favourite part of a hockey game was when the Zamboni came out to smooth the ice. There was something mesmerizing about it. So, if I weren’t in behavioural science, I’d be driving a Zamboni.
Who else would you recommend me to interview?
You’ve already interviewed so many great people, so I’ll give two suggestions.
First, someone who’s just starting out—someone on the precipice of their career. What led them to behavioural science? What do they think the field will look like when they retire in 40 years?
Second, someone who has been impacted by behavioural science interventions but isn’t formally part of the field. We often assume we know how our work affects people, but I’d love to hear their perspective.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Liz!
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!
