Interview with Rory Gallagher

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 Rory Gallagher.

Rory is the Chief Policy and Research Officer at Amplify, a new, non-partisan community organisation that helps Australians find uncommon ground to revitalize democracy and policy reform. He co-founded The Behavioural Insights Team in the UK Cabinet Office in 2010, often referred to as the world’s first ‘Nudge Unit’. Over the past decade he led BIT’s operations across the Asia-Pacific, working closely with governments, philanthropy, non-government organisations and the private sector to drive the uptake of more human-centred and data-driven approaches.  He established Australia's first government Behavioural Insights Unit and has led over a hundred major trials and policy interventions across a range of policy areas.  Rory has a PhD from Cambridge University and is a Visiting Fellow at Melbourne University and the Singapore Civil Service College. He also founded and is on the Board of System2, a charity focused on enabling young Australians experiencing disadvantage to thrive.   

---

How did you get into behavioural science?

I got into behavioural science in a somewhat roundabout way. My PhD focused on HIV prevention in Southeast Asia and sparked my fascination with human behaviour. Then after my PhD, I joined the UK Government’s Fast Stream, taking on various roles in the Department of Education and the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. There, I met David Halpern and jumped at the chance to help set up the so-called Nudge Unit and drive behaviour change across government.

After a couple of years, I realized I wanted chance to test these tools outside the UK, and frankly a bit of an adventure before setting down. This timing aligned nicely with growing international interest, including from the New South Wales government. So in 2012, I moved to Sydney for what was supposed to be a one-year secondment to help set up their own Behavioural Insights Unit. The role extended to a second year, and my partner and I fell in love with life and work in Australia, so we decided to stay.

So, for most of the last decade I headed up BIT’s work in APAC, establishing our Australian and Singapore offices, whilst working across the Asia-Pacific region, including Indonesia and India. During that time I had the pleasure of collaborating with brilliant teams across the region and contributing to the growth of a thriving behavioural science community.

So out of all that you've just discussed, what is the thing that you're proudest of?

Overall, the thing I’m most proud of is the thriving global behavioural insights community focused on public policy and the public good in the region. When I think about the most enduring impact of our work, I think that it’s this flourishing network of around 200 to 300 Behavioural Insights Units around the world, who are doing thoughtful, empirical work that has a real impact. To have been part of that growth and to have helped put Behavioural Insights on policymakers’ maps as a powerful tool has been incredibly fulfilling.

I’m also proud of how our approach has evolved. We began with a focus on applying behavioural science to Government strategy and policy design, but soon pivoted to a much more experimental approach, with a particular focus on driving the use of randomized control trials (RCTs) to service delivery. Over time we have continually added new tools and methods, from ethnography and design thinking, to data science and AI. So, I’m proud that we didn’t just double down, stick with what was working and rely on a single method; but we kept evolving, continually learning and getting smarter about how to use these tools.

However, I’d also say that we should have told this story this better, as we became synonymous with low-cost tweaks to comms, RCTs and bar charts. This specific method and type of results quickly became our calling card, and so we were often asked to solve problems using only that part of our toolkit. While low-cost interventions and experiments have had huge impact around the world, this mental model amongst our partners sometimes limited our ability to explore more diverse tools and to tackle problems upstream.

And what do you still want to achieve? Because you've left BIT. 

I’m loving life in my new role at Amplify, a new non-partisan, not-for-profit that uses participatory tools to revitalize democracy and drive major policy reforms. Over the past decade, I increasingly realized that evidence is necessary, but not always sufficient to tackle our biggest challenges. My focus is now on building a stronger constituency for evidence-based policy among communities, policymakers, and politicians.

I’m aware that this is an ambitious goal, and perhaps I’m naively optimistic, as I was when I started at BIT. Many doubted that BIT would succeed, or that Behavioural Insights could have a global impact, but I firmly believed in the potential of this new set of tools. I bring that same optimism to my new role, where I hope to address complex issues like housing, climate change, and tax reform by giving community a seat at the decision-making table.

It obviously won’t be easy — these are challenging, complex problems, which requires collaboration across sectors, methodologies and ideologies.  They require a curious mindset, which is grounded in both evidence and the community’s real-world experiences, and a commitment to listening to different perspectives and finding common ground. I genuinely believe that, with the right partnerships and mindsets, we can find solutions to tackle our most intractable problems. It’s a big goal, and it may take another decade to refine and implement effectively, but that’s my aspiration.

---

If we take a more future focused perspective, what challenges do you foresee for the field? 

I think the field will face a number of challenges in the years ahead, but three are top of mind for me.

1. First, there’s a need to move “upstream” in the policy cycle and to tackle issues more systemically. BI is often applied downstream and to specific parts of a problem, but the field needs to expand its influence on policy and system design. Although there are several examples of this from BI Units across the world, it remains much less common than it should be.

2. Second, we still need to cultivate a truly experimental culture within government and the broader BI community, which embraces both what does and does not work. Currently, there’s often an implicit expectation from policymakers that running RCTs will simply prove that something works, and successes are highlighted far more frequently than failures. To truly drive impact at scale, there needs to be greater transparency about what did and didn’t work, and crucially, why. To do this, we also need to support a wider culture change amongst the media and community, which doesn’t see these failures as “gotcha” moments.

3. Third, I think BI needs to become more participatory, giving community a greater role in defining problems, deliberating on potential solutions and advocating for change. And that’s where I hope to work with behavioural scientists in my new role.

   
   

So addressing all of those challenges, what is the future of behavioural science going to look like?

I think the future is bright! Recent advancements in digital tools and technologies, including AI, offer unprecedented opportunities for impact and scale. The ability to harness quantitative and qualitative data at scale will enable us to reach people with much more sophisticated and tailored approaches, which should vastly improve the effectiveness of behavioural interventions. Historically, we’ve had to send the same message or deliver the same service to everyone for example, but now, with better data and targeting, we can design services and communications in far more customized ways.

However, there are important challenges to consider. As we move toward high levels of personalization, we must tread carefully to maintain transparency and trust. It’s crucial not to cross the line into overly segmented, “creepy” targeting, which risks reinforcing existing biases and eroding public confidence in behavioural science methods. Striking the balance between leveraging data for tailored services and avoiding excessive micro-targeting is vital.

So whilst these tools provide enormous opportunities for efficiencies and scale, they also create huge ethical and practical risks, so the field will need to navigate these waters carefully.  

---

So that's where the future of behavioural science is taking us. What kind of skill set is required to make it in the new behavioural science? 

A good behavioural scientist needs a blend of technical and so-called soft skills. While specific technical skills may evolve as technology advances, a strong foundation in both quantitative and qualitative skills will remain critical. This needs to be combined with an experimental mindset, problem solving, creativity and relational skills.  

For young behavioural scientists, I recommend “starting wide”—gaining diverse experiences early in their career across various sectors and issues—before specializing. Being adaptable and using a range of tools and methods will only be advantageous as the field continues to change. My own varied work experience, across areas like employment, tax, housing, health, and sustainability has been invaluable in approaching problems creatively and flexibly. Instead of a strict, linear timeline for specialization, I see career development as more iterative and more like the design “double diamond”, where you start broad, then focus deeply on a particular area or approach for a few years, and then broaden out again. This model of diverging and converging allows for meaningful work while continually exploring new areas and tools, which has brought huge fulfilment and growth in my own career.

So what would you say that your current core skill set is?

Oof, you'd have to ask people around me. I believe my strengths lie in breaking down complex problems, understanding their drivers, and fostering creative solutions, while also building a sense of community. I try to help bring “vibes” – creating a positive, inclusive, and enjoyable team culture, which I see as essential, given how much time we spend at work.

Wherever I work, I won’t bring all the technical skills needed, so I emphasize leveraging team strengths and creating an atmosphere of fun and connection. Ultimately, I aim to bring curiosity, humility, and positivity to the work, with “Chief Vibes Officer” as my informal role!

What advice would you give to younger behavioural scientists then?

I’d encourage younger behavioural scientists to focus on maximizing their strengths, while joining and building teams that complement their particular skills. Success isn’t always about being an all-rounder but about collaborating effectively within a diverse team. My advice is to gain varied experiences, which allows you to refine your understanding of what you’re passionate about and where your strengths really lie. I’ve often found that these two things are highly correlated, the areas you enjoy most align with where your skills shine.

---

Do you apply behavioural science to your own life?

I try, although not as consistently as I should. Years ago, I wrote a book with my friend and colleague Owain Service, exploring how to apply these tools in our personal lives. But I definitively don’t always practice what I preach. While I still fall for supermarket discounts, struggle with procrastination, and don’t live as healthily as I’d like, I do proactively adopt some behavioural strategies. For example, I’ve used the commitment device of attending a live music gig each month this year, which helps me carve out time for something that brings me great joy and connection.

If you hadn't become a behavioural scientist, if you just hadn't found the field, what do you think you would have become? How would you have ended up? 

Great question. I think I would have always worked in and around social impact, innovation, and evidence, most likely for non-profits, think tanks or academia.

Last question throughout your entire journey, who has inspired you the most as a behavioural scientist? Which is a very slipshod way of asking, who should I interview next? 

I’d suggest looking beyond superstar academics and the most well-known figures in behavioural science and spotlighting those involved in service delivery. Often, delivery partners working within systems play a crucial yet unrecognized role in implementing trials and driving impact. For instance, Edwina Crawford from the Aboriginal Services Unit in the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice exemplifies this. We worked together on reducing domestic violence and she brought an invaluable understanding of the justice system and a First Nations lens, which was essential for co-designing effective interventions.

Edwina, and others like her, help bridge behavioural science with practical, local insights; balancing evidence and theory with real-world applications. They help adapt behavioural tools for specific cultural contexts, rather than applying cookie-cutter approaches. This collaboration with on-the-ground partners is vital to scale behavioural science effectively. More of these voices are needed at conferences and in public discussions to truly expand and enrich the field’s impact.

---

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

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!