It’s time to admit, the popular podcast series ‘Freakonomics Radio’ produced by Dubner Productions and WNYC Studios is amongst the most insightful resources I draw on as a PhD student studying impact evaluation.
It’s a free podcast, downloaded by 3 million listeners per month, the host, Stephen J. Dubner, is not an academic, and it won’t be listed amongst the references in my thesis. So, what makes it so influential?
The premise of Freakonomics is about asking interesting questions, and keeping on asking them… following side questions, exploring multiple hypotheses and talking to a wide range of people until you have a wholistic view of a topic. In the course of the 40-50 minute long podcasts, you follow various hypotheses like a logic roller coaster and reach into all sorts of evidence sources and the minds of obscure experts to justify every comment.
The latest episode ‘When helping hurts’ (Released 13/07/2017), is a perfect example – it explores the shocking finding that an extensive youth program called the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study implemented in Massachusetts in the 1930s was actually detrimental to the youth involved. It was a significant, early attempt at a randomised control trial to evaluate social interventions in the same way we would evaluate drugs and medical interventions – yet the results were unexpected, confusing and political dynamite for those interested in cutting funding for social programs.
Impact evaluation in conservation interventions is even less well understood – so these lines of argument, and approaches to synthesising and interpreting complex evidence are as relevant for our discipline as any other. So often, the results of an intervention are not what we expect, or the causes of a particular outcome has origins in a place we didn’t predict. It is only with in-depth analysis that it is possible to determine exactly why programs like the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study didn’t improve outcomes for the treatment group as expected. (The potential explanations are fascinating though – well worth listening all the way through to find out!)
Perhaps I also love Freakonomics because it provides a much needed source of motivation (the second top group of listeners are students!) As I sit here trawling though thousands of articles to search for evidence in our latest study on the impacts of conservation planning, it’s nice to be reminded that it’s all worthwhile in the long run!
Dr Emma J McIntosh 