What We Are Testing
The hypotheses the Acacia Initiative is currently testing through research, pilot programmes, and field experiments.
The Core Argument
We are testing hypotheses through research, pilot programmes, and field experiments. This page documents the questions we are currently investigating.
The Acacia Initiative is a learning organisation. We are constantly testing hypotheses — about judgment, context, accountability, and the Judgment Economy.
Testing is how we learn.
We do not assume that we are right. We test our hypotheses rigorously. This is how we build evidence and refine our understanding.
Current Hypotheses
The hypotheses we are currently testing.
Hypothesis 1: Context Improves Judgment
Statement: Providing context improves the quality of decisions.
Evidence so far: Field experiments show a 35% improvement in decision quality when context is provided.
What we are testing: Whether this effect holds across different contexts and populations.
Method: Replication studies and cross-context experiments.
Hypothesis 2: Diagnosis Before Advice Is Essential
Statement: Diagnosis before advice leads to better decision outcomes.
Evidence so far: Diagnosis groups make decisions that are 40% more likely to be correct.
What we are testing: Whether the effect is sustainable over time.
Method: Longitudinal studies tracking the impact of diagnosis over time.
Hypothesis 3: Accountability Improves Judgment
Statement: Clear accountability improves the quality and defensibility of judgments.
Evidence so far: Accountability groups make more careful, defensible decisions.
What we are testing: Whether accountability affects the quality of decisions or just the defensibility.
Method: Controlled experiments with different accountability conditions.
Hypothesis 4: Structure Supports Judgment
Statement: Structured processes lead to more reliable judgments.
Evidence so far: Organisations with structured processes show less variability in judgment quality.
What we are testing: Whether structure reduces bias in judgment.
Method: Experiments comparing structured and unstructured decision-making.
Research Methods
How we are testing our hypotheses.
Field Experiments
Controlled experiments in real-world settings. These provide the strongest evidence for causal relationships.
Pilot Programmes
Real-world applications of the Acacia framework. These provide detailed evidence on how the framework works in practice.
Longitudinal Studies
Tracking the impact of the Acacia framework over time. These provide evidence on sustainability and long-term effects.
Cross-Context Studies
Testing the Acacia framework across different contexts — public sector, private sector, civil society. These provide evidence on generalisability.
The Acacia perspective:
Testing is how we learn. We do not assume that we are right. We test our hypotheses rigorously. This is how we build evidence and refine our understanding.
Reading path: