Values-based decision making

We make decisions every day of our lives, from what to have for breakfast to whether to apply for another job. Some of these decisions are routine and based on habits. Other decisions require identifying appropriate information, determining if the information is valid, and using it to make a considered decision.

A common misconception about science is that scientists only work with facts. This is not true. Scientists need to consider the values and concerns of society when making decisions. This means balancing evidence with ethical questions, cultural perspectives, and the potential impact on communities.

An individual’s personal values play a key role in how they choose to prioritise facts when they need to make a decision. This is the reason why the same set of facts can lead different people to very different decisions.

An individual’s decisions are often informed by information provided online. This information can be a mixture of opinions, values, and claims, rather than solely informing the reader about facts.

• Fact: Information that has been verified by observations or data.
• Claim of fact: Types of claims that have not yet been verified by observation or data.
• Opinion: Views that an individual or group forms about something that may not be based on facts.
• Value: What an individual or group considers important.

Before the reader can make a decision, they need to verify the claims of fact. The reader should go beyond the first thing that they read and apply a lateral reading strategy, identifying accurate, trustworthy, alternative sources of information from credible sources and checking to see if the information is supported (see The TRAAP method).

For each source, the reader also needs to identify the author’s opinions and values. It is not unusual for two different people to have the same values but different opinions. This is due to each person assigning different priorities to their values. For example, two people may value both reliability and cost-effectiveness; however, one person may consider reliability to be more important than cost-effectiveness, and the other person may prioritise cost-effectiveness over reliability.

When making a decision between multiple options, we can assign each of our identified values a mark out of 10 (10 being the most important and 1 being the least important) and then evaluate how well each available option satisfies that value.

Higher marks are awarded when an option strongly supports or aligns with a particular value, while lower marks are given when it does not. This process helps make the decision-making clearer and more structured because it turns personal or community values into measurable criteria. After all values have been considered and marks assigned, the totals for each option can be compared. The option with the highest overall score is generally viewed as the one that best satisfies the values that were identified as important.

This method increases the transparency of decisions and allows observers to understand why identical facts can lead to different decisions being made.

Case study—Wind farms

Consider the following blog posts below that contain a mixture of opinions, values, and claims that may or may not be factual.

Post 1

As a farmer, overhead powerlines are a constant challenge. They make it harder and more dangerous to use tall machinery, reduce the usable area of our land, and often get installed with little consultation. I’m not against infrastructure, but there needs to be more respect for farmers. Safer, smarter solutions like underground lines should be seriously considered to protect both productivity and people.

Post 2

Post 2: While I understand the concerns of landowners and respect their role in providing the food we need, overhead powerlines remain the most practical and cost-effective way to deliver reliable electricity to both urban and rural communities. Undergrounding lines can be significantly more expensive (sometimes ten times the cost) and more disruptive to install and maintain. It also poses a risk for those digging in the area. Overhead lines are quicker to repair in emergencies and allow for easier upgrades as demand grows. We do need to work closely with farmers and landholders to minimise impacts, but completely shifting to underground lines isn’t always feasible. It’s about finding the right balance between safety, affordability, and long-term reliability.

The values identified in the two posts are:

• Respect
• Safety
• Productivity
• Cost-effectiveness
• Reliability

Both authors value safety and respect for those affected by the powerlines. However, the author of Post 2 values cost-effectiveness more than the author of Post 1. This means that the author of Post 2 favours the most cost-effective option.

This is illustrated by modelling the numbers assigned to each identified value (10 = very important, 1 = least important).

The importance of these values is reflected in the decision-making process. For example, the Post 2 author (electricity user) values ‘Safety’ as important (9 out of a possible 10). Therefore, when deciding between the possible options of overhead powerlines, underground powerlines, or doing nothing, the electricity user selects overhead powerlines as being equally safe as the underground lines (7 out of a maximum 9). In contrast, the farmer identifies the underground lines as being safer (9 out of 9) than the overhead lines (7 out of 9).

When each option (overhead powerlines, underground powerlines, or do nothing) is scored in this way, the final score can guide the decision.

Author of Post 1 (farmer):

Author of Post 2 (electricity user):

These two tables show that despite having the same values and facts available, the two authors have reached different decisions because they assigned different priorities to each value.
 

Discuss with your colleagues

Use the process shown above to score each identified value out of 10 based on your own values. Identify how well this value is fulfilled when making a decision about overhead powerlines.

Compare your values to those of your colleagues.

Alternatively, use the online Decision Analysis Tool to compare how individual values will affect the decision you will make.

References

Western Sydney University. (2024). New research reveals 97 per cent of adult Australians have poor or limited ability to verify information online. https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/newscentre/news_centre/story_archive/2024/new_research_reveals_97_per_cent_of_adult_australians_have_poor_or_limited_ability_to_verify_information_online

Romano, C., & Hurt, T. (2023). Decision analysis tool. The Regents of The University of California. https://timothyjhurt.github.io/sdm/decision_making_tool_v5.html