Jan Willem Schäffer on the childcare benefits scandal: thousands of families are victims of errors in reasoning

‘Ethics is receiving increasing attention at many companies, but the discussion about critical thinking is completely absent,’ says former philosophy student Jan Willem Schäffer. In his master’s thesis, he examines how incorrect assumptions and errors in reasoning caused the benefits scandal.

What is your thesis about?

‘At its core, my thesis revolves around critical thinking: the ability to carefully examine how judgments are made and where errors in reasoning can arise. This interest led me to forensic philosophy; a philosophical approach that applies this critical thinking to legal practice. Consider miscarriages of justice, such as the case of Lucia de B., the nurse wrongly convicted of seven murders and three attempted murders.

‘Thanks to the research of forensic philosopher Ton Derksen, who critically analyzed the reasoning and evidence in her case, she was ultimately acquitted. In my thesis, I attempt to apply a similar form of forensic philosophy, but to the childcare benefits scandal.’

How did you approach that?

‘The benefits scandal has been studied extensively, usually from a legal or ethical perspective. I examined the errors in reasoning that contributed to the benefits scandal. I found several clear examples, which I analyzed and described.

‘The so-called eighty-twenty rule states that eighty percent of outcomes stem from twenty percent of the causes. This principle is often used in management and business theories.

‘The Tax and Customs Administration adopted this theory and applied it to tackling fraud: within a group labeled as ‘fraudulent,’ eighty percent were actually guilty and twenty percent were innocent. This principle was applied without any statistical evidence, with disastrous consequences for thousands of people.’

What came out of your research?

‘Within an organization, errors in thinking can occur at various levels: within the individual, within procedures, and within systems. Errors at one level can reinforce errors at another. For example, if a process design is flawed, the people working with it often unconsciously adopt that error. New errors can then arise, compounding the problem.

‘We see a clear example of this with employees of the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration who interacted with benefit recipients. They were unaware that the system and procedures already contained errors and unconsciously added new assumptions.

‘A parent who arrived at a Tax and Customs Administration counter with a stack of documents was initially greeted kindly. After the employee retrieved the information from the computer, their attitude changed. Because of the fraud alert on the screen, the parent was treated as a fraudster, eliminating any opportunity for investigation.

‘The employee relied on the system alert and (according to procedure) ignored the information from the person standing in front of them. This example demonstrates how heavily we rely on systems and how errors in thinking can accumulate. A phenomenon known as automation bias.’

Why is your research important?

‘While ethics is increasingly being discussed at many companies, the discussion of critical thinking is often completely absent. This is worrying, because critical thinking is becoming increasingly important in a world increasingly defined by systems and processes. The research shows how thinking errors can become institutionalized in this way, becoming part of the organization itself.

‘For me, the key lies not only in being aware of your own assumptions, but also in organizing epistemic responsibility. This means designing processes and systems so that assumptions are routinely tested and employees are encouraged to be critical. This way, we can prevent errors from recurring and mutually reinforcing.’

_Advertentie.