Why Failures?

Dean S. Karlan, J. Appel
{"title":"Why Failures?","authors":"Dean S. Karlan, J. Appel","doi":"10.23943/princeton/9780691183138.003.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This introductory chapter provides an overview of the growth of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs found their way into domestic social policy discussions as early as the 1960s when they were used to evaluate government assistance programs, such as negative income tax rates for the poor. In the 1990s, a new crop of development economists began using RCTs in the field to evaluate aid programs. The chapter then argues that researchers must begin talking about failures to ensure evidence plays an appropriate role in policy. The language of RCTs as the “gold standard” for evidence has no doubt helped fuel their rise. However, not every program or theory is amenable to study by an RCT; even when one is, the RCT can be poorly executed, producing no valuable knowledge.","PeriodicalId":340586,"journal":{"name":"Failing in the Field","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Failing in the Field","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691183138.003.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the growth of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs found their way into domestic social policy discussions as early as the 1960s when they were used to evaluate government assistance programs, such as negative income tax rates for the poor. In the 1990s, a new crop of development economists began using RCTs in the field to evaluate aid programs. The chapter then argues that researchers must begin talking about failures to ensure evidence plays an appropriate role in policy. The language of RCTs as the “gold standard” for evidence has no doubt helped fuel their rise. However, not every program or theory is amenable to study by an RCT; even when one is, the RCT can be poorly executed, producing no valuable knowledge.
为什么失败?
本导论章概述了随机对照试验(rct)的发展。早在20世纪60年代,随机对照试验就进入了国内社会政策讨论,当时它们被用来评估政府援助计划,比如对穷人征收负所得税。在20世纪90年代,一批新的发展经济学家开始在实地使用随机对照试验来评估援助项目。本章接着提出,研究人员必须开始讨论在确保证据在政策中发挥适当作用方面的失败。将随机对照试验作为证据的“黄金标准”,无疑推动了它们的崛起。然而,并不是每个项目或理论都适用于随机对照试验;即使是这样,随机对照试验也可能执行得很差,无法产生有价值的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信