Against Excessive Rhetoric in Impact Assessment: Overstating the Case for Randomised Controlled Experiments.
The recent attention afforded to randomisation, or Randomised Control Trials (RCTs), in impact assessment is a welcome development. The case for RCTs in international development, however, has been quite overstated. This article critically examines the seminal model underlying RCTs, the Holland-Rubi...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Development Studies Vol. 47; no. 11; pp. 1619 - 1636 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Nov2011
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=67246873&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 67246873 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00220388 JDS jtl: Journal of Development Studies issn: 00220388 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Nov2011 vid: 47 iid: 11 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 67246873 10.1080/00220388.2010.514331 ppf: 1619 ppct: 17 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 147KB tig: atl: Against Excessive Rhetoric in Impact Assessment: Overstating the Case for Randomised Controlled Experiments. aug: au: Shaffer, Paul affil: Department of International Development Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, Canada su: Trials (Law) Legal claims Causation (Philosophy) Inference (Logic) Evaluation Question (Logic) sug: subj: Trials (Law) Legal claims Causation (Philosophy) Inference (Logic) Evaluation Question (Logic) ab: The recent attention afforded to randomisation, or Randomised Control Trials (RCTs), in impact assessment is a welcome development. The case for RCTs in international development, however, has been quite overstated. This article critically examines the seminal model underlying RCTs, the Holland-Rubin Framework, with a view to make four claims about RCTs: (i) they have limitations as conceptions of causation; (ii) their ‘idealised’ model of causal inference is undermined by implementation issues; (iii) they are not necessary to make internally valid statements about impact; and (iv) in general, they do not provide sufficient information for many purposes of impact assessment. The key argument is that ultimately, the choice of approach to impact assessment should be driven by the research question at hand and not by the alleged superiority of method. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Journal of Development Studies is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Journal of Development Studies holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd dt: @attributes: year: 2011 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|