Against Excessive Rhetoric in Impact Assessment: Overstating the Case for Randomised Controlled Experiments
Against Excessive Rhetoric in Impact Assessment: Overstating the Case for Randomised Controlled Experiments
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/00220388.2010.514331
复制
发表时间：
2011-01-01
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Shaffer, Paul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shaffer, Paul
最近在影响评估中对随机化或随机对照试验(RCT)的关注是一个可喜的发展。然而，区域技术合作在国际发展中的作用被夸大了。本文批判性地考察了随机对照试验背后的开创性模型--荷兰-鲁宾框架，以期对随机对照试验提出四点主张：(I)它们在因果概念方面存在局限性；(Ii)它们的“理想化”因果推理模型被实施问题破坏；(Iii)它们不是关于影响的内部有效声明；以及(Iv)总的来说，它们没有为许多影响评估目的提供足够的信息。关键的论点是，最终，影响评估方法的选择应该由手头的研究问题驱动，而不是由所谓的方法优越性驱动。
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.