Syndicate content

randomization

Ethical Validity Response #2: Is random assignment really that unacceptable or uncommon?

David McKenzie's picture
In his post this week on ethical validity in research, Martin Ravallion writes:
 “Scaled-up programs almost never use randomized assignment so the RCT has a different assignment mechanism, and this may be contested ethically even when the full program is fine.”

Lotteries aren’t so exotic

Taking Ethics Seriously: Response #1

Berk Ozler's picture
Yesterday, Martin Ravallion wrote a piece titled ‘Taking Ethical Validity Seriously.’ It focused on ethically contestable evaluations and used RCTs as the main (only?) example of such evaluations. It is a good piece: researchers can always benefit from questioning themselves and their work in different ways.

Taking Ethical Validity Seriously

Martin Ravallion's picture
More thought has been given to the validity of the conclusions drawn from development impact evaluations than to the ethical validity of how the evaluations were done. This is not an issue for all evaluations. Sometimes an impact evaluation is built into an existing program such that nothing changes about how the program works. The evaluation takes as given the way the program assigns its benefits. So if the program is deemed to be ethically acceptable then this can be presumed to also hold for the method of evaluation.

A Curated List of Our Postings on Technical Topics – Your One-Stop Shop for Methodology

David McKenzie's picture
Rather than the usual list of Friday links, this week I thought I’d follow up on our post by Guido Imbens yesterday on clustering and post earlier this week by Dave Evans on Hawthorne effects with a curated list of our technical postings, to serve as a one-stop shop for your technical reading.

Is it the program or is it participation? Randomization and placebos

Markus Goldstein's picture

So recently one of the government agencies I am working with was telling me that they were getting a lot of pressure from communities who had been randomized out of the first phase of a program. The second phase is indeed coming (when they will get the funding for their phase of the project) but the second round of the survey has been delayed – as was implementation of the first round of the program.   But that doesn’t make the pressure any less understandable.