· These questions in Asterisk about whether Science fairs have outlived their usefulness also has parallels with the undergraduate econ research experience in some places. “Science fairs should be about formation to think as a scientist, not about students attaching themselves, remora-like, to prestigious labs….While the earliest science fairs directed the students to attempt to illuminate something about the world, modern competitive fairs direct the student to use science as a form of self-promotion. Students entering STS and other nationally competitive science fairs have learned that the critical hypothesis they must prove is “I’m better than my classmates.”…. Planning out a research project and then realizing you don’t have the funds to reach the sample size you need for a sufficiently powered study is a valuable education in itself. Seeing how complex, unwieldy, and expensive the scientific process is can help clarify questions like “Why has no one checked this?” or “Why don’t scientists always agree?””
· In Nature Human Behavior, Amber Peterman and co-authors have a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impacts of social safety nets on women’s economic achievements and agency. “Our sample includes 1,307 effect sizes from 93 studies, representing 218,828 women across 45 low- and middle-income countries. Using robust variance estimation meta-analysis, we show significant overall pooled effects (Hedges’ g = 0.107, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.085–0.129), driven by increases in economic achievements (productive work, savings, assets and expenditures) and agency (voice, autonomy and decision-making).”
· When people use mobile phones to answer online surveys they are more likely to make mistakes or say they don’t know than when using a tablet or computer according to both an experiment and within-person variation in a panel survey (via Marketplace.org). The paper notes “The primary mechanism is that respondents in the smartphone condition were 50 percent more likely to engage in rapid guessing—answering at least one of the questions in an implausible three seconds or less.”
· Getting cash fast after disasters matters – Erin Kelley and Greg Lane summarize an RCT that compares “FbAA (forecast-based anticipatory action, or cash delivered within days of flooding) to traditional post-disaster assistance … across villages in Bangladesh and Nepal. ... Both groups experience the same flood and receive a cash transfer of the same value. The only difference is the timing of the transfer in relation to the flood event: the FbAA group receives transfers within days of the flood, while the standard group receives assistance 1-1.5 months later”. They find the fast cash group has better food security and mental health right after the flood, and has similar outcomes in the medium and longer terms once the other group also receives cash – so getting money to the households earlier brings gains with no apparent downside.
Join the Conversation