Advertisement

The European Journal of Development Research

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 180–188 | Cite as

A Realist Alternative to Randomised Control Trials: A Bridge Not a Barrier?

  • Jamie MorganEmail author
Commentary
  • 48 Downloads

Wendy Olsen’s “Bridging to action” is a timely intervention that seeks to reorient development research (Olsen 2019a). Olsen’s position takes as its point of departure the growing schism between action research and the use of randomised control trials (RCTs) and specifically argues for a realist alternative approach as one way to underpin and operationalise development research. In the following short essay, I set out the terms of the underpinning warrant for the argument, and in the conclusion suggest additional ways to elaborate.

The Problem to be Addressed

RCTs focus on an observable specific feature of a situation, that can, through design, “in principle” be isolated, seek equivalent groups and apply an intervention to a treatment group, which can then be contrasted with a control group; the intervention is subject to a hypothesis test and an analytical statistical measure of the existence and strengthof an effect. For advocates of RCTs, the approach encourages a focus on “what...

Notes

References

  1. Banerjee, A., and E. Duflo (eds.). 2017. Handbook of Economic Field Experiments (two volumes). Oxford: North Holland-Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Deaton, A., and N. Cartwright. 2018. Understanding and Misunderstanding Randomized Control Trials. Social Science and Medicine 210: 2–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Freedman, D. 2010. Statistical Models and Causal Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gillies, D. 2000. Philosophical Theories of Probability. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Morgan, J. 2015. Seeing the Potential of Realism in Economics. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 45 (2): 176–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Morgan, J., and H. Patomäki. 2017. Contrast Explanation in Economics: Its Context, Meaning, and Potential. Cambridge Journal of Economics 41 (5): 1391–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Olsen, W. 2012. Data Collection. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Olsen, W. 2019a. ‘Bridging to action requires mixed methods, not only randomised control trials’, European Journal of Development Research, this issue.Google Scholar
  9. Olsen, W. 2019b. ‘Social statistics using strategic structuralism and pluralism’, Chapter 8, in Nagatsu, M and Ruzzene, A. editors, Contemporary Philosophy and Social Science: An interdisciplinary dialogue London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  10. Olsen, W. 2014. Comment: The Usefulness of QCA Under Realist Assumptions. Sociological Methodology 44 (1): 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ravallion, M. 2012. Fighting poverty one experiment at a time: A review of Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo’s “Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty”. Journal of Economic Literature 50 (1): 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sindzingre, A. 2019. Experiments in economics and their ethical dimensions: The case of developing countries. In The Ethical Formation of Economists, ed. W. Dolfsma and I. Negru. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leeds Beckett UniversityLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations