Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity pp 1–16Cite as

Experimental Design

Ethics, Integrity and the Scientific Method

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 298 Accesses

Abstract

Experimental design is one aspect of a scientific method. A well-designed, properly conducted experiment aims to control variables in order to isolate and manipulate causal effects and thereby maximize internal validity, support causal inferences, and guarantee reliable results. Traditionally employed in the natural sciences, experimental design has become an important part of research in the social and behavioral sciences. Experimental methods are also endorsed as the most reliable guides to policy effectiveness. Through a discussion of some of the central concepts associated with experimental design, including controlled variation and randomization, this chapter will provide a summary of key ethical issues that tend to arise in experimental contexts. In addition, by exploring assumptions about the nature of causation and by analyzing features of causal relationships, systems, and inferences in social contexts, this chapter will summarize the ways in which experimental design can undermine the integrity of not only social and behavioral research but policies implemented on the basis of such research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Alderson P (1996) Equipoise as a means of managing uncertainty: personal, communal and proxy. J Med Ethics 223:135–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Arabatzis T (2014) Experiment. In: Curd M, Psillos S (eds) The Routledge companion to philosophy of science, 2nd edn. Routledge, London, pp 191–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Baele S (2013) The ethics of new development economics: is the experimental approach to development economics morally wrong? J Philos Econ 7(1):2–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp T, Childress J (2013) Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore K (1999) Why experiment in economics? Econ J 109(453):16–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogen J (2002) Epistemological custard pies from functional brain imaging. Philos Sci 69(3):59–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordens K, Abbott B (2013) Research and design methods: a process approach. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady H (2011) Causation and explanation in social science. In: Goodin R (ed) The Oxford handbook of political science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1054–1107

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome J (1984) Selecting people randomly. Ethics 95(1):38–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown A, Mehta T, Allison D (2017) Publication bias in science: what is it, why is it problematic, and how can it be addressed? In: Jamieson K, Kahan D, Scheufele D (eds) The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 93–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (1999) The dappled world: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (2007) Hunting causes and using them. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (2012) RCTs, evidence, and predicting policy effectiveness. In: Kincaid H (ed) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 298–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (2014) Causal inference. In: Cartwright N, Montuschi E (eds) Philosophy of social science: a new introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 308–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill L (1980) Physician-investigator/patient-subject: exploring the logic and the tension. J Med Philos 5(3):215–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke S (1999) Justifying deception in social science research. J Appl Philos 16(2):151–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner R (1982) Random assignment of clients in social experimentation. In: Sieber J (ed) The ethics of social research: surveys and experiments. Springer, New York, pp 57–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook T, Campbell D (1986) The causal assumptions of quasi-experimental practice. Synthese 68(1):141–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook C, Sheets C (2011) Clinical equipoise and personal equipoise: two necessary ingredients for reducing bias in manual therapy trials. J Man Manipulative Ther 19(1):55–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Crasnow S (2017) Bias in social science experiments. In: McIntyre L, Rosenberg A (eds) The Routledge companion to the philosophy of social science. Routledge, London, pp 191–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas H (2014) Values in social science. In: Cartwright N, Montuschi E (eds) Philosophy of social science: a new introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 162–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Feest U, Steinle F (2016) Experiment. In: Humphreys P (ed) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 274–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman B (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 317(3):141–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman B, Glass K, Weijer C (1996) Placebo orthodoxy in clinical research II: ethical, legal, and regulatory myths. J Law Med Ethics 24(3):252–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried C (1974) Medical experimentation: personal integrity and social policy. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangl M (2010) Causal inference in sociological research. Annu Rev Sociol 36:21–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller D (1982) Alternatives to deception: why, what, and how? In: Sieber JE (ed) The ethics of social research: surveys and experiments. Springer, New York, pp 38–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford F (1986) The conflict between randomized clinical trials and the therapeutic obligation. J Med Philos 11:347–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillon R (1994) Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. Br Med J 309(6948):184–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldthorpe J (2001) Causation, statistics, and sociology. Eur Sociol Rev 17(1):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Guala F (2005) The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Guala F (2009) Methodological issues in experimental design and interpretation. In: Kincaid H, Ross D (eds) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of economics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 280–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Guala F (2012) Experimentation in economics. In: Mäki U (ed) Philosophy of economics. Elsevier/North Holland, Oxford, pp 597–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking I (1999) The social construction of what? Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley M (2008) Paradigm war revived? On the diagnosis of resistance to randomized controlled trials and systematic review in education. Int J Res Method Educ 31(1):3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt K (2014) Ethics and experiments. In: Webster M, Sell J (eds) Laboratory experiments in the social sciences. Academic, London, pp 23–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes D (1976) ‘Debriefing after psychological experiments: I. Effectiveness of postdeception dehoaxing’ and ‘Debriefing after psychological experiments: II. Effectiveness of postexperimental desensitizing’. Am Psychol 32:858–875

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys M (2015) Reflections on the ethics of social experimentation. J Glob Dev 6(1):87–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaidesoja T (2017) Causal inference and modeling. In: McIntyre L, Rosenberg A (eds) The Routledge companion to philosophy of social science. Routledge, London, pp 202–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman H (1982) Ethical issues in different social science methods. In: Beauchamp T et al (eds) Ethical issues in social science research. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 40–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuorikoski J, Marchionni C (2014) Philosophy of economics. In: French S, Saatsi J (eds) The Bloomsbury companion to the philosophy of science. Bloomsbury, London, pp 314–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine R (1979) Clarifying the concepts of research ethics. Hast Cent Rep 9(3):21–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilford R, Jackson J (1995) Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med 88(10):552–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller F, Brody H (2003) A critique of clinical equipoise: therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. Hast Cent Rep 33(3):19–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller P, Weijer C (2006) Fiduciary obligation in clinical research. J Law Med Ethics 34(2):424–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell S (2009) Unsimple truths: science, complexity, and policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton R, Williams K (2010) Experimental political science and the study of causality: from nature to the lab. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley A et al (2003) Using random allocation to evaluate social interventions: three recent UK examples. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 589(1):170–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Papineau D (1994) The virtues of randomization. Br J Philos Sci 45:437–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl J (2000) Causality-models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Risjord M (2014) Philosophy of social science: a contemporary introduction. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, Joan (1982) Ethical dilemmas in social research. In: Sieber J (ed) The ethics of social research: surveys and experiments. Springer, New York, pp 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber J (1992) Planning ethically responsible research: a guide for students and internal review boards. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel M (1996) An introduction to causal inference. Sociol Methods Res 24(3):353–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan J (2009) The multiplicity of experimental protocols. A challenge to reductionist and non-reductionist models of the unity of neuroscience. Synthese 167:511–539

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbach P (1985) Randomization and the design of experiments. Philos Sci 52:256–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Veatch R (2007) The irrelevance of equipoise. J Med Philos 32(2):167–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilholt T (2009) Bias and values in scientific research. Stud Hist Phil Sci 40(1):92–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J (2008) Invariance, modularity, and all that. Cartwright on causation. In: Cartwright N et al (eds) Nancy Cartwright’s philosophy of science. Routledge, New York, pp 198–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Worrall J (2002) What evidence in evidence-based medicine? Philos Sci 69(3):316–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Worrall J (2007) Why there’s no cause to randomize. Br J Philos Sci 58(3):451–488

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy and Music, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Jonathan Lewis

Authors
  1. Jonathan Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Lewis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chatelaillon Plage, France

    Ron Iphofen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Lewis, J. (2019). Experimental Design. In: Iphofen, R. (eds) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7_19-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7_19-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76040-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76040-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation