Advertisement

Experimental Design

Ethics, Integrity and the Scientific Method
  • Jonathan LewisEmail author
Living reference work entry

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.

Keywords

Experimental design Randomization Controlled variation Deception Informed consent Causal relationship Causal inference Reliability Internal validity External validity Validity 

References

  1. Alderson P (1996) Equipoise as a means of managing uncertainty: personal, communal and proxy. J Med Ethics 223:135–139Google Scholar
  2. Arabatzis T (2014) Experiment. In: Curd M, Psillos S (eds) The Routledge companion to philosophy of science, 2nd edn. Routledge, London, pp 191–202Google Scholar
  3. Baele S (2013) The ethics of new development economics: is the experimental approach to development economics morally wrong? J Philos Econ 7(1):2–42Google Scholar
  4. Beauchamp T, Childress J (2013) Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Binmore K (1999) Why experiment in economics? Econ J 109(453):16–24Google Scholar
  6. Bogen J (2002) Epistemological custard pies from functional brain imaging. Philos Sci 69(3):59–71Google Scholar
  7. Bordens K, Abbott B (2013) Research and design methods: a process approach. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Brady H (2011) Causation and explanation in social science. In: Goodin R (ed) The Oxford handbook of political science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1054–1107Google Scholar
  9. Broome J (1984) Selecting people randomly. Ethics 95(1):38–55Google Scholar
  10. 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 93–101Google Scholar
  11. Cartwright N (1999) The dappled world: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Cartwright N (2007) Hunting causes and using them. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 298–318Google Scholar
  14. Cartwright N (2014) Causal inference. In: Cartwright N, Montuschi E (eds) Philosophy of social science: a new introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 308–337Google Scholar
  15. Churchill L (1980) Physician-investigator/patient-subject: exploring the logic and the tension. J Med Philos 5(3):215–224Google Scholar
  16. Clarke S (1999) Justifying deception in social science research. J Appl Philos 16(2):151–166Google Scholar
  17. 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 57–77Google Scholar
  18. Cook T, Campbell D (1986) The causal assumptions of quasi-experimental practice. Synthese 68(1):141–180Google Scholar
  19. 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):55–57Google Scholar
  20. 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 191–201Google Scholar
  21. 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 162–182Google Scholar
  22. Feest U, Steinle F (2016) Experiment. In: Humphreys P (ed) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 274–295Google Scholar
  23. Freedman B (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 317(3):141–145Google Scholar
  24. Freedman B, Glass K, Weijer C (1996) Placebo orthodoxy in clinical research II: ethical, legal, and regulatory myths. J Law Med Ethics 24(3):252–259Google Scholar
  25. Fried C (1974) Medical experimentation: personal integrity and social policy. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Gangl M (2010) Causal inference in sociological research. Annu Rev Sociol 36:21–47Google Scholar
  27. 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 38–55Google Scholar
  28. Gifford F (1986) The conflict between randomized clinical trials and the therapeutic obligation. J Med Philos 11:347–366Google Scholar
  29. Gillon R (1994) Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. Br Med J 309(6948):184–188Google Scholar
  30. Goldthorpe J (2001) Causation, statistics, and sociology. Eur Sociol Rev 17(1):1–20Google Scholar
  31. Guala F (2005) The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 280–305Google Scholar
  33. Guala F (2012) Experimentation in economics. In: Mäki U (ed) Philosophy of economics. Elsevier/North Holland, Oxford, pp 597–640Google Scholar
  34. Hacking I (1999) The social construction of what? Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  35. 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):3–10Google Scholar
  36. Hegtvedt K (2014) Ethics and experiments. In: Webster M, Sell J (eds) Laboratory experiments in the social sciences. Academic, London, pp 23–51Google Scholar
  37. Holmes D (1976) ‘Debriefing after psychological experiments: I. Effectiveness of postdeception dehoaxing’ and ‘Debriefing after psychological experiments: II. Effectiveness of postexperimental desensitizing’. Am Psychol 32:858–875Google Scholar
  38. Humphreys M (2015) Reflections on the ethics of social experimentation. J Glob Dev 6(1):87–112Google Scholar
  39. Kaidesoja T (2017) Causal inference and modeling. In: McIntyre L, Rosenberg A (eds) The Routledge companion to philosophy of social science. Routledge, London, pp 202–213Google Scholar
  40. 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 40–98Google Scholar
  41. 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 314–333Google Scholar
  42. Levine R (1979) Clarifying the concepts of research ethics. Hast Cent Rep 9(3):21–26Google Scholar
  43. Lilford R, Jackson J (1995) Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med 88(10):552–559Google Scholar
  44. Miller F, Brody H (2003) A critique of clinical equipoise: therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. Hast Cent Rep 33(3):19–28Google Scholar
  45. Miller P, Weijer C (2006) Fiduciary obligation in clinical research. J Law Med Ethics 34(2):424–440Google Scholar
  46. Mitchell S (2009) Unsimple truths: science, complexity, and policy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  47. Morton R, Williams K (2010) Experimental political science and the study of causality: from nature to the lab. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  48. Oakley A et al (2003) Using random allocation to evaluate social interventions: three recent UK examples. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 589(1):170–189Google Scholar
  49. Papineau D (1994) The virtues of randomization. Br J Philos Sci 45:437–450Google Scholar
  50. Pearl J (2000) Causality-models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  51. Risjord M (2014) Philosophy of social science: a contemporary introduction. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Sieber, Joan (1982) Ethical dilemmas in social research. In: Sieber J (ed) The ethics of social research: surveys and experiments. Springer, New York, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  53. Sieber J (1992) Planning ethically responsible research: a guide for students and internal review boards. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  54. Sobel M (1996) An introduction to causal inference. Sociol Methods Res 24(3):353–379Google Scholar
  55. Sullivan J (2009) The multiplicity of experimental protocols. A challenge to reductionist and non-reductionist models of the unity of neuroscience. Synthese 167:511–539Google Scholar
  56. Urbach P (1985) Randomization and the design of experiments. Philos Sci 52:256–273Google Scholar
  57. Veatch R (2007) The irrelevance of equipoise. J Med Philos 32(2):167–183Google Scholar
  58. Wilholt T (2009) Bias and values in scientific research. Stud Hist Phil Sci 40(1):92–101Google Scholar
  59. 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 198–237Google Scholar
  60. Worrall J (2002) What evidence in evidence-based medicine? Philos Sci 69(3):316–330Google Scholar
  61. Worrall J (2007) Why there’s no cause to randomize. Br J Philos Sci 58(3):451–488Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy and Music, Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesDublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations