RANDOMIZED INTERVENTIONS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE: Are the Critics Right?

Peter John*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereby subjects are randomly assigned to different conditions and outcomes are compared afterward, have become a very popular method in political science because they offer the possibility of causal inference that is so hard to achieve otherwise. But the method attracts strong criticism, often made from outside political science. It is claimed that trials have poor realism, weak external validity, allow for only a limited range of possible research topics, and throw up unique ethical challenges. While political scientists should take good note of these criticisms when they design trials, they also need to be aware that these kinds of challenges are also faced by social scientists generally. All scholars need to be aware of the limits of the methods they use, which include randomized controlled trials.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationThe Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Political Science
PublisherOxford University Press
Pages343-354
Number of pages12
ISBN (Electronic)9780197519837
ISBN (Print)9780197519806
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2023

Keywords

  • experiments in political science
  • field experiments
  • political methodology
  • randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'RANDOMIZED INTERVENTIONS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE: Are the Critics Right?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this