Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 3 - RCTs versus Observational Research

  • from Part I - Internal and External Validity Issues in Case Study Research
  • Edited by Jennifer Widner, Princeton University, New Jersey, Michael Woolcock, Daniel Ortega Nieto
  • Book:
    The Case for Case Studies
    Published online:
    05 May 2022
    Print publication:
    26 May 2022, pp 52-61
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    Achen aims to correct what he perceives as an imbalance in favor of randomized controlled trials – experiments – within contemporary social science. “The argument for experiments depends critically on emphasizing the central challenge of observational work – accounting for unobserved confounders – while ignoring entirely the central challenge of experimentation – achieving external validity,” he writes. Using the mathematics behind randomized controlled trials to make his point, he shows that once this imbalance is corrected, we are closer to Cartwright’s view (Chapter 2) than to the current belief that RCTs constitute the gold standard for good policy research. Achen concludes: “Causal inference of any kind is just plain hard. If the evidence is observational, patient consideration of plausible counterarguments, followed by the assembling of relevant evidence, can be, and often is, a painstaking process.” Well-structured qualitative case studies are one important tool; experiments, another.