Using Random Allocation to Evaluate Social Interventions: Three Recent U.K. Examples

Ann Oakley, Vicki Strange, Tami Toroyan, Meg Wiggins, Ian Roberts and Judith Stephenson

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2003, vol. 589, issue 1, 170-189

Abstract: Although widely accepted in medicine and health services research, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often viewed with hostility by social scientists, who cite a variety of reasons as to why this approach to evaluation cannot be used to research social interventions. This article discusses the three central themes in these debates, which are those of science, ethics , and feasibility . The article uses three recent U.K. trials of social interventions (day care for preschool children, social support for disadvantaged families, and peer-led sex education for young people) to consider issues relating to the use of random allocation for social intervention evaluation and to suggest some practical strategies for the successful implementation of “social†RCTs. The article argues that the criteria of science, ethics, and feasibility can and should apply to social intervention trials in just the same way as they do to clinical trials.

Date: 2003
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716203254765 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:anname:v:589:y:2003:i:1:p:170-189

DOI: 10.1177/0002716203254765

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().