Field experiments and methodological intolerance

Glenn Harrison

Journal of Economic Methodology, 2013, vol. 20, issue 2, 103-117

Abstract: The popularity of field experiments that utilize some form of random evaluation seems to be correlated with increased methodological intolerance. Since correlation is not causation, it may be useful to examine what this intolerance is, why it seems to have developed and how it can be defused. The intolerance takes at least four, related forms. First, there is an identification of the notion of an experiment with the use of some randomization. This is actually just a simple semantic confusion, but colors debate on many other issues. Second, there is an aggressive disconnect from theory, whether it be economic theory or econometric theory. Third, there is unquestioned worship to a narrow concept of causality defined solely in terms of things that can be directly observed. Finally, there is a dismissal of the role of laboratory experiments. I argue against all the four positions.

Date: 2013
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1350178X.2013.804678 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:taf:jecmet:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:103-117

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RJEC20

DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2013.804678

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Economic Methodology is currently edited by John Davis and D Wade Hands

More articles in Journal of Economic Methodology from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().