Authors
Nick Cowen
University of Lincoln
Abstract
ABSTRACT“Evidence-based” methods, which most prominently include randomized controlled trials, have gained increasing purchase as the “gold standard” for assessing the effect of public policies. But the enthusiasm for evidence-based research overlooks questions about the reliability and applicability of experimental findings to diverse real-world settings. Perhaps surprisingly, a qualitative study of British educators suggests that they are aware of these limitations and therefore take evidence-based findings with a much larger grain of salt than do policy makers. Their experience suggests that the real world is more heterogeneous than the world imagined by evidence-based policy enthusiasts.
Keywords behavioral economics  evidence-based policy  meta-analysis  nudge  nudging  systematic reviews  education policy
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1080/08913811.2017.1395223
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Causes and Conditions.J. L. Mackie - 1965 - American Philosophical Quarterly 2 (4):245 - 264.
The Ethics of Nudge.Luc Bovens - 2008 - In Mats J. Hansson & Till Grüne-Yanoff (eds.), Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology. Berlin: Springer, Theory and Decision Library A. pp. 207-20.
Are Rcts the Gold Standard?Nancy Cartwright - 2007 - Biosocieties 1 (1):11-20.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Disagreement About Evidence-Based Policy.Nick Cowen & Nancy Cartwright - forthcoming - In Maria Baghramian, J. Adam Carter & Richard Rowland (eds.), Routledge Handbook of The Philosophy of Disagreement. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What Theories Are Tested in Clinical Trials?Spencer Phillips Hey - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1318-1329.
Shortcomings of the Randomized Controlled Trial: A View From the Boondocks.Joseph Herman Md - 1998 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 4 (4):283-286.
Problems Associated with Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials in Breast Cancer.Ann E. Johnson - 1998 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 4 (2):119-126.
Cluster Randomized Controlled Trials.Suezann Puffer, David J. Torgerson & Judith Watson - 2005 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 11 (5):479-483.
What Are Randomised Controlled Trials Good For?Nancy Cartwright - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 147 (1):59 - 70.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-11-21

Total views
364 ( #28,686 of 2,519,861 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
70 ( #11,031 of 2,519,861 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes