1,720,969 research outputs found
Are social experiments being hyped (too much)?
Get PDFSocial experiments, also known as randomized controlled trials, are the subject of contentious discussions, giving rise to buzzwords such as ‘credibility revolution,’ ‘experimenting society,’ ‘global lab,’ or ‘empire of truth.’ While using exaggeration to illustrate opportunities and risks may well be justified, this research article analyzes to what extent the present debate is characterized by excessive hype. It finds that the transformative potential of social experiments is greatly overestimated, a judgment that applies to the reasoning of both proponents and critics.Social experiments, also known as randomized controlled trials, are the subject of contentious discussions, giving rise to buzzwords such as ‘credibility revolution,’ ‘experimenting society,’ ‘global lab,’ or ‘empire of truth.’ While using exaggeration to illustrate opportunities and risks may well be justified, this research article analyzes to what extent the present debate is characterized by excessive hype. It finds that the transformative potential of social experiments is greatly overestimated, a judgment that applies to the reasoning of both proponents and critics
The Realpolitik of Randomization. Impact Evaluation, Economics, and the Twenty-First Century Experimenting Society
No full textNeuwinger M. The Realpolitik of Randomization. Impact Evaluation, Economics, and the Twenty-First Century Experimenting Society. Bielefeld: Universität Bielefeld; 2023
Are social experiments being hyped (too much)?
Get PDFSocial experiments, also known as randomized controlled trials, are the subject of contentious discussions, giving rise to buzzwords such as 'credibility revolution,' 'experimenting society,' 'global lab,' or 'empire of truth.' While using exaggeration to illustrate opportunities and risks may well be justified, this research article analyzes to what extent the present debate is characterized by excessive hype. It finds that the transformative potential of social experiments is greatly overestimated, a judgment that applies to the reasoning of both proponents and critics.Sozialexperimente, auch bekannt als randomisierte kontrollierte Studien, werden kontrovers diskutiert, etwa unter den Schlagworten 'Revolution der Glaubwürdigkeit', 'Experimentiergesellschaft', 'globales Labor' oder 'Imperium der Wahrheit'. Obwohl Übertreibung zur Verdeutlichung von Chancen und Risiken durchaus gerechtfertigt sein kann, untersucht dieser Forschungsartikel inwiefern die aktuelle Diskussion durch einen übermäßigen Hype geprägt ist. Im Ergebnis wird festgestellt, dass das transformative Potenzial von Sozialexperimenten weit überschätzt wird. Diese Diagnose gilt gleichermaßen für die Argumente von Unterstützern und Kritikern
The revolution will not be randomized: Universal basic income, randomized controlled trials, and 'evidence-based' social policy
No full textNeuwinger M. The revolution will not be randomized: Universal basic income, randomized controlled trials, and 'evidence-based' social policy. Global Social Policy. 2021;22(1):27-45.Organizations in various countries have launched large-scale randomized field experiments to evaluate the empirical effects of basic income. Surprisingly, scholars have paid only scarce attention to the way basic income experiments are actually run. To address this shortcoming, I present three case studies of basic income experiments in the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. I ask: Why do experiments' designs only remotely resemble the 'paradigmatic' model of basic income they are in fact interested in - universal, unconditional, individual payments, no means tests, and no work requirements? Interviewed researchers identify three types of constraints that prevent basic income experiments from successfully testing basic income - politics, money, and the law - which I explain through the mechanism of 'boundary work' between science and politics. I conclude by cautioning against overstated expectations about the policy impact of both current and future basic income experiments
What makes randomized controlled trials so successful-for now? Or, on the consonances, compromises, and contradictions of a global interstitial field
No full textNeuwinger M. What makes randomized controlled trials so successful-for now? Or, on the consonances, compromises, and contradictions of a global interstitial field. Theory and Society . 2024;53:1213–1244.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a major success story, promising to improve science and policy. Despite some controversy, RCTs have spread toward Northern and Southern countries since the early 2000s. How so? Synthesizing previous research on this question, this article argues that favorable institutional conditions turned RCTs into "hinges" between the fields of science, politics, and business. Shifts toward behavioral economics, New Public Management, and evidence-based philanthropic giving led to a cross-fertilization among efforts in rich and poor countries, involving states, international organizations, NGOs, researchers, and philanthropic foundations. This confluence of favorable institutional conditions and savvy social actors established a "global interstitial field" inside which support for RCTs has developed an unprecedented scope, influence, operational capacity, and professional payoff. However, the article further argues that the hinges holding together this global interstitial field are "squeaky" at best. Because actors inherit the illusio of their respective fields of origin-their central incentives and stakes-the interstitial field produces constant goal conflicts. Cooperation between academics and practitioners turns out to be plagued by tensions and contradictions. Based on this analysis, the article concludes that the global field of RCT support will probably differentiate into its constituent parts. As a result, RCTs may lose the special status they have gained among social science and policy evaluation methods, turning into one good technique among others
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
- …
