Very well put, Ms. Neeraja. Social Science is not, and cannot ever be, similar to medical research. I remember reading the Angus Deaton critique (co-authored with his wife, if I remember it right) of RCTs many years back, but I didn't appreciate his concerns at that time. I suppose RCTs do have their place in the toolkit of economics, but it simply CANNOT replace the traditional methods of enquiry. The paper that you have chosen to highlight (to illustrate your points) should raise deep ethical concerns to whichever journal has published (or, is planning to publish) it.
The funny thing is, this paper is bad, but not as bad as many, many development economics RCTs out there. I also think it is based on a misrepresentation of Indian culture in many ways (on which I might write more later), but that's a bigger theoretical problem to me—why can't economists think about big questions anymore? Why is it randomista-approved small questions that can only be tested in unethical ways?
Very well put, Ms. Neeraja. Social Science is not, and cannot ever be, similar to medical research. I remember reading the Angus Deaton critique (co-authored with his wife, if I remember it right) of RCTs many years back, but I didn't appreciate his concerns at that time. I suppose RCTs do have their place in the toolkit of economics, but it simply CANNOT replace the traditional methods of enquiry. The paper that you have chosen to highlight (to illustrate your points) should raise deep ethical concerns to whichever journal has published (or, is planning to publish) it.
The funny thing is, this paper is bad, but not as bad as many, many development economics RCTs out there. I also think it is based on a misrepresentation of Indian culture in many ways (on which I might write more later), but that's a bigger theoretical problem to me—why can't economists think about big questions anymore? Why is it randomista-approved small questions that can only be tested in unethical ways?