IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v20y2013i2p103-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Field experiments and methodological intolerance

Author

Listed:
  • Glenn W. Harrison

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Glenn W. Harrison, 2013. "Field experiments and methodological intolerance," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 103-117, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:103-117
    DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2013.804678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1350178X.2013.804678
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1350178X.2013.804678?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Risk Attitudes, Sample Selection, and Attrition in a Longitudinal Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 552-568, July.
    2. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    3. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    4. Glenn W. Harrison, 2019. "The behavioral welfare economics of insurance," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 44(2), pages 137-175, September.
    5. Glenn W. Harrison & Jia Min Ng, 2019. "Behavioral insurance and economic theory: A literature review," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 133-182, July.
    6. Chidambaram, Bhuvanachithra & Janssen, Marco A. & Rommel, Jens & Zikos, Dimitrios, 2014. "Commuters’ mode choice as a coordination problem: A framed field experiment on traffic policy in Hyderabad, India," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-22.
    7. Douthit, Jeremy & Millar, Melanie & White, Roger M., 2021. "Horseshoes, hand grenades, and regulatory enforcement: Close experience with potential sanctions and fraud deterrence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 137-148.
    8. Jonathan H.W. Tan & Zhao Zichen & Daniel John Zizzo, 2023. "Scientific Inference from Field and Laboratory Economic Experiments: Empirical Evidence," Discussion Papers Series 663, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:103-117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJEC20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.