Thinking Outside the Randomized Controlled Trials Experimental Box: Strategies for Enhancing Credibility and Social Justice

Some evaluators employ randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the gold standard of evidence‐based practice (EBP). Critics of RCT designs argue that RCTs do not include the complexity of program participants' experiences or clinical expertise, and couple this with criticisms that it is difficult...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:New directions for evaluation 2013-06, Vol.2013 (138), p.49-60
Main Author: Hesse-Biber, Sharlene
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Case Studies
Class Differences
Control Groups
Couples
Credibility
Criticism
Evidence
Evidence Based Practice
Experimental Groups
Focus Groups
Laboratories
Medical Research
Mixed Methods Research
Racial Differences
Research Methodology
Sex
Social Class
Social Justice
Stereotypes
Theory Practice Relationship
Trials
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Some evaluators employ randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the gold standard of evidence‐based practice (EBP). Critics of RCT designs argue that RCTs do not include the complexity of program participants' experiences or clinical expertise, and couple this with criticisms that it is difficult to transfer RCT findings from the laboratory to the real world of clinical practice. The evaluation questions applied to RCT designs often exclude issues related to participants' gender, race, class, and other differences, furthering the stereotyping process (Rogers & Ballantyne, 2009). I argue that weaving in a subjectivist methodology and shifting methodological perspectives and methods into RCT‐based evaluations prior to, during, or after the RCT design serves to enhance the credibility and social‐justice RCT praxis. ©Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.
ISSN:1097-6736
1534-875X
DOI:10.1002/ev.20057