Loading…

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:
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!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3067-983dbc3177583d6eab59dc8b761da91f6274717534098ea7fec57482111388df3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3067-983dbc3177583d6eab59dc8b761da91f6274717534098ea7fec57482111388df3
container_end_page 60
container_issue 138
container_start_page 49
container_title New directions for evaluation
container_volume 2013
creator Hesse-Biber, Sharlene
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ev.20057
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1429637849</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1013349</ericid><sourcerecordid>1429637727</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3067-983dbc3177583d6eab59dc8b761da91f6274717534098ea7fec57482111388df3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkV1P2zAUhqNpk-i6SfyBSb7cTcCOk5yEO1ZlQFWB1JaPO8t1TqghjTvbhZb9-ZmWlatJu_Ir-dFzdM4bRYeMHjFKk2N8OkoozeBD1GMZT-MCsruPIdMS4hx4fhB9du6BBhRY1ot-T-e6e9TdPblaeadrJH6OZCy72iz0C9ZkYDpvTduGOLVato5U6yVavcDOy5b8MOsTMvFWerzX6EhjLKm6uezUq3NgsdYz3Wq_IUFJJkYFBRmunNcKv0SfmiDEr29vP7r-WU0H5_Ho6uxicDqKFac5xGXB65niDCALKUc5y8paFTPIWS1L1uQJpMAgLEvLAiU0qDJIi4Qxxouibng_-r7zLq35tULnxUI7hW0rOzQrJ1ialDmHIi3_F4UE3lFljXMWG7EMV5F2IxgVr1UIfBLbKgL6bYeGu6k9Vg0ZZZxvp8a7_2fd4uafHlHd_PW98dp5XO95aR9FqBgycXt5JsbnwxIuk6GY8D8Bk6J9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1429637727</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Thinking Outside the Randomized Controlled Trials Experimental Box: Strategies for Enhancing Credibility and Social Justice</title><source>Wiley</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>ERIC</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Hesse-Biber, Sharlene</creator><creatorcontrib>Hesse-Biber, Sharlene</creatorcontrib><description>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 &amp; 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1097-6736</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1534-875X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ev.20057</identifier><identifier>CODEN: NDFEF4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>New directions for evaluation, 2013-06, Vol.2013 (138), p.49-60</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company, and the American Evaluation Association</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3067-983dbc3177583d6eab59dc8b761da91f6274717534098ea7fec57482111388df3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3067-983dbc3177583d6eab59dc8b761da91f6274717534098ea7fec57482111388df3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,33756</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1013349$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hesse-Biber, Sharlene</creatorcontrib><title>Thinking Outside the Randomized Controlled Trials Experimental Box: Strategies for Enhancing Credibility and Social Justice</title><title>New directions for evaluation</title><addtitle>New Directions for Evaluation</addtitle><description>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 &amp; 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.</description><subject>Case Studies</subject><subject>Class Differences</subject><subject>Control Groups</subject><subject>Couples</subject><subject>Credibility</subject><subject>Criticism</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Evidence Based Practice</subject><subject>Experimental Groups</subject><subject>Focus Groups</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Medical Research</subject><subject>Mixed Methods Research</subject><subject>Racial Differences</subject><subject>Research Methodology</subject><subject>Sex</subject><subject>Social Class</subject><subject>Social Justice</subject><subject>Stereotypes</subject><subject>Theory Practice Relationship</subject><subject>Trials</subject><issn>1097-6736</issn><issn>1534-875X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkV1P2zAUhqNpk-i6SfyBSb7cTcCOk5yEO1ZlQFWB1JaPO8t1TqghjTvbhZb9-ZmWlatJu_Ir-dFzdM4bRYeMHjFKk2N8OkoozeBD1GMZT-MCsruPIdMS4hx4fhB9du6BBhRY1ot-T-e6e9TdPblaeadrJH6OZCy72iz0C9ZkYDpvTduGOLVato5U6yVavcDOy5b8MOsTMvFWerzX6EhjLKm6uezUq3NgsdYz3Wq_IUFJJkYFBRmunNcKv0SfmiDEr29vP7r-WU0H5_Ho6uxicDqKFac5xGXB65niDCALKUc5y8paFTPIWS1L1uQJpMAgLEvLAiU0qDJIi4Qxxouibng_-r7zLq35tULnxUI7hW0rOzQrJ1ialDmHIi3_F4UE3lFljXMWG7EMV5F2IxgVr1UIfBLbKgL6bYeGu6k9Vg0ZZZxvp8a7_2fd4uafHlHd_PW98dp5XO95aR9FqBgycXt5JsbnwxIuk6GY8D8Bk6J9</recordid><startdate>201306</startdate><enddate>201306</enddate><creator>Hesse-Biber, Sharlene</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>Wiley Periodicals, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201306</creationdate><title>Thinking Outside the Randomized Controlled Trials Experimental Box: Strategies for Enhancing Credibility and Social Justice</title><author>Hesse-Biber, Sharlene</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3067-983dbc3177583d6eab59dc8b761da91f6274717534098ea7fec57482111388df3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Case Studies</topic><topic>Class Differences</topic><topic>Control Groups</topic><topic>Couples</topic><topic>Credibility</topic><topic>Criticism</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Evidence Based Practice</topic><topic>Experimental Groups</topic><topic>Focus Groups</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Medical Research</topic><topic>Mixed Methods Research</topic><topic>Racial Differences</topic><topic>Research Methodology</topic><topic>Sex</topic><topic>Social Class</topic><topic>Social Justice</topic><topic>Stereotypes</topic><topic>Theory Practice Relationship</topic><topic>Trials</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hesse-Biber, Sharlene</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>New directions for evaluation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hesse-Biber, Sharlene</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1013349</ericid><atitle>Thinking Outside the Randomized Controlled Trials Experimental Box: Strategies for Enhancing Credibility and Social Justice</atitle><jtitle>New directions for evaluation</jtitle><addtitle>New Directions for Evaluation</addtitle><date>2013-06</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>2013</volume><issue>138</issue><spage>49</spage><epage>60</epage><pages>49-60</pages><issn>1097-6736</issn><eissn>1534-875X</eissn><coden>NDFEF4</coden><abstract>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 &amp; 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.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><doi>10.1002/ev.20057</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1097-6736
ispartof New directions for evaluation, 2013-06, Vol.2013 (138), p.49-60
issn 1097-6736
1534-875X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1429637849
source Wiley; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; ERIC; Sociological Abstracts
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
title Thinking Outside the Randomized Controlled Trials Experimental Box: Strategies for Enhancing Credibility and Social Justice
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T15%3A11%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Thinking%20Outside%20the%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trials%20Experimental%20Box:%20Strategies%20for%20Enhancing%20Credibility%20and%20Social%20Justice&rft.jtitle=New%20directions%20for%20evaluation&rft.au=Hesse-Biber,%20Sharlene&rft.date=2013-06&rft.volume=2013&rft.issue=138&rft.spage=49&rft.epage=60&rft.pages=49-60&rft.issn=1097-6736&rft.eissn=1534-875X&rft.coden=NDFEF4&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ev.20057&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1429637727%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3067-983dbc3177583d6eab59dc8b761da91f6274717534098ea7fec57482111388df3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1429637727&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1013349&rfr_iscdi=true