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...
Saved in:
Published in: | New directions for evaluation 2013-06, Vol.2013 (138), p.49-60 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |