Misleading Evidence and Evidence-Led Policy

Making Social Science more Experimental

Dados Bibliográficos

ID9768100
AutoresLawrence W Sherman (0000-0001-7391-3562, University of Pennsylvania, autor correspondente)
Ano2003
Volume589
Fascículo1
Páginas6-19
Data de publicação2003-09-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0002-7162 • E-ISSN: 1552-3349
EditoraSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/0002716203256266
OpenAlexW2085798590
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas32
Referências citadas12

Increasing demands by government for “evidence-led” policy raise the risk that research evidence will mislead government rather than leading to an unbiased conclusion. The need for unbiased research conclusions has never been greater, yet few consumers of research understand the statistical biases with which science must always struggle. This article introduces the volume's discussion of those issues with an explanation of the major threats of bias in social science research and a map of the differing scientific opinions on how to deal with those threats. The thesis of the volume is that many of these threats could be reduced by making social science more experimental. The fact that even experimental evidence contains threats of bias does not alter that claim but merely suggests another: that educated consumers of social science may be the best defense against misleading evidence of all kinds

Economics · Epistemology · Evidence-based policy · Government (linguistics · Political science · Positive economics · Public relations · Scientific evidence · Statistical evidence · Advanced Causal Inference Techniques · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Primary Care and Health Outcomes · Psychology · Social Psychology