Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:38:19 -0800 (PST) From: Andrew Mearman <ajmearman-AT-yahoo.com> Subject: RE: BHA: RE: cr and social science Doesn't randomisation imply closure, simply by *assuming* that the sample *is* random? What is the basis for assuming such a probability distribution? Andrew --- Marshall Feldman <marsh-AT-uri.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > Tone makes an excellent point. I don't think the > prevalence of randomization > in biomedical research is a problem for CR because > these studies are not > designed to uncover causal mechanisms. Instead, > they're designed to > determine the effects of a drug (rather than how the > drug causes those > affects). This seems legitimate but superficial. > Without knowing the causal > mechanisms, we can only hope our luck holds out > using the drug in the future > (the problem of induction). > > The whole issue of randomization raises some other > interesting questions. > One is whether or not randomization is a viable way > to achieve closure. > Although it does not close the experiment by > eliminating confounding causes, > it may make these causes cancel out so that we can > say the experimental > manipulation is "quasi-closed" (i.e., the observed > effects are only those of > the manipulated causes). This doesn't bring us > closer to uncovering > mechanisms or necessity, and perhaps the most > damning aspect of the > literature on experimental design for social and > behavioral science is its > over-emphasis on effects and quasi-closure coupled > with its almost complete > blindness to questions of how we study mechanisms > and the structure by which > things necessarily achieve their causal powers. > > The issue also brings up the question of random > sampling, which aims to > obtain "representative" samples. It too ignores > mechanisms. This question, > however, raises questions not only with > experimentation in the social > sciences, but also statistical analysis. > > Marsh > > Dr. Marshall Feldman, Associate Professor > Department of Community Planning and Landscape > Architecture > 94 West Alumni Avenue, Suite 1 > 204 Rodman Hall > The University of Rhode Island > Kingston, Rhode Island 02881-0815 > > Tel. 401.874.5953 > Fax 401.874.5511 > Email: marsh-AT-uri.edu > http://www.uri.edu/cels/cpl/marsh.html > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > > > [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On > Behalf Of Tone > > Skinningsrud > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:00 AM > > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > > Subject: Re: BHA: RE: cr and social science > > > > > > Dear Fredrik, and others, > > > > To adress your last question first: > > randomisation (i.e. randomised experiments), as > far as I know, is an > > experimental procedure used specifically in the > social (and psychological) > > sciences. The rationale for this procedure, > according to a > > leading theorist > > in experimental and quasi-experimental > methodology, Donald T. Campbell, is > > to enable the experimenter to assess the effects > of different treatments > > completely independent of the prior status of the > object (persons etc) > > under study. > > > > This rationale seems to be consistent with a > Humean, i.e. contingent, > > conception of causality which seeks conjunctions > of events - correlations > > between impact and result, regardeless of the > internal structure of the > > object being studied. This rationale is not > consistent with a > > conception of > > causality as the necessary relationship between > events, which > > would make us > > interesed in studying how objects with certain > properties react > > to specific > > (adequate) treatments. Thus, Campbell's idea of > the randomised experiment > > is quite different from Bhaskar's definition of > the experiment, which you > > quoted in your article in 'Hften fr kritiska > studier' - which emphasises > > the purpose of releasing and studying a specific > type of mechanism in > > isolation. > > > > I see the rationale of the randomised experiment > as contrary to basic > > assumptions in critical realism, specifically the > conception of causality. > > One does not get closer to isolating the operation > of one mechanism by > > disregarding (or randomising)the properties of the > objects under study. > > And, by the way, Piaget did not use randomised > experiments. He just > > experimented with his own children. > > > > I find the theoretical reasons for rejecting > randomised experiments > > convincing, however, it is a dilemma that a large > part of medical > > (pharmaceutical and clinical) research is based on > this methodology, as > > well as certain psychological disciplines. May be > each experiment would > > have to be scrutinised to see whether it is > designed to reveal mechanisms > > rather than correlations. > > > > Tone > > > > > > > > At 22:16 04.02.02 +0100, you wrote: > > >Hi > > > > > >My interpretation has always been that > experiments are imposible in the > > >social sciences only beacause of practical and > ethical reasons, > > and that we > > >therfore have to wait for sittuation where there > are reasons to > > belive one > > >or a few mechanisms are dominant, such as crises. > But my > > interpretation may > > >be wrong for subjective reasons. > > > > > >Then there is the question whether there are any > example of closed > > >experiments at all? (Isnt it therfore we use > randomisation ;-) > > > > > >Best, > > > > > >Fredrik > > > > > > > > > --- from list > bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list > bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > --- from list > bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005