There are few high-quality studies using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the adventure and wilderness therapy literature. Thus, a unison call is heard for more such studies to be carried out. This article presents a Norwegian wilderness therapy research project that planned to incorporate this “gold standard” that is regarded as the most scientific and rigorous approach available. We did not succeed. Mounting challenges led us to discard the RCT altogether and select other methodologies. Here, we account for the ethical, health outcome, practical, and empirical obstacles that we encountered when attempting to randomize at-risk adolescents into experiment and control groups. Our conclusion is that although RCTs may be superior in some aspects, they hold the potential to become bad science when the interventions are as complex and multi-faceted as adventure and wilderness therapy programs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.