Resolving Ethical and Legal Problems in Randomized Experiments

Abstract

This article considers the ethical problems engendered by random assignment and privacy concerns in randomized field experiments. The particular focus is on procedural, legislative, and technical approaches to reducing or avoiding the problems. Examples are given from a variety of disciplines, although the main emphasis is on research in crime and delinquency.

Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods?

“…Experimentation is seen as difficult to conduct in non-clinical settings either due to a variety of problems such as implementation issues (Boruch 1976;Petersilia 1989), convincing practitioners to participate (Feder et al 2000), or ethical or moral dilemmas in treating some individuals and not others based on a random allocation scheme (Boruch et al 2000b;Clarke and Cornish 1972). Many of these arguments do not challenge experimentation in theory, but rather recognize the limitations of randomized controlled experiments in practice.…”

Editor's Notes Social Experiments in Practice: Introduction, Framing, and Context

“…Experimental evaluations have limitations and drawbacks, including ethical, practical, scientific, and technical concerns (e.g., Bell & Peck, ; Blustein, ; Boruch, Victor, & Cecil, ; Greenberg & Barnow, ). Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to address all of these concerns, we highlight three that are especially important because of their relevance to this issue of New Directions for Evaluation ( NDE ).…”

Endeavors in an Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of an Aftercare Program in the Netherlands

“…Second, practitioners often believed that NPAP is better than others, despite the fact that the efficacy has not yet been proven, and it could even cause serious harm (Dekovic, 2010;Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999;Lilienfeld, 2007;Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, & Finckenauer, 2000). The argument demonstrating that it is unethical to mandate NPAP before it has been rigorously tested (Boruch, Victor, & Cecil, 2000b) was "only convincing after repeated long and intense discussions" with the various parties involved (Asscher et al, 2007, p. 121).…”