Broader Evidence for Bigger Impact
Defining credible evidence has polarized into two camps—the Experimentalists and the Inclusionists—which must be brought together to tackle social problems effectively.
No one questions President Obama’s insistence that public funds should go to social programs that work and not to those that don’t. The controversy is about how we know what works, and the types of evidence that prudent investors should consider credible. The answers to these questions, like so much else in today’s discourse, have become polarized into two camps.
The Experimentalists assert that trustworthy evidence comes only out of experimental evaluations, where participants that get...
Want more? Sorry, the full text of this article is only available to subscribers. Subscribe now.
Already a subscriber? Please log in by entering your email address and password into the red login box at the top-right corner of this page.
Need to register for your premium online access, which is included with your paid subscription? Register here.