BMJ 1998;317:1239-1242 ( 31 October )

Education and debate

Experimentation and social interventions: a forgotten but important history

Ann Oakley, professor. 

Social Science Research Unit, University of London Institute of Education, London WC1H 0NS

a.oakley@ioe.ac.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The research design of the randomised controlled trial is primarily associated today with medicine. It tends either to be ignored or regarded with suspicion by many in such disciplines as health promotion, public policy, social welfare, criminal justice, and education. However, all professional interventions in people's lives are subject to essentially the same questions about acceptability and effectiveness. As the social reformers Sidney and Beatrice Webb pointed out in 1932, there is far more experimentation going on in "the world sociological laboratory in which we all live" than in any other kind of laboratory, but most of this social experimentation is "wrapped in secrecy" and thus yields "nothing to science."¹

Table Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)

The Webbs argued for a more "scientific" social policy, with social scientists being trained in experimental methods and evaluations of social interventions being carried out by independent investigators. They were apparently unaware that a strong tradition in experimental sociology had already . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Effect of insulating existing houses on health inequality: cluster randomised study in the community

Philippa Howden-Chapman, Anna Matheson, Julian Crane, Helen Viggers, Malcolm Cunningham, Tony Blakely, Chris Cunningham, Alistair Woodward, Kay Saville-Smith, Des O'Dea, Martin Kennedy, Michael Baker, Nick Waipara, Ralph Chapman, and Gabrielle Davie
BMJ 2007 334: 460. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Oakley's case for using randomised controlled trials is misleading

Don Nutbeam
BMJ 1999 318: 944. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Adams, J., Witten, K., Conway, K. (2009). Community development as health promotion: evaluating a complex locality-based project in New Zealand. COMMUNITY DEV J 44: 140-157 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Holliday, J., Audrey, S., Moore, L., Parry-Langdon, N., Campbell, R. (2009). High fidelity? How should we consider variations in the delivery of school-based health promotion interventions?. Health Education Journal 68: 44-62 [Abstract]  
• Thomson, H (2008). A dose of realism for healthy urban policy: lessons from area-based initiatives in the UK. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 62: 932-936 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Howden-Chapman, P., Matheson, A., Crane, J., Viggers, H., Cunningham, M., Blakely, T., Cunningham, C., Woodward, A., Saville-Smith, K., O'Dea, D., Kennedy, M., Baker, M., Waipara, N., Chapman, R., Davie, G. (2007). Effect of insulating existing houses on health inequality: cluster randomised study in the community. BMJ 334: 460-460 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Burton, P., Goodlad, R., Croft, J. (2006). How Would We Know What Works?: Context and Complexity in the Evaluation of Community Involvement. Evaluation 12: 294-312 [Abstract]  
• Speller, V., Wimbush, E., Morgan, A. (2005). Evidence-based health promotion practice: how to make it work. Global Health Promotion 12: 15-20  
• Simons, H. (2004). Utilizing Evaluation Evidence to Enhance Professional Practice. Evaluation 10: 410-429 [Abstract]  
• Kaptchuk, T. J, Kerr, C. E (2004). Commentary: Unbiased divination, unbiased evidence, and the patulin clinical trial. Int J Epidemiol 33: 247-251 [Full text]  
• Thomson, H., Hoskins, R., Petticrew, M., Ogilvie, D., Craig, N., Quinn, T., Lindsay, G. (2004). Evaluating the health effects of social interventions. BMJ 328: 282-285 [Full text]  
• Scheel, I B, Hagen, K B, Oxman, A D (2003). The unbearable lightness of healthcare policy making: a description of a process aimed at giving it some weight. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 57: 483-487 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Cowan, F M (2002). Adolescent reproductive health interventions. Sex. Transm. Infect. 78: 315-318 [Full text]  
• Taylor, P. D (2002). Evaluation is essential for all types of intervention. BMJ 324: 300-300 [Full text]  
• Rychetnik, L, Frommer, M, Hawe, P, Shiell, A (2002). Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 56: 119-127 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Thomson, H., Petticrew, M., Morrison, D. (2001). Health effects of housing improvement: systematic review of intervention studies. BMJ 323: 187-190 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• MACINTYRE, S., PETTICREW, M. (2000). Good intentions and received wisdom are not enough. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 54: 802-803 [Full text]  
• Wimbush, E., Watson, J. (2000). An Evaluation Framework for Health Promotion: Theory, Quality and Effectiveness. Evaluation 6: 301-321 [Abstract]  
• Nutbeam, D. (1999). Oakley's case for using randomised controlled trials is misleading. BMJ 318: 944b-944 [Full text]  
• Chalmers, I. (1998). Unbiased, relevant, and reliable assessments in health care. BMJ 317: 1167-1168 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Oakley's case for use of RCT's is misleading

Don Nutbeam
bmj.com, 6 Nov 1998 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more>>