Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Basic Problems of Sociality
- Part II Laws and Explanation in the Social Sciences
- 4 Physicalism and the Human Sciences
- Comment
- 5 Complexity and Explanation in the Social Sciences
- Comment
- 6 The Heterogeneous Social: New Thinking About the Foundations of the Social Sciences
- Comment
- 7 What Is This Thing Called “Efficacy”?
- Comment
- Part III How Philosophy and the Social Sciences Can Enrich Each Other: Three Examples
- Epilogue
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
7 - What Is This Thing Called “Efficacy”?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Basic Problems of Sociality
- Part II Laws and Explanation in the Social Sciences
- 4 Physicalism and the Human Sciences
- Comment
- 5 Complexity and Explanation in the Social Sciences
- Comment
- 6 The Heterogeneous Social: New Thinking About the Foundations of the Social Sciences
- Comment
- 7 What Is This Thing Called “Efficacy”?
- Comment
- Part III How Philosophy and the Social Sciences Can Enrich Each Other: Three Examples
- Epilogue
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
The Topic
This chapter is about efficacy, effectiveness, the need for theory to join the two, and the tragedies of exporting the Cochrane medical-inspired ideology to social policy. Loosely, efficacy is what is established about causes in RCTs – randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness is what a cause does “in the field.” The theory, like that describing forces in mechanics, underwrites the assumption that the cause contributes the same effect in the field as in the experiment. The tragedies are multiple and snowball on from one another. On conventional Cochrane Collaboration doctrine, following the model of testing pharmaceuticals, the RCT is the gold standard for evidence of effectiveness in evidence-based policy. The first tragedy is that on dominant characterizations of “efficacy,” including, especially, many that try hard to be scientific, it does not make sense to suppose that efficacies make any difference outside experiments. The second tragedy is that once “efficacy” is characterized so that it does make sense, the RCT can hardly be a gold standard since it goes no way toward establishing the theory, or more loosely the story or account, that it takes to get out of the experiment and into the field. The third tragedy is that much of the teaching about evidence-based policy pays little attention to the need for such theories or accounts. Indeed there is often the suggestion that RCTs should replace such accounts since the accounts are almost always controversial.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Philosophy of the Social SciencesPhilosophical Theory and Scientific Practice, pp. 185 - 206Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
- 23
- Cited by