Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Pragmaattinen laboratoriotutkimus× | Kenttäkokeilu× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Koesuunnittelu | Koesuunnittelu |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1967 (foundational distinction); 2009 (PRECIS operationalization) | 1920s–1930s (agriculture); 1990s–2000s (social sciences) |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Schwartz & Lellouch (pragmatic–explanatory distinction); extended by PRECIS framework developers | Formalized by R. A. Fisher (1935); systematized in social sciences by Harrison & List (2004) |
| Tyyppi≠ | Experimental design philosophy and study type | Experimental design |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Schwartz, D., & Lellouch, J. (1967). Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 20(8), 637–648. DOI ↗ | Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055. DOI ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | pragmatic experiment, applied laboratory trial, practice-oriented lab experiment, pragmatic controlled experiment | field trial, natural field experiment, randomized field experiment, field RCT |
| Liittyvät≠ | 3 | 5 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | A pragmatic laboratory experiment is a controlled study conducted in a laboratory setting that prioritises external validity and real-world applicability over the stringent internal controls characteristic of purely explanatory experiments. Drawing on the pragmatic–explanatory continuum formalised by Schwartz and Lellouch (1967) and later operationalised in the PRECIS framework, it asks whether an intervention works under conditions that approximate actual practice rather than ideal circumstances, making findings directly actionable for decision-makers and practitioners. | A field experiment applies the logic of a randomized controlled trial in a naturally occurring, real-world environment rather than an artificial laboratory. Participants are randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions while going about everyday activities, allowing researchers to estimate causal effects with high internal validity while preserving a level of ecological realism that laboratory settings cannot offer. The design is especially prominent in economics, public health, political science, and development research. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|