Шеттік тәжірибелер: Нақты ортадағы зерттеулер

Experiment conducted outside the laboratory

Field experiments are experiments carried out outside of laboratory settings. They randomly assign subjects (or other sampling units) to either treatment or control groups to test claims of causal relationships. Random assignment helps establish the comparability of the treatment and control group so that any differences between them that emerge after the treatment has been administered plausibly reflect the influence of the treatment rather than pre existing differences between the groups. The distinguishing characteristics of field experiments are that they are conducted in real world settings and often unobtrusively and control not only the subject pool but selection and overtness, as defined by leaders such as John A. List. This is in contrast to laboratory experiments, which enforce scientific control by testing a hypothesis in the artificial and highly controlled setting of a laboratory. Field experiments have some contextual differences as well from naturally occurring experiments and quasi experiments. While naturally occurring experiments rely on an external force (e. g. a government, nonprofit, etc.) controlling the randomization treatment assignment and implementation, field experiments require researchers to retain control over randomization and implementation. Quasi experiments occur when treatments are administered as if randomly (e. g. U. S. Congressional districts where candidates win with slim margins, weather patterns, natural disasters, etc.). Field experiments encompass a broad array of experimental designs, each with varying degrees of generality. Some criteria of generality (e. g. authenticity of treatments, participants, contexts, and outcome measures) refer to the contextual similarities between the subjects in the experimental sample and the rest of the population. They are increasingly used in the social sciences to study the effects of policy related interventions in domains such as health, education, crime, social welfare, and politics.

Under random assignment, outcomes of field experiments are reflective of the real world because subjects are assigned to groups based on non deterministic probabilities. Two other core assumptions underlie the ability of the researcher to collect unbiased potential outcomes: excludability and non interference. The excludability assumption provides that the only relevant causal agent is through the receipt of the treatment. Asymmetries in assignment, administration or measurement of treatment and control groups violate this assumption. The non interference assumption, or Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA), indicates that the value of the outcome depends only on whether or not the subject is assigned the treatment and not whether or not other subjects are assigned to the treatment. When these three core assumptions are met, researchers are more likely to provide unbiased estimates through field experiments. After designing the field experiment and gathering the data, researchers can use statistical inference tests to determine the size and strength of the intervention's effect on the subjects. Field experiments allow researchers to collect diverse amounts and types of data. For example, a researcher could design an experiment that uses pre and post trial information in an appropriate statistical inference method to see if an intervention has an effect on subject level changes in outcomes.

Field experiments offer researchers a way to test theories and answer questions with higher external validity because they simulate real world occurrences. Some researchers argue that field experiments are a better guard against potential bias and biased estimators. As well, field experiments can act as benchmarks for comparing observational data to experimental results. Using field experiments as benchmarks can help determine levels of bias in observational studies, and, since researchers often develop a hypothesis from an a priori judgment, benchmarks can help to add credibility to a study. While some argue that covariate adjustment or matching designs might work just as well in eliminating bias, field experiments can increase certainty by displacing omitted variable bias because they better allocate observed and unobserved factors. Researchers can utilize machine learning methods to simulate, reweight, and generalize experimental data. This increases the speed and efficiency of gathering experimental results and reduces the costs of implementing the experiment. Another cutting edge technique in field experiments is the use of the multi armed bandit design, including similar adaptive designs on experiments with variable outcomes and variable treatments over time.