诊断和现场实验

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences Pub Date : 2018-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.njas.2017.10.002
Maarten Voors
{"title":"诊断和现场实验","authors":"Maarten Voors","doi":"10.1016/j.njas.2017.10.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Field experiments have been embraced in development economics and political science as a core method to learn what development interventions work and why. Scientists across the globe actively engage with development practitioners to evaluate projects and programmes. However, even though field experiments have raised the bar on causality, they are often too narrowly defined and lack focus on structural development problems. Researchers and development practitioners should do more to improve the diagnostic process of the problem under study. Rodrik’s (2010) diagnostic framework provides a useful tool to improve the design and relevance of field experiments. Specifically, more should be done to seek coordination across studies, broaden the scope for interdisciplinary collaborations and seek peer review to increase validation and verification of evaluations. Only then can we increase knowledge aggregation and improve development policy making.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49751,"journal":{"name":"Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences","volume":"84 ","pages":"Pages 80-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.njas.2017.10.002","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostics and field experiments\",\"authors\":\"Maarten Voors\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.njas.2017.10.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Field experiments have been embraced in development economics and political science as a core method to learn what development interventions work and why. Scientists across the globe actively engage with development practitioners to evaluate projects and programmes. However, even though field experiments have raised the bar on causality, they are often too narrowly defined and lack focus on structural development problems. Researchers and development practitioners should do more to improve the diagnostic process of the problem under study. Rodrik’s (2010) diagnostic framework provides a useful tool to improve the design and relevance of field experiments. Specifically, more should be done to seek coordination across studies, broaden the scope for interdisciplinary collaborations and seek peer review to increase validation and verification of evaluations. Only then can we increase knowledge aggregation and improve development policy making.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49751,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences\",\"volume\":\"84 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 80-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.njas.2017.10.002\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1573521417300209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1573521417300209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

实地实验已经被发展经济学和政治学所接受,作为了解什么发展干预措施有效以及为什么有效的核心方法。全球的科学家积极地与发展实践者接触,以评估项目和规划。然而,尽管实地实验提高了因果关系的标准,但它们的定义往往过于狭隘,缺乏对结构性发展问题的关注。研究人员和发展实践者应该做更多的工作来改进正在研究的问题的诊断过程。Rodrik(2010)的诊断框架为改进现场实验的设计和相关性提供了一个有用的工具。具体地说,应该做更多的工作来寻求跨研究的协调,扩大跨学科合作的范围,并寻求同行评审来增加评价的有效性和核查。只有这样,我们才能增加知识聚集,改善发展政策制定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Diagnostics and field experiments

Field experiments have been embraced in development economics and political science as a core method to learn what development interventions work and why. Scientists across the globe actively engage with development practitioners to evaluate projects and programmes. However, even though field experiments have raised the bar on causality, they are often too narrowly defined and lack focus on structural development problems. Researchers and development practitioners should do more to improve the diagnostic process of the problem under study. Rodrik’s (2010) diagnostic framework provides a useful tool to improve the design and relevance of field experiments. Specifically, more should be done to seek coordination across studies, broaden the scope for interdisciplinary collaborations and seek peer review to increase validation and verification of evaluations. Only then can we increase knowledge aggregation and improve development policy making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences
Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 农林科学-农业综合
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, published since 1952, is the quarterly journal of the Royal Netherlands Society for Agricultural Sciences. NJAS aspires to be the main scientific platform for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research on complex and persistent problems in agricultural production, food and nutrition security and natural resource management. The societal and technical challenges in these domains require research integrating scientific disciplines and finding novel combinations of methodologies and conceptual frameworks. Moreover, the composite nature of these problems and challenges fits transdisciplinary research approaches embedded in constructive interactions with policy and practice and crossing the boundaries between science and society. Engaging with societal debate and creating decision space is an important task of research about the diverse impacts of novel agri-food technologies or policies. The international nature of food and nutrition security (e.g. global value chains, standardisation, trade), environmental problems (e.g. climate change or competing claims on natural resources), and risks related to agriculture (e.g. the spread of plant and animal diseases) challenges researchers to focus not only on lower levels of aggregation, but certainly to use interdisciplinary research to unravel linkages between scales or to analyse dynamics at higher levels of aggregation. NJAS recognises that the widely acknowledged need for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, also increasingly expressed by policy makers and practitioners, needs a platform for creative researchers and out-of-the-box thinking in the domains of agriculture, food and environment. The journal aims to offer space for grounded, critical, and open discussions that advance the development and application of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research methodologies in the agricultural and life sciences.
期刊最新文献
Identifying socio-psychological constructs and beliefs underlying farmers’ intention to adopt on-farm silos Motivational factors influencing farming practices in northern Ghana Is the farmer field school still relevant? Case studies from Malawi and Indonesia The role of shade trees in influencing farmers’ adoption of cocoa agroforestry systems: Insight from semi-deciduous rain forest agroecological zone of Ghana Public private collaborations amidst an emergency plant disease outbreak: The Australian experience with biosecurity for Panama disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1