1 resultado para Policy makers
em Nottingham eTheses
Filtro por publicador
- JISC Information Environment Repository (3)
- Repository Napier (1)
- Aberystwyth University Repository - Reino Unido (3)
- Academic Research Repository at Institute of Developing Economies (1)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (1)
- Andina Digital - Repositorio UASB-Digital - Universidade Andina Simón Bolívar (1)
- Aquatic Commons (26)
- Archive of European Integration (26)
- Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación - Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad del País Vasco (8)
- Aston University Research Archive (14)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (7)
- Brock University, Canada (18)
- CaltechTHESIS (1)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (18)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (124)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (2)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (6)
- Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL) (9)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (10)
- Cornell: DigitalCommons@ILR (1)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (6)
- Deakin Research Online - Australia (85)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (1)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (2)
- Digital Peer Publishing (1)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (2)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (1)
- Doria (National Library of Finland DSpace Services) - National Library of Finland, Finland (1)
- Duke University (11)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (6)
- Greenwich Academic Literature Archive - UK (6)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (16)
- Indian Institute of Science - Bangalore - Índia (10)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (1)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1)
- Memoria Académica - FaHCE, UNLP - Argentina (3)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (1)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (1)
- Nottingham eTheses (1)
- Open University Netherlands (1)
- Plymouth Marine Science Electronic Archive (PlyMSEA) (9)
- QSpace: Queen's University - Canada (3)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (99)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (326)
- ReCiL - Repositório Científico Lusófona - Grupo Lusófona, Portugal (2)
- Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa - Portugal (2)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (6)
- Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London. (2)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (3)
- SAPIENTIA - Universidade do Algarve - Portugal (5)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (3)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (4)
- Universidade de Lisboa - Repositório Aberto (4)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (2)
- Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Universität Kassel, Germany (10)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (5)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (25)
- University of Connecticut - USA (2)
- University of Michigan (1)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (1)
- University of Washington (2)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (14)
- Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK (2)
Resumo:
Social experiments have been widely utilised in evaluations of social programmes in the US to identify ‘what works’, whilst in the UK their use is more controversial. This paper explores the paradigmatic, technical and practical issues evaluators confront in using randomised experiments to evaluate social policies. Possible remedies to some of these problems are outlined. It is argued that although no evaluation methodology is problem-free, policy makers and researchers should be more confident about the merits of using random assignment, provided it is used in conjunction with other methodologies more suited to understanding why and how interventions work.