#Paradigm shift logo series#

RCT data is also commonly used for cost-effectiveness calculations. In many “evidence pyramids” they are the highest form of individual experiment level evidence (that is, excluding “meta” evidence like systematic reviews, meta-analyses or reviews of reviews). Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are a popular form of experiment, common across medicine, economics, and social sciences.for randomised controlled trials, implicitly shape research and policy priorities 6. Similar arguments have recently been wedged in developmental economics, including by economics Nobel Prize winner, Angus Deaton 4,5, that methodological preferences, e.g.

In taking a narrow, quantitative approach to the operationalization of effectiveness, we inadvertently restrict the gamut of cause prioritisation. Against pure ‘cost-effectiveness’ calculations for systemic change Experiments, Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), and Policy We summarise the outlined challenges and benefits, and, finally, we suggest a possible set of funding recommendations. Further, we review examples of successful paradigm shifts (smallpox and social movements) and contextualise their impact. We do this by highlighting economics research on randomised controlled trials and policy, as well research on nudging.

#Paradigm shift logo series#

Here, we first focus on a series of arguments detailing why it might be particularly difficult (and not always useful) to assess cost-effectiveness in conventional ways for paradigm shifting. How many lives were saved through reimagining gender equality and the subsequent introduction of laws for domestic violence, which largely came to be around the 1990s? How many person-hours of productivity were gained and how much wellbeing was increased after the reimagining of labour and subsequently through the successful lobbying of labour unions to have a 5 day working week? It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to attach a dollar value to social movements, to quantify intangible yet groundbreaking emancipation in quality-adjusted life years. Paradigm shifting does not fall neatly within the framework of impact measurement imposed by Open Philanthropy. If this has been primarily driven by paradigm shifts, large scale reimaginings of how the world works and society should function, we have a duty to support and foster those. The quality of life we can expect to enjoy today has improved vastly over the course of recorded history.

So too does society, argue numerous thinkers, including anthropologist David Graeber 2 and philosopher Amia Srinivasan 3. Science progresses through knowledge revolutions, and not incremental discoveries, argues the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn 1. (This post is written in collaboration with another author who does not have a forum account and prefers to be anonymous) Cause Exploration Essay for Open Philanthropy