<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
AbstractContemporary social‐scientific research seeks to identify specific causal mechanisms for outcomes of theoretical interest. Experiments that randomize populations to treatment and control conditions are the “gold standard” for causal inference. We identify, describe, and analyze the problem posed by transformative treatments. Such treatments radically change treated individuals in a way that creates a mismatch in populations, but this mismatch is not empirically detectable at the level of counterfactual dependence. In such cases, the identification of causal pathways is underdetermined in a previously unrecognized way. Moreover, if the treatment is indeed transformative it breaks the inferential structure of the experimental design. Transformative treatments are not curiosities or “corner cases,” but are plausible mechanisms in a large class of events of theoretical interest, particularly ones where deliberate randomization is impractical and quasi‐experimental designs are sought instead. They cast long‐running debates about treatment and selection effects in a new light, and raise new methodological challenges.
330, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Economics, Economics, bepress|Arts and Humanities|Philosophy, T-NDAS, B Philosophy (General), Social and Behavioral Sciences, SocArXiv|Arts and Humanities|Philosophy, SocArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology, Sociology, SocArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Economics, SocArXiv|Arts and Humanities, FOS: Philosophy, ethics and religion, FOS: Sociology, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology, Philosophy, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences, SocArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arts and Humanities, B1, bepress|Arts and Humanities
330, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Economics, Economics, bepress|Arts and Humanities|Philosophy, T-NDAS, B Philosophy (General), Social and Behavioral Sciences, SocArXiv|Arts and Humanities|Philosophy, SocArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology, Sociology, SocArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Economics, SocArXiv|Arts and Humanities, FOS: Philosophy, ethics and religion, FOS: Sociology, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology, Philosophy, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences, SocArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arts and Humanities, B1, bepress|Arts and Humanities
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 14 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |