Research and Programming: Tensions, Learning, and Compromise from Tipping Point’s RCT Evaluation

In a recent two-part blog series on CARE Insights, Tipping Point’s project director Anne Sprinkel, our Nepal team lead Dipendra Sharma, and our research partners at Emory University share some reflections about balancing the needs of an RCT and a heavy implementation package.

Randomized Control Trials and the Tipping Point Initiative’s Journey to Align the Gold Standard with our Mission

When we joined CARE’s Failing Forward podcast, we had little idea that we would discuss everything from logistical nightmares to ethical conundrums related to Tipping Point’s Phase 2 research study. On air. Live. And the day after the famous “Randomistas”, Esther Duflo, Abhijit Banerjee, and Michael Kremer, were awarded a Nobel Prize in economics for their use of experimental methods in evaluation – also known as the randomized control trial (RCT). See the full blog here

 Tensions and Learnings in Research Program Partnerships Undertaking RCTs

In this response, Cari Jo Clark and Kathryn Yount (Emory University) and Sudhindra Sharma (IDA) responds with reflections on the possibilities and tensions of RCT designs to evaluate programs designed to prevent critical social problems that primarily affect girls and women—such as child, early and forced marriage and other forms of gender-based violence (GBV). Discussions about RCTs are underway in various fields, including in a special series in the journal World Development. The field of GBV prevention has not yet had the same level of public debate, so they share a contribution here. See the full blog here.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.