Randomized Control Trials in the United States Legal Profession
By D. James Greiner, Andrea Matthews. 2016
20 citations recorded by the source corpus.
We assemble studies within a set that we label randomized control trials (RCTs) in the US legal profession. These studies are field experiments conducted for the purpose of obtaining knowledge in which randomization replaces a decision that would otherwise have been made by a member of the US legal profession. We use our assembly of approximately 50 studies to begin addressing the question of why the US legal profession, in contrast to the US medical profession, has resisted the use of the RCT as a knowledge-generating device.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Law, Political Science and International Relations
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Madars Virza
- Karthik Dinakar
- Chelsea Barabas
- Joichi Ito
- Jonathan L. Zittrain
- Momin M. Malik
- Eli Ben-Sasson
- Vivek K. Singh
Citations in the corpus
- Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment (2017, background): “Scholars such as Greiner (Greiner and Matthews, 2016) have cast the lack of causal inference in the law as a problem of political will.”