Hollister Response to Richard Nathan's Opening Statement

Empirical Innovations in Policy Analysis

“…The framework for the debate was based on four questions posed at the outset of the “Point/Counterpoint” exchange: What is the proper role for random assignment social experiments, and how widely should they be used? Are there alternatives to random assignment that are nearly as good? What are the best and worst experiences in applying random assignment to social policy? Looking ahead, what are priority areas for social experiments? Initially, Hollister argued in favor of random assignment while Nathan took a more nuanced approach, essentially concluding random assignment as a “proper, but limited role” in policy research (Nathan, , p. 410). We summarize a few of the most salient points about randomization made in the “Point/Counterpoint” exchange here and encourage readers to review articles in the debate for a more in‐depth discussion on the topic (e.g., Berlin & Solow, ; Cook & Steiner, ; Greenberg, ; Hollister, , ; Nathan, , , ; Pirog, Buffardi, Chrisinger, Singh, & Briney, ; Wilson, ).…”

“…Initially, Hollister argued in favor of random assignment while Nathan took a more nuanced approach, essentially concluding random assignment as a "proper, but limited role" in policy research (Nathan, 2008a, p. 410). We summarize a few of the most salient points about randomization made in the "Point/Counterpoint" exchange here and encourage readers to review articles in the debate for a more in-depth discussion on the topic (e.g., Berlin & Solow, 2009;Cook & Steiner, 2009;Greenberg, 2009;Hollister, 2008Hollister, , 2009Nathan, 2008aNathan, , 2008bNathan, , 2009Pirog, Buffardi, Chrisinger, Singh, & Briney, 2009;Wilson, 2009). Fundamental disagreements emerged in the Hollister-Nathan debate on the use of random assignment and experiments.…”