1 / 25

Research Ethics

Research Ethics. Kenny Ajayi October 6, 2008. Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation. Econometric Resources. Duflo, Esther, Rachel Glennerster, and Michael Kremer. Using Randomization in Development Economics Research : A Toolkit. Poverty Action Lab White Paper, MIT Wooldridge, Jeffrey.

george
Download Presentation

Research Ethics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ResearchEthics Kenny Ajayi October 6, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

  2. Econometric Resources • Duflo, Esther, Rachel Glennerster, and Michael Kremer. • Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit. Poverty Action Lab White Paper, MIT • Wooldridge, Jeffrey. • Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach

  3. Research Ethics • Ethics • Group Projects • Guest Presentation: Robert Van Buskirk

  4. Ethical Concerns

  5. Ethical Concerns • Fairness (in resource allocation) • Dangers (of unsuccessful programs)

  6. Dupas, 2006 • HIV information for Kenyan teenagers • How effective is the current government program? • How effective would additional information be? • How responsive are teenagers to information on relative risks?

  7. Dupas, 2006 • HIV information for Kenyan teenagers • National HIV Prevention Curriculum: • Abstinence • Average HIV prevalence in the population • Teacher reinforcement training • NGO Relative Risks Campaign: • Information on HIV prevalence disaggregated by gender and age group • Presentation by trained NGO officer

  8. Dupas, 2006 • Statistics Provided by the NGO:

  9. Dupas, 2006 • Statistics Provided by the NGO:

  10. Dupas, 2006 • Statistics Provided by the NGO:

  11. Model: Risk Information • Risks • HIV infection for those who are not infected • Pregnancy for girls • Reduction Strategies • Abstinence • Condom use

  12. Model: Partner Choice • Adult Men differ from Teenage Boys • Higher HIV Prevalence Rate • Greater Financial Resources • Derive relatively less utility from condom-protected sex • Girls choose sexual partners based on: • Perceived riskiness of partnership • Size of compensation transfer

  13. Information Experiment • Provide Relative Risks Information in a randomly selected subset of schools • Treatment Cohort: 13,000 • 8th graders at time of campaign (2004) • Treatment Students: 2,500 • Students enrolled in treatment schools during campaign • Comparison Cohort: • Students a year ahead of or below treatment cohort

  14. Randomization Worked

  15. Empirical Strategy • Compare outcomes (Y) one year later • Self-reported sexual behavior • Childbearing and marital status • Characteristics of sexual partners of girls who had started childbearing • Unobserved (Z):

  16. Empirical Strategy • Compare outcomes (Y) one year later • Self-reported sexual behavior • Childbearing and marital status • Characteristics of sexual partners of girls who had started childbearing • Unobserved (Z): HIV status of teenagers in sample

  17. Empirical Strategy • Compare outcomes (Y) one year later • Self-reported sexual behavior • Childbearing and marital status • Characteristics of sexual partners of girls who had started childbearing • Unobserved (Z): HIV status of teenagers in sample • How reliable are these outcome measures?

  18. Ethical Concerns • If we give people information on HIV, they respond with their behavior • Unethical to withhold information that we know is right, if it can be implemented. but • Unethical to give out information that we are not sure is right, or may be misleading

  19. Ethics of NOT Evaluating • Girls prefer to have sexual relationships with older men because these men can provide greater resources. • Girls might substitute away from sexual partnerships with older men if they knew about disaggregated HIV prevalence instead of just average prevalence rates.

  20. Results • Significant Impacts • Increase in reported sexual activity • 65% decrease in incidence of pregnancies by adult partners • Decrease in HIV infection risk • Larger behavioral changes on the intensive margin (choice of partner and protection level) than on the extensive margin (choice of abstinence or not)

  21. Results • Spillover Effects • (using variation in density of treated students across secondary schools)

  22. Ethics of Randomization • Deny control group the intervention, but: • Don’t actively hurt them • Don’t give wrong information • Don’t make them worse off than they would otherwise be • Can give a token gift/compensation (but small enough not to make it a treatment in itself)

  23. Ethics of Randomization • Ethics are less contested if: • Budget constraints would have prevented everyone from receiving the intervention anyway • Everyone eventually receives the intervention (i.e. phased-in rollout so that the control group is only left out initially) • Program provides basic treatment (or current best practices) for everybody

  24. Solutions to Ethical Concerns • Study Design • Phase-in (everybody eventually gets treatment) • Lottery (fair means to address budget constraints) • Encouragement (not a direct intervention) • Cluster (often less controversial than randomizing within clusters) • Human Subjects Protocol

  25. Conclusion • Ethics are important to consider even in information campaigns (and especially in HIV studies) • There are ways to address ethical concerns creatively

More Related