Abstract
We assemble studies within a set that we label randomized control trials ('RCTs') in the United States legal projects that essentially consist of 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 United States legal profession. We use our assembly of approximately fifty studies to begin addressing the question of why the United States legal profession, in contrast to the United States medical profession, has resisted the use of the RCT as a knowledge-generating device.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Published version (
Free)
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
