Randomista is clearly not a neutral term, and I think constitutes a kind of name calling (e.g. Corbynista in the UK). Do proponents of RCT development use this term for themselves?
We did not use it in a name calling way but rather as a neutral term to describe the intellectual movement. The term is used by mainstream economists who are critical in a respectful way, but also by randomistas themselves (note for instance that Duflo or Blattman have used the term).
However, it is true that
“the term was first used by another Nobel laureate and a long time and fierce critic of RCTs, Angus Deaton. According to Andrew Leigh, the author of a recent book titled, Randomistas: How Radical Researchers Are Changing Our World (2018), the term was meant mostly as an abuse which Leigh turned into a compliment. Leigh defined a Randomista as ‘’someone who believes we can find answers to important questions by tossing a coin and putting people into a treatment and control group, comparing the outcome, and then using the randomization to get a true causal effect.” (Social Science Space, 2018).”
A few people have mentioned that they think the title is inflammatory—it wasn’t intended as such. I had never thought that the term randomista is pejorative, e.g. you can find various examples of eg chris blattman owning it
I think even if it isn’t inflammatory, a different title might make the intended audience less defensive and more likely to change their minds as it isn’t about their identity, and more about how much weight to give RCTs versus other evaluation methods.
We did not use it in a name calling way but rather as a neutral term to describe the intellectual movement.
I have no doubt that the term was used in good faith. I apologise that my post was worded a bit poorly, so it sounded like I was accusing you of name-calling.
What’s your basis for claiming that ‘randomista’ is a non-neutral term?
The ‘-ista’ suffix sounds pejorative to me in English,like someone who is a zealous dogmatic advocate. Corbynista was the example I referred to, which is a term used often to in the UK to bash the left.
Etymologically, it sounds like my suspicion was correct (see Hauke’s post above). Of course these words often get reclaimed, and it appears that’s happened here too, hence why I asked whether the RCT proponents call themselves that.
It’s obviously not that important, and I don’t want to start a battle over words, but David makes a good point about how you engage your critics.
We did not use it in a name calling way but rather as a neutral term to describe the intellectual movement. The term is used by mainstream economists who are critical in a respectful way, but also by randomistas themselves (note for instance that Duflo or Blattman have used the term).
However, it is true that
A few people have mentioned that they think the title is inflammatory—it wasn’t intended as such. I had never thought that the term randomista is pejorative, e.g. you can find various examples of eg chris blattman owning it
I think even if it isn’t inflammatory, a different title might make the intended audience less defensive and more likely to change their minds as it isn’t about their identity, and more about how much weight to give RCTs versus other evaluation methods.
Yes I think that’s a fair point
I have no doubt that the term was used in good faith. I apologise that my post was worded a bit poorly, so it sounded like I was accusing you of name-calling.
The ‘-ista’ suffix sounds pejorative to me in English,like someone who is a zealous dogmatic advocate. Corbynista was the example I referred to, which is a term used often to in the UK to bash the left.
Etymologically, it sounds like my suspicion was correct (see Hauke’s post above). Of course these words often get reclaimed, and it appears that’s happened here too, hence why I asked whether the RCT proponents call themselves that.
It’s obviously not that important, and I don’t want to start a battle over words, but David makes a good point about how you engage your critics.