This article explores the characteristics of research sites that scientists have called “natural experiments” to understand and develop usable distinctions for the social sciences between “Nature’s or Society’s experiments” and “natural experiments.” In this analysis, natural experiments emerge as the retro-fitting by social scientists of events that have happened in the social world into the traditional forms of field or randomized trial experiments. By contrast, “Society’s experiments” figure as events in the world that happen in circumstances that are already sufficiently “controlled” to be open for direct analysis without reconstruction work.
BeattyJohn. 2006. “Replaying Life’s Tapes.” Journal of Philosophy103 (7): 336–62.
2.
BoumansMarcel. 1999. “Representation and Stability in Testing and Measuring Rational Expectations.” Journal of Economic Methodology6:381–401.
3.
BoumansMarcel. 2005. How Economists Model the World into Numbers. London: Routledge.
4.
CampbellDonald T. 1967/1988. “Administrative Experimentation, Institutional Records, and Nonreactive Measures.” In Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers of Donald T. Campbell, edited by OvermanE. E. Samuel, 243–60. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
CantrilHadley with GaudetHazelHerzogHerta. 1940. The Invasion from Mars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6.
CardDavidKruegerAlan B.1994. “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.” American Economic Review84 (4): 772–93.
7.
CardDavidKruegerAlan B.1995. Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8.
CartwrightNancy D.2012. “Will This Policy Work for You? Predicting Effectiveness Better: How Philosophy Helps.” Philosophy of Science79 (5): 973–89.
9.
CurtissSusan. 1977. Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day “Wild Child.”New York: Academic Press.
10.
DiamondJaredRobinsonJames A. eds. 2010. Natural Experiments of History. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
11.
DunningThad. 2008. “Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments.” Political Research Quarterly61 (2): 282–93.
12.
HaavelmoTrygve. 1944. “The Probability Approach in Economics.” Econometrica12 (Supplement): 14.
13.
KogutBruceZanderUdo. 2000. “Did Socialism Fail to Innovate: A Natural Experiment of the Two Zeiss Companies.” American Sociological Review65: 169–90.
14.
KohlerRobert E.2002. Landscapes and Labscapes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Leigh StarSusan. 1995. “Epilogue: Work and Practice in Social Studies of Science, Medicine, and Technology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values20 (4): 501–507.
16.
MertonRobert K., with FiskeMarjorieCurtisAlberta. 1946. Mass Persuasion: The Social Psychology of a War Bond Drive. New York: Harper.
17.
OldenbaughJay. 2006. “Message in the Bottle: The Constraints of Experimentation on Model Building.” Philosophy of Science73 (5): 720–29.
18.
OzonoffDavidBodenLeslie I.1987. “Truth and Consequences: Health Agency Responses to Environmental Health Problems.” Science, Technology, & Human Values12 (3/4): 70–77.
19.
ReissJulian. 2008. Error in Economics. London: Routledge.
20.
RiemanJeffrey H.1976. “Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood.” Philosophy and Public Affairs6 (1): 26–44.
21.
WoodwardJim. 2003. “Experimentation, Causal Inference, and Instrumental Realism.” In The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation, edited by RadderHans, 87–118. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
