Read on Twitter
As current Executive Director of @EGAPtweets let me explain how EGAP does research designs and pre-analysis plans (RDs/PAPs), which I think is different from what these authors understand as the point of RDs/PAPs. 1/9 https://twitter.com/JohnHolbein1/status/1252244185891123201
RDs/PAPs should be a vehicle for having an ex ante *conversation* about what you are doing, as a way to refine your study and also get buy-in and agreement. 2/9
This is similar to what Duflo et al discuss as the "interested party" rationale. I would say that this is more general than the set of cases that Duflo et al consider. 3/9
Much of the work that is carried out via @EGAPtweets consists of expensive trials of policy innovations conducted with NGOs and governments. We don't want to waste opportunities or mess these up. Feedback prior to implementation is *really* important. 4/9
RDs/PAPs that are never reviewed or discussed prior to their implementation are kind of pointless in my opinion. 5/9
The primary role of @EGAPtweets is to organize sessions to discuss RDs/PAPs. Also regional workshops (like NEWEPS, etc). do the same. The short PAPs that these authors advocate wouldn/t make for interesting sessions, and being able to do such sessions is the point. 6/9
It seems that in econ this isn't the practice, as seminar time is for finished and polished work. I honestly think many just don't know what they are missing and would value @EGAPtweets style ex ante feedback. 7/9
Research on COVID has made clear the need for these RD/PAP discussions, given problems with design and then also analysis of the trials and surveys. If such research were subject to pre-field and pre-analysis discussions among critical audiences, learning would be faster. 8/9
As it is now, few people believe the results that are being produced because the designs and analyses are weak. Here the stakes are very real. 9/9
