The Case for Preregistering Quasi-Experimental Program and Policy Evaluations

Abstract

The recognition that researcher discretion coupled with unconscious biases and motivated reasoning sometimes leads to false findings ("p-hacking") led to the broad embrace of study preregistration and other open-science practices in experimental research. Paradoxically, the preregistration of quasi-experimental studies remains uncommon although such studies involve far more discretionary decisions and are the most prevalent approach to making causal claims in the social sciences. I discuss several forms of recent empirical evidence indicating that questionable research practices contribute to the comparative unreliability of quasi-experimental research and advocate for adopting the preregistration of such studies. The implementation of this recommendation would benefit from further consideration of key design details (e.g., how to balance data cleaning with credible preregistration) and a shift in research norms to allow for appropriately nuanced sensemaking across prespecified, confirmatory results and other exploratory findings.