Department of Political Science

Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents. / Bischof, Daniel; Cohen, Gidon; Cohen, Sarah; Foos, Florian ; Kuhn, Patrick; Nanou, Kyriaki; Visalvanich, Neil; Vivyan, Nick.

In: Political Studies Review, 08.2021.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Bischof, D, Cohen, G, Cohen, S, Foos, F, Kuhn, P, Nanou, K, Visalvanich, N & Vivyan, N 2021, 'Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents', Political Studies Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211037865

APA

Bischof, D., Cohen, G., Cohen, S., Foos, F., Kuhn, P., Nanou, K., Visalvanich, N., & Vivyan, N. (2021). Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents. Political Studies Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211037865

CBE

Bischof D, Cohen G, Cohen S, Foos F, Kuhn P, Nanou K, Visalvanich N, Vivyan N. 2021. Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents. Political Studies Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211037865

MLA

Vancouver

Bischof D, Cohen G, Cohen S, Foos F, Kuhn P, Nanou K et al. Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents. Political Studies Review. 2021 Aug. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211037865

Author

Bischof, Daniel ; Cohen, Gidon ; Cohen, Sarah ; Foos, Florian ; Kuhn, Patrick ; Nanou, Kyriaki ; Visalvanich, Neil ; Vivyan, Nick. / Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents. In: Political Studies Review. 2021.

Bibtex

@article{31bc26126eda49c49314ea855aec313c,
title = "Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents",
abstract = "Audit experiments examining the responsiveness of public officials have become an increasingly popular tool used by political scientists. While these studies have brought significant insight into how public officials respond to different types of constituents, particularly those from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds, audit studies have also been controversial due to their frequent use of deception. Scholars have justified the use of deception by arguing that the benefits of audit studies ultimately outweigh the costs of deceptive practices. Do all audit experiments require the use of deception? This article reviews audit study designs differing in their amount of deception. It then discusses the organizational and logistical challenges of a UK study design where all letters were solicited from MPs{\textquoteright} actual constituents (so-called confederates) and reflected those constituents{\textquoteright} genuine opinions. We call on researchers to avoid deception, unless necessary, and engage in ethical design innovation of their audit experiments, on ethics review boards to raise the level of justification of needed studies involving fake identities and misrepresentation, and on journal editors and reviewers to require researchers to justify in detail which forms of deception were unavoidable.",
author = "Daniel Bischof and Gidon Cohen and Sarah Cohen and Florian Foos and Patrick Kuhn and Kyriaki Nanou and Neil Visalvanich and Nick Vivyan",
year = "2021",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1177/14789299211037865",
language = "English",
journal = "Political Studies Review",
issn = "1478-9299",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents

AU - Bischof, Daniel

AU - Cohen, Gidon

AU - Cohen, Sarah

AU - Foos, Florian

AU - Kuhn, Patrick

AU - Nanou, Kyriaki

AU - Visalvanich, Neil

AU - Vivyan, Nick

PY - 2021/8

Y1 - 2021/8

N2 - Audit experiments examining the responsiveness of public officials have become an increasingly popular tool used by political scientists. While these studies have brought significant insight into how public officials respond to different types of constituents, particularly those from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds, audit studies have also been controversial due to their frequent use of deception. Scholars have justified the use of deception by arguing that the benefits of audit studies ultimately outweigh the costs of deceptive practices. Do all audit experiments require the use of deception? This article reviews audit study designs differing in their amount of deception. It then discusses the organizational and logistical challenges of a UK study design where all letters were solicited from MPs’ actual constituents (so-called confederates) and reflected those constituents’ genuine opinions. We call on researchers to avoid deception, unless necessary, and engage in ethical design innovation of their audit experiments, on ethics review boards to raise the level of justification of needed studies involving fake identities and misrepresentation, and on journal editors and reviewers to require researchers to justify in detail which forms of deception were unavoidable.

AB - Audit experiments examining the responsiveness of public officials have become an increasingly popular tool used by political scientists. While these studies have brought significant insight into how public officials respond to different types of constituents, particularly those from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds, audit studies have also been controversial due to their frequent use of deception. Scholars have justified the use of deception by arguing that the benefits of audit studies ultimately outweigh the costs of deceptive practices. Do all audit experiments require the use of deception? This article reviews audit study designs differing in their amount of deception. It then discusses the organizational and logistical challenges of a UK study design where all letters were solicited from MPs’ actual constituents (so-called confederates) and reflected those constituents’ genuine opinions. We call on researchers to avoid deception, unless necessary, and engage in ethical design innovation of their audit experiments, on ethics review boards to raise the level of justification of needed studies involving fake identities and misrepresentation, and on journal editors and reviewers to require researchers to justify in detail which forms of deception were unavoidable.

U2 - 10.1177/14789299211037865

DO - 10.1177/14789299211037865

M3 - Journal article

JO - Political Studies Review

JF - Political Studies Review

SN - 1478-9299

ER -