Cookies

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.


Durham Research Online
You are in:

Advantages, Challenges and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents

Bischof, Daniel and Cohen, Gidon and Cohen, Sarah and Foos, Florian and Kuhn, Patrick Michael and Nanou, Kyriaki and Visalvanich, Neil and Vivyan, Nick (2021) 'Advantages, Challenges and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents.', Political Studies Review .

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’ 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.

Item Type:Article
Full text:(VoR) Version of Record
Available under License - Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.
Download PDF (Advance online version)
(195Kb)
Status:Peer-reviewed
Publisher Web site:https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211037865
Publisher statement:This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Date accepted:15 July 2021
Date deposited:09 August 2021
Date of first online publication:08 August 2021
Date first made open access:09 August 2021

Save or Share this output

Export:
Export
Look up in GoogleScholar