Ethics Audits in Cross-National Research: Experiences from Correspondence Study Field Experiments with National Politicians in Four European Democracies

Abstract

This essay contemplates experiences from four national ethics audits designed to facilitate correspondence study field experiments with national politicians in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom. The experimental study aims to reveal possible biases in legislators’ responsiveness to distinct types of constituents such as non-partisans, lower-class constituents, ethnic minorities, and women, and to unveil possible unsubstantiated fears or misperceptions in this regard. The national research teams proposed the same experimental design but received three different ethical evaluations. Specifically, the relevant Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the UK and Denmark asked for two different de-briefing procedures. In the Danish case, this led to withdrawal of the experiment due to severe costs with regard to research quality. In the UK case, it led to increased risk of backlash. Our experiences imply a need for more consistent ethics regimes in the European research community designed to facilitate comparative social science research.

Advantages, Challenges and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents

“…As a result, concerns around the use of deception in audit studies have gained prominence, especially for audit studies involving legislative elites. With an ever-increasing number of audit studies targeting a small and finite number of political elites, there are legitimate concerns regarding the aggregate costs of these studies on the general public (Desposato, 2021), the responsible management of the common pool resource of 'public elites' for both future experimental (Butler and Desposato, 2021) and non-experimental research (Cowley, 2021) and the heterogeneity of ethical standards towards this type of research across Western European countries (Pedersen et al, 2021). This article's contribution to the debate is twofold.…”

Introduction to Symposium: Experiments with Politicians: Ethics, Power, and the Boundaries of Political Science

“…They argue that Value-added and Transparent (VAT) Experiments should involve politicians at the design stage of research. The draw-back, as Pedersen et al (2021) argue, is that briefing individual politicians at the design stage might rule out some research questions, such as those asked in Campbell and Bolet (2021). As an alternative to individual consent, a body representing politicians’ interests, such as in the UK, for instance the Speaker of the House or a joint committee of MPs and academics, could review studies in advance.…”

“…The contribution by Pedersen et al (2021) outlines the wider comparative project in which the Campbell/Bolet study is part. They demonstrate the serious comparative research questions asked and range of reputable funders involved.…”

“…Both Desposato (2021) and Crabtree and Dhima (2021) advocate the use of cost-benefit analysis. Desposato (2021) conceptualises the types of public harms that audit studies can cause: aggregate and line-cutting harms, which go beyond the minimal individual harms considered in Pedersen et al (2021). He proposes that researchers minimise those harms by thinking carefully about the total number of hours legislators spend answering enquiries.…”