Ethics of Field Experiments

Abstract

Political scientists are increasingly conducting field experiments that raise ethical issues that standard review criteria and processes are ill equipped to address. Field experiments can answer important questions, but they can also present various harms to individuals, communities, and political processes; undermine autonomy; introduce partnerships that present complex questions of responsibility; and damage the public's trust in the discipline. This article reviews published empirical and theoretical research, professional guidelines, and media accounts, blog posts, and other sources when appropriate. It characterizes the state of the field regarding the identification of ethical problems, relevant normative guidance, proposed strategies for managing ethical concerns, and issues on the horizon. It concludes that the discipline is making good progress, with robust guidelines and strategies for conducting field experiments ethically. However, there is still much work to be done in refining and expanding current guidance, addressing remaining issues, and promoting norms. This review concludes with some general recommendations for researchers conducting political science field experiments. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 24 is May 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Field experiments in operations management

“…McDermott and Hatemi (2020) point out that “ a large number of social science field experiments do not reflect compliance with current ethical and legal requirements that govern research with human participants ,” thus initiating a call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harm. By reviewing field experiment‐based research in the political science field, Phillips (2021) concurs regarding the ethical issues of field experiments that may escape IRB inspection. Accordingly, Asiedu et al (2021) propose an appendix of structured ethics for randomized controlled trials to provide details on the following: policy equipoise, researcher role, potential harm to participants and nonparticipants, conflicts of interest, intellectual freedom, participant feedback, and foreseeable misuse of research results.…”

What, Where, Who, and Why? An Empirical Investigation of Positionality in Political Science Field Experiments

“…If anything, the geography of RCTs became more concentrated during the period that we studied. The cautious diversification of experimental sites according to geographical and topical evidence-gap maps, coupled with stricter ethical criteria for field experimentation (Phillips 2021), may address critiques of North–South epistemic power divides and may ensure that the topical interests of field experimenters more closely match local developmental priorities.The cautious diversification of experimental sites according to geographical and topical evidence-gap maps, coupled with stricter ethical criteria for field experimentation, may address critiques of North–South epistemic power divides and may ensure that the topical interests of field experimenters more closely match local developmental priorities.…”

Misinformation in Experimental Political Science

“…They might not consent if they knew they were about to be exposed to misinformation. By participating, they are not acting in accordance with their (would-be) “self-chosen plan” (Beauchamp and Childress 2019; Phillips 2021).…”

“…In experiments that ask people to express an opinion as an experimental outcome, this measure might reflect the opinion they have formed about the real-world matter at hand. By extension then, misinformation could lead people away from making autonomous, rational decisions in their lives outside of the experimental context (Phillips 2021, 284). When we treat research participants with misinformation, we deceive them into making the choice in a way that achieves our ends—say, the falsification or verification of some hypothesis—and not theirs.…”