Should we conduct correspondence study field experiments with political elites?

Abstract

Correspondence study field experiments with political elites are a recent addition to legislative studies research, in which unsolicited emails are sent to elites to gauge their responsiveness. In this article, we discuss their ethical implications. We advance from the viewpoint that correspondence study field experiments involve trade-offs between costs and benefits that need to be carefully weighted. We elaborate this argument with two contributions in mind. First, we synthesize ethical considerations in published work to explore what the specific trade-offs are and how they can be mitigated by experimental design. We conclude that correspondence study field experiments with political elites are worth pursuing given their potential to further good governance. But they also involve distinct trade-offs that are particularly challenging. Second, we draw from our own considerations while designing a comparative correspondence study field experiment and stress challenges resulting from cross-national designs. In sum, we aim to facilitate further reasoned discussion on an important methodological issue.

Measuring MPs’ Responsiveness: How to Do it and Stay Out of Trouble

“…After a face-to-face discussion, a post experimental debrief was agreed as a compromise solution. Our view, having surveyed the extant literature (Zittel et al, 2021), was that informed consent was not required for us to conduct an audit experiment of elected officials’ correspondence. There have been two other audit experiments involving MPs in recent years in the UK (Habel and Birch, 2019; McKee, 2019) demonstrating high responsiveness overall and a level of bias against working class and ethnic minority constituents.…”

“…In our view, audit studies of MPs' responsiveness using email experiments are justified if a strong case can be made regarding the scientific and social importance of the research; the inadequacy of other methods to obtain robust evidence; and a minimal burden on MPs and their staff (for a full discussion, see Zittel et al, 2021). In this article instead of reflecting on the ethics of correspondence study field experiments with political elites generally we narrow down and focus on the specific case of our experiment and the lessons we believe can be learnt from the public fallout.…”

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

“…Third, we aimed to maximize the scientific value of our study, which is crucial for justifying this kind of experimental research (Zittel et al, 2021). To achieve this, we decided to not seek informed consent and thus to engage in activity deception.…”

“…Second, we aimed to minimize potential costs for participants asking about a general statement on a salient issue, which should be relatively easy to answer compared to a casework request or a request for detailed information on more arcane issues. Third, we aimed to maximize the scientific value of our study, which is crucial for justifying this kind of experimental research (Zittel et al, 2021). To achieve this, we decided to not seek informed consent and thus to engage in activity deception.…”

“…Despite the many benefits, field experiments with politicians entail important costs (Desposato, 2016), not only in terms of deceiving and burdening experimental subjects but also third-party effects such as distorting the political process and provoking backlashes to the profession (Zittel et al, 2021). Field experiments thus require careful ethical consideration.…”