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

Author:

Pedersen Helene Helboe1ORCID,Louwerse Tom2ORCID,Zittel Thomas3

Affiliation:

1. Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

2. Department of Political Science, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

3. Department of Social Sciences, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

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.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science

Reference19 articles.

1. American Political Science Review (2021) Notes from the Editors. American Political Science Review 115 (1): v–viii. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/notes-from-the-editors/9B735E23BC3D2ADC08027A2CCADA46F3 (accessed May 19 2021).

2. APSA (2020) Principles and Guidance for Human Subject Research. Available at: https://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/diversity%20and%20inclusion%20prgms/Ethics/Final_Principles%20with%20Guidance%20with%20intro.pdf?ver=2020-04-20-211740-153 (accessed 19 May 2021).

3. Baumann M, Bolet D, Campbell R, et al. (2020) The Responsiveness of MPs to Citizen-Initiated Policy Queries: Pre-analysis Plan. Available at: https://osf.io/b7rz9

4. The importance of personal vote intentions for the responsiveness of legislators: A field experiment

5. Responsiveness and Democratic Accountability: Observational Evidence from an Experiment in a Mixed‐Member Proportional System

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3