Using Citizen Voice to Evaluate Experiments on Politicians: A UK Survey Experiment

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2023-02-15 DOI:10.1017/xps.2023.3

P. John, Kristina Kim, Luis Soto-Tamayo

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Experiments on the responsiveness of elected officials highlight the tension between the freedom to carry out research and the right of subjects to be treated with respect. Controversy emerges from the power of politicians to block or object to experimental designs using identity deception. One way to resolve this conundrum is to consult citizens who, as constituents of politicians, have an interest in promoting the accountability of elected representatives. Building on the work of Desposato and Naurin and Öhberg, this survey experiment presented research designs to UK citizens for their evaluation. The findings show that citizens strongly approve of experimental research on Members of Parliament (MPs) and are glad to see their representatives participate. There are no differences in support whether designs use identity deception, debriefing, confederates or pre-agreement from MPs. Linked to high interest in politics, more citizens are glad their MPs participate in studies using identity deception than those deploying confederates.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

利用公民声音评价政客实验——英国调查实验

关于民选官员反应能力的实验突显了开展研究的自由与受试者受到尊重的权利之间的紧张关系。争论源于政客阻止或反对使用身份欺骗的实验设计的权力。解决这一难题的一种方法是咨询公民，他们作为政治家的选民，有兴趣促进民选代表的问责制。在Desposato、Naurin和Öhberg工作的基础上，这项调查实验向英国公民提供了研究设计，供他们评估。调查结果表明，公民强烈赞成对国会议员的实验研究，并很高兴看到他们的代表参与其中。无论设计是使用身份欺骗、汇报、联盟还是国会议员的预先同意，支持率都没有差异。与对政治的高度兴趣有关，与部署邦联的议员相比，更多的公民很高兴他们的议员参与使用身份欺骗的研究。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.

期刊最新文献

Combating Hateful Attitudes and Online Browsing Behavior: The Case of Antisemitism Inaccurate forecasting of a randomized controlled trial Discussion and Fairness in a Laboratory Voting Experiment – ADDENDUM Testing the Effect of Information on Discerning the Veracity of News in Real Time (How) Do Information Campaigns Influence Migration Decisions?