Experimental political science

Experimental political science is the use of experiments, which may be natural or controlled, to implement the scientific method in political science.

History development and usage

In the 1909 American Political Science Association presidential address, A. Lawrence Lowell claimed: “We are limited by the impossibility of experiment. Politics is an observational, not an experimental science….”[1] He argued that political science, as an emerging discipline, did not need to follow the experimental-led approach of the natural sciences. In 1900s, observational research is the only way of doing research in political science.

The first experiment in political science is regarded to be Harold Gosnell's 1924 study on voter turnout in Chicago.[2] In this experiment, he randomly assigned districts to receive information on voter registration and encouragements to vote.[3]

The first experiment published in American Political Science Review was in 1956, 50 years after the publication's inception.[4] American Political Science Review is published by Cambridge University Press, founded in 1906, covering all fields of political science.

In the 1980s, computer-assisted telephone interviewing began to appear and was used for the collection of experimental data—the advances in the technology led to the initial rise of experiments.[5]

The period before 2000 was classified as the prelude to the experimental era.[6] This is the long incubation stage of experimental politics. During this period, experimentation was not the main academic activity of political science. Many great discoveries come from the integration of scholars with using multiple methods.

From 2001 to 2009, this period was the first generation when experiments were widely used.[7] Experimentation was becoming part of the political scientist's toolkit during this period due to the development of information technology.

From 2010 till now, we are in the new era of experimental political science 2.0.[8]

Due to the development of internet, the emergence of ommercial Internet survey panels and crowdsourcing platforms make data much cheaper and easier to obtain than ever before. Abundant and accessible information is the basis for the wider implementation of experiments in political science.

In 2010,  Experimental Research section  of the American Political Science Association hold its first conference.

In 2012, Bond et al.'s experiment delivered political mobilization messages to 61 million Facebook users. They aimed to explore whether an “I Voted” widget that announced one’s election participation to others increased turnout among Facebook users and their friends. The opportunity to intervene experimentally is provided by today's mature social media.

In 2014, the first issue of the Journal of Experimental Political Science was published by the Experimental Research section  of the American Political Science Association.

From 2010 to 2019, there were 75 articles using experimental methods published in American Political Science Review. The figure was 76 from 1950 to 2009 in this journal.[9]

Current experts in experimental methodology in political science include Rebecca Morton and Donald Green.

Among the areas that it is used in are:

Experimental designs

Conjoint survey

The conjoint survey experiment is a method for examining multidimensional preferences.[13]

Lab-in-the -field experiments

At one extreme, "pure" laboratory experiments are carried out in environments that researchers highly control. Students are often a convenient sample in lab experiments because they are easy to participate in and able to follow the experimental instructions reliably. Natural experiments are the kind of design at another extreme. In natural experiments, participants are in the daily-live conditions, and they do not know they are being observed.

Lab-in-the-filed experiemtal research are located in a continuous spectrum between the "pure" lab experiments and natural experiments.[14] It is conducted in a deversified environment with variety types of subjects. The following four types of research experiments are distinguished according to the type of research problem they solve.

Specific Populations

The hypothesis may have to be tested by using specific populations.[15] Or the researcher hopes to test if a result could be generalized to a broader or a representative, population.[16]

Measurement

Lab procedures can be put into use in the measurement of the field. Risk aversion, time preference (patience), altruism, cooperation, competition, and in-group discrimination are the most common measures.[17]

Recruiting the Treated

This kind of lab-in-the-field experiment is for the circumstance that participants who have already been treated are being recruited.[18] The experimenters are recruiting rather than implementing treatments.

Teaching

The purpose of the experimenter may be to teach the target population about the games by using a lab-in-the-field approach.[19] Through this process, the experimenter could target a particular policy problem. The game could be the treatment in this circumstance.

Audit studies

Audit studies are often used for measuring bias or discrimination.[20] Audit studies are part of the constructure of a giant field experiment. The aim of this field experiment is to measure the behavior of participants in the field rather than to change it.[21] In most of the cases, researchers use the ways like sending messages to measure participants' behaviors unobtrusively.

Ethics

When conducting political science experiments, researchers must intervene in the process of data generation. Political science, as social science, studies human behavior. Then political science experiments will inevitably have an impact on people.[22] For example, subjects in experiments make choices they would not otherwise face, or subjects are put into experiences or controls that they would not otherwise have.

Moreover, the experimental process itself is not the only way political science research activities affect human life. Other influences include the influence of the dissemination of experimental results, the influence of political science scholars on their students, and the influence of research results on institutions and professional organizations. Just like the ethics of most other professions, political scientists have ethics.

In 1967, a committee was created by the American Political Science Association (APSA), which aims to explore issues “relevant to the problems of maintaining a high sense of professional standards and responsibilities.”[23] Marver H. Bernstein served as the chairman of this committee. This committee created the first version of the written code of rules of professional conduct.[24]

In 1968, Standing Committee on Professional Ethics was founded. Their job mainly includes the review of formal grievances, mediation and intermediation to other organizations, and issuing formal advisory opinions.[25]

In 1989 and 2008, the code of rules of professional conduct was revised.[26]

See also

References
  1. Druckman, James N.; Green, Donald P.; Kuklinski, James H.; Lupia, Arthur (November 2006). "The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science". American Political Science Review. 100 (4): 627–635. doi:10.1017/S0003055406062514. ISSN 1537-5943 – via Cambridge Core.
  2. Morton, Rebecca B.; Williams, Kenneth C. "Experimentation in Political Science" (PDF). The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
  3. Gosnell, Harold F. (1926). "An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting" (PDF). American Political Science Review. 20 (4): 869–874. doi:10.2307/1945435. JSTOR 1945435. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 July 2014.
  4. Druckman, James N.; Green, Donald P.; Kuklinski, James H.; Lupia, Arthur (2011), Lupia, Arthur; Greene, Donald P.; Kuklinski, James H.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Experimentation in Political Science", Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–12, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511921452.001, ISBN 978-0-511-92145-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  5. "https://sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?&context=L&vid=61USYD_INST:sydney&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&tab=Everything&docid=alma991032134734605106". sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com. Retrieved 16 April 2022. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  6. "https://sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?&context=L&vid=61USYD_INST:sydney&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&tab=Everything&docid=alma991032134734605106". sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com. Retrieved 16 April 2022. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  7. "https://sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?&context=L&vid=61USYD_INST:sydney&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&tab=Everything&docid=alma991032134734605106". sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com. Retrieved 16 April 2022. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  8. "https://sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?&context=L&vid=61USYD_INST:sydney&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&tab=Everything&docid=alma991032134734605106". sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com. Retrieved 16 April 2022. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  9. Druckman, James N.; Green, Donald P.; Kuklinski, James H.; Lupia, Arthur (2011), Lupia, Arthur; Greene, Donald P.; Kuklinski, James H.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Experimentation in Political Science", Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–12, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511921452.001, ISBN 978-0-511-92145-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  10. Humphreys, Macartan; Weinstein, Jeremy (2009). "Field experiments and the Political Economy of Development". Annual Review of Political Science. 12: 367–378. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.060107.155922.
  11. Hyde, Susan D. (2010). "The future of field experiments in International Relations". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 628 (1): 72–84. doi:10.1177/0002716209351513. S2CID 144949241.
  12. Riker, William (1988) [First published in 1982]. Liberalism Against Populism. Prospect Heights, Illinois, USA: Waveland Press. ISBN 978-0-88133-367-1.
  13. Bansak, Kirk; Hainmueller, Jens; Hopkins, Daniel J.; Yamamoto, Teppei (2021), Green, Donald P.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Conjoint Survey Experiments", Advances in Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41, doi:10.1017/9781108777919.004, ISBN 978-1-108-47850-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  14. Bansak, Kirk; Hainmueller, Jens; Hopkins, Daniel J.; Yamamoto, Teppei (2021), Green, Donald P.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Conjoint Survey Experiments", Advances in Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41, doi:10.1017/9781108777919.004, ISBN 978-1-108-47850-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  15. Bansak, Kirk; Hainmueller, Jens; Hopkins, Daniel J.; Yamamoto, Teppei (2021), Green, Donald P.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Conjoint Survey Experiments", Advances in Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41, doi:10.1017/9781108777919.004, ISBN 978-1-108-47850-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  16. Bansak, Kirk; Hainmueller, Jens; Hopkins, Daniel J.; Yamamoto, Teppei (2021), Green, Donald P.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Conjoint Survey Experiments", Advances in Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41, doi:10.1017/9781108777919.004, ISBN 978-1-108-47850-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  17. Bansak, Kirk; Hainmueller, Jens; Hopkins, Daniel J.; Yamamoto, Teppei (2021), Green, Donald P.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Conjoint Survey Experiments", Advances in Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41, doi:10.1017/9781108777919.004, ISBN 978-1-108-47850-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  18. Bansak, Kirk; Hainmueller, Jens; Hopkins, Daniel J.; Yamamoto, Teppei (2021), Green, Donald P.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Conjoint Survey Experiments", Advances in Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41, doi:10.1017/9781108777919.004, ISBN 978-1-108-47850-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  19. Bansak, Kirk; Hainmueller, Jens; Hopkins, Daniel J.; Yamamoto, Teppei (2021), Green, Donald P.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Conjoint Survey Experiments", Advances in Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41, doi:10.1017/9781108777919.004, ISBN 978-1-108-47850-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  20. Bansak, Kirk; Hainmueller, Jens; Hopkins, Daniel J.; Yamamoto, Teppei (2021), Green, Donald P.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Conjoint Survey Experiments", Advances in Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41, doi:10.1017/9781108777919.004, ISBN 978-1-108-47850-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  21. Bansak, Kirk; Hainmueller, Jens; Hopkins, Daniel J.; Yamamoto, Teppei (2021), Green, Donald P.; Druckman, James N. (eds.), "Conjoint Survey Experiments", Advances in Experimental Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41, doi:10.1017/9781108777919.004, ISBN 978-1-108-47850-2, retrieved 16 April 2022
  22. Williams, Kenneth C.; Morton, Rebecca B., eds. (2010), "Ethical Decision Making and Political Science Experiments", Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 455–499, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511762888.012, ISBN 978-0-521-13648-8, retrieved 16 April 2022
  23. Williams, Kenneth C.; Morton, Rebecca B., eds. (2010), "Ethical Decision Making and Political Science Experiments", Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 455–499, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511762888.012, ISBN 978-0-521-13648-8, retrieved 16 April 2022
  24. Williams, Kenneth C.; Morton, Rebecca B., eds. (2010), "Ethical Decision Making and Political Science Experiments", Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 455–499, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511762888.012, ISBN 978-0-521-13648-8, retrieved 16 April 2022
  25. Williams, Kenneth C.; Morton, Rebecca B., eds. (2010), "Ethical Decision Making and Political Science Experiments", Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 455–499, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511762888.012, ISBN 978-0-521-13648-8, retrieved 16 April 2022
  26. Williams, Kenneth C.; Morton, Rebecca B., eds. (2010), "Ethical Decision Making and Political Science Experiments", Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 455–499, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511762888.012, ISBN 978-0-521-13648-8, retrieved 16 April 2022

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.