IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v58y2010i2p300-319.html

Exploring the Promise of Experimentation in Political Science: Micro‐Foundational Insights and Policy Relevance

Author

Listed:
  • Gerry Stoker

Abstract

In the face of scepticism experimenters are looking to move out of niche areas to offer their methods to mainstream political science. But even if the strength of experimental logic in demonstrating causal claims is accepted by political science colleagues there are doubts about the practicality and ethics of experimental work. Experimenters need to address these issues head on by showing how the research practice of experimenting is developing and proving to be viable. The particular claims of experimental work to offer insights into the micro‐foundations of political behaviour will have to be advanced. Applications of experimental work could produce a political science of relevance to policy makers and citizens. In order to make advances experimenters will need their strategies to deal with the demands of a complex policy world.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerry Stoker, 2010. "Exploring the Promise of Experimentation in Political Science: Micro‐Foundational Insights and Policy Relevance," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 300-319, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:58:y:2010:i:2:p:300-319
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00812.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00812.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00812.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P., 2000. "The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(3), pages 653-663, September.
    2. Gerry Stoker & Peter John, 2009. "Design Experiments: Engaging Policy Makers in the Search for Evidence about What Works," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(2), pages 356-373, June.
    3. Quattrone, George A. & Tversky, Amos, 1988. "Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(3), pages 719-736, September.
    4. Lijphart, Arend, 1971. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 682-693, September.
    5. Yusaku Horiuchi & Kosuke Imai & Naoko Taniguchi, 2007. "Designing and Analyzing Randomized Experiments: Application to a Japanese Election Survey Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 669-687, July.
    6. Fiorina, Morris P. & Plott, Charles R., 1978. "Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 575-598, June.
    7. McDermott, Rose, 2002. "Experimental Methodology in Political Science," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 325-342.
    8. Gerry Stoker & Peter John, 2009. "Design Experiments: Engaging Policy Makers in the Search for Evidence about What Works," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57, pages 356-373, June.
    9. Alan Gerber & Donald Green, 2001. "Do phone calls increase voter turnout? A field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00249, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Melissa R. Michelson, 2006. "Mobilizing the Latino Youth Vote: Some Experimental Results," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(s1), pages 1188-1206.
    11. Thomas R. Palfrey, 2005. "Laboratory Experiments in Political Economy," Working Papers 91, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    12. repec:pri:cepsud:111palfrey is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Melissa R. Michelson, 2006. "Mobilizing the Latino Youth Vote: Some Experimental Results," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1188-1206, December.
    14. Alan Gerber & Donald Green, 2001. "Getting out the youth vote: Results from randomized field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00260, The Field Experiments Website.
    15. Alan Gerber & Donald Green, 2000. "The effects of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00248, The Field Experiments Website.
    16. Alan Gerber & Donald Green & Ron Shachar, 2003. "Voting may be habit forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00251, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    2. Michael Brzoska & Raphael Bossong & Eric van Um, 2011. "Security Economics in the European Context: Implications of the EUSECON Project," Economics of Security Working Paper Series 58, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Shihong Guo & Qijiao Song & Ye Qi, 2021. "Innovation or implementation? Local response to low‐carbon policy experimentation in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 555-569, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bhatt, Rachana & Dechter, Evgenia & Holden, Richard, 2020. "Registration costs and voter turnout," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 91-104.
    2. Donald P. Green & Jennifer K. Smith, 2003. "Professionalization of Campaigns and the Secret History of Collective Action Problems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 321-339, July.
    3. Alberto Chong & Gianmarco León & Vivian Roza & Martin Valdivia & Gabriela Vega, 2017. "Urbanization patterns, social interactions and female voting in rural Paraguay," Economics Working Papers 1589, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    4. Kosuke Imai, 2005. "Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00272, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Alberto Chong & Gianmarco León‐Ciliotta & Vivian Roza & Martín Valdivia & Gabriela Vega, 2019. "Urbanization Patterns, Information Diffusion, and Female Voting in Rural Paraguay," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(2), pages 323-341, April.
    6. John E. Mcnulty, 2005. "Phone-Based GOTV—What’s on the Line? Field Experiments with Varied Partisan Components, 2002-2003," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 41-65, September.
    7. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    8. Allison Dale & Aaron Strauss, 2009. "Don't Forget to Vote: Text Message Reminders as a Mobilization Tool," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 787-804, October.
    9. Fernando Martel Garcia & Leonard Wantchekon, 2010. "Theory, External Validity, and Experimental Inference: Some Conjectures," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 132-147, March.
    10. Donald P. Green & Alan S. Gerber, 2003. "The Underprovision of Experiments in Political Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 94-112, September.
    11. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2013. "Men Vote in Mars, Women Vote in Venus: A Survey Experiment in the Field," CEPR Discussion Papers 9547, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    12. Janelle S. Wong, 2005. "Mobilizing Asian American Voters: A Field Experiment," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 102-114, September.
    13. Valentina A. Bali & Lindon J. Robison & Richard Winder, 2020. "What Motivates People to Vote? The Role of Selfishness, Duty, and Social Motives When Voting," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    14. Nunnari, Salvatore & Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2020. "Positive Spillovers from Negative Campaigning," CEPR Discussion Papers 14312, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    15. Pereira dos Santos, João & Tavares, José & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Can ATMs get out the vote? Evidence from a nationwide field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    16. Jared Barton & Marco Castillo & Ragan Petrie, 2014. "What Persuades Voters? A Field Experiment on Political Campaigning," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(574), pages 293-326, February.
    17. Alan Gerber & Donald Green & David Nickerson, 2003. "The challenge of bringing voter mobilization to scale: An evaluation of youth vote 2002 phone banking campaigns," Natural Field Experiments 00261, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. Koay Hean Wei & Khairiah Salwa Mokhtar, 2021. "The Role of Communication in the Process of Forming Market-Oriented Party (Mop): Its Importance and Approaches," Journal of Education and Vocational Research, AMH International, vol. 12(1), pages 57-66.
    19. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Michael Sinkinson, 2011. "The Effect of Newspaper Entry and Exit on Electoral Politics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2980-3018, December.
    20. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2025. "Persuasion and gender: experimental evidence from two political campaigns," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 203(1), pages 183-204, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:58:y:2010:i:2:p:300-319. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.