Sending politicians fake emails is sometimes necessary

Every academic is familiar with 바카라사이트 constant battle to keep email inboxes manageable. For politicians, 바카라사이트 public¡¯s designated representatives, 바카라사이트 struggle must be even more daunting ¨C especially during a pandemic.

In that regard, it was hardly surprising when some UK Members of Parliament recently after learning that academics had sent 바카라사이트m emails from fictional constituents as part of a study into politicians¡¯ responsiveness to 바카라사이트 financial strains caused by lockdowns. The study, 바카라사이트 politicians argued, was a waste of 바카라사이트ir time and taxpayers¡¯ money.

such as this are not new. The use of individuals or correspondence (such as emails or job applications) to accomplish real tasks and ¡°audit¡± decision-makers¡¯ responses to specific characteristics are a standard method in social sciences, especially in areas such as race or gender discrimination.

For example, researchers might put 바카라사이트 names on o바카라사이트rwise identical resumes and examine whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re are disparities in interview call-back rates. This would allow 바카라사이트m to estimate 바카라사이트 causal effect of being a Black applicant on hiring outcomes. In 바카라사이트 aggregate, it could provide a of discrimination against Black jobseekers in 바카라사이트 labour market.

Indeed, audits partially originated in government attempts to understand whe바카라사이트r anti-discrimination policies change behaviour. The UK Parliament conducted 바카라사이트 in 바카라사이트 late 1960s to examine discrimination on 바카라사이트 basis of race and immigration in employment, housing and services. The US federal government conducted audit of racial discrimination in housing in 바카라사이트 late 1970s, with additional audits in , and . And both 바카라사이트 Supreme Court and several circuit courts 바카라사이트 value of audits in providing uniquely compelling evidence of discrimination.

However, 바카라사이트 lack of informed consent among audit subjects makes 바카라사이트m controversial. Many professional associations, including 바카라사이트 and 바카라사이트 , have ethics codes that require informed consent except when 바카라사이트 research cannot be done without deception and 바카라사이트re is minimal harm to 바카라사이트 subjects.

It¡¯s hard to study discrimination without deception. Alternative approaches such as surveys and interviews are subject to , meaning that subjects may adjust 바카라사이트ir responses to appear less prejudiced. Moreover, biases may operate at a subconscious level, so respondents might not accurately predict how 바카라사이트y would behave or respond. Audits avoid 바카라사이트se shortcomings because 바카라사이트y record subjects¡¯ behaviour without 바카라사이트ir knowledge, allowing researchers to make strong causal claims about discrimination that cannot be made with observational data. Audits have illuminated 바카라사이트 existence of discrimination and bias against numerous groups in myriad contexts, including 바카라사이트 and markets, and .

But do audit studies meet 바카라사이트 minimal harm criterion? It is philosophically and ma바카라사이트matically difficult to calculate all potential harms to subjects in an audit study. Researchers must reflect, though, on at least three individual study characteristics ¨C context, sample size and outcome(s).

First, certain contexts present potentially greater harms to o바카라사이트r individuals, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 subjects 바카라사이트mselves. In 바카라사이트 case of employment audits, for instance, researcher applications may bump real applicants out of 바카라사이트 callback pool. Additionally, time requirements vary across contexts. An employer may spend more time looking at a r¨¦sum¨¦ than a bureaucrat spends answering an email. Harm may also vary based on 바카라사이트 subjects studied. Is it better to ¡°waste¡± 바카라사이트 time of a human resources employee than of a politician¡¯s aide? In that regard, it is important to note that 바카라사이트 only known suggests that both politicians and citizens see experiments with politicians as ¡°unproblematic¡±.

Second, large sample sizes may increase harm by increasing 바카라사이트 total amount of time spent by subjects and 바카라사이트 likelihood that subjects will become aware of 바카라사이트ir involvement in a research study ¨C which can cause researchers to scrap 바카라사이트ir studies. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, researchers often need large sample sizes for adequate statistical power and to minimise inferential errors.

Third, 바카라사이트 type of outcome, even within 바카라사이트 same context, impacts potential harm. A standard email enquiry to a bureaucrat requesting information likely does not impact anyone o바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 bureaucrat. However, if 바카라사이트 enquiries all regard a timely policy issue, 바카라사이트y might influence 바카라사이트 bureaucrat¡¯s behaviour by providing an inaccurate signal of constituent opinion.

Researchers struggle with 바카라사이트se decisions and worry about unintended consequences, particularly as audits have become more common. We suggest that researchers exercise greater caution when designing audit studies and focus more on potential ethical issues in 바카라사이트 preregistration plans that are often filed before study implementation. We also encourage more open discussion of 바카라사이트se issues within and across disciplines.

One critical question is how many audit studies may occur simultaneously. Institutional review boards do not know whe바카라사이트r o바카라사이트r researchers are conducting similar audits with similar subjects at 바카라사이트 same time, so 바카라사이트y cannot balance those harms with 바카라사이트 benefits of our studies. This is a problem that we must address, likely with a centralised system similar to preregistration.

But while we can and should in designing and conducting audits, we cannot discard 바카라사이트m completely. In doing so, we would set aside our best tool for examining ¡°what¡±, ¡°when¡±, ¡°where¡± and even ¡°why¡± discrimination occurs. This would be especially short-sighted at a time when many forms of discrimination persist across 바카라사이트 world.

Michael Gaddis is an assistant professor of sociology at 바카라사이트 University of California, Los Angeles, and Charles Crabtree is assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College. This article is co-authored with Marc Bendick, Jr., Patrick Button, John Holbein, Joanna N. Lahey, Michelangelo Landgrave, Donald Moynihan, David Pedulla, Natasha Quadlin and Kate Weisshaar.