Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 374–385 | Cite as

Design strategies for theory testing: The efficient use of field experimentation in local level political research

  • David A. Bositis
Article
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

This paper identifies certain characteristics of field experimentation that if more widely appreciated could persuade more political scientists — especially behavioralists — to consider adopting a field experimental strategy in dealing with the testing of their theoretical models. Specifically, this paper identifies the greater ease of analysis provided by experiment-generated data and certain improvements in the design and execution of field experiments that ease the burden of the researcher at the most difficult phase of such research, that is, at the design and data collection stages of the research. These improvements involve the integration of more than one test design into a field experiment such that a given field experiment can be used to answer a multiplicity of questions. This can include situations where two or more researchers work their own tests into a given experimental occasion such that the magnitude of effort is reduced for all involved — and thus the final product will not only be more methodologically defensible but also more practical to accomplish.

Keywords

Data Collection Theoretical Model Field Experiment Local Level Design Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, W. C., and Smith, D. J. (1980).Effects of Telephone Canvassing on Turnout and Preferences: A Field Experiment. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
  2. Ashmore, R. D., Bird, D., Del Boca, F. K., and Vanderet, R. C. (1979). An experimental investigation of the double standard in the perception of international affairs.Political Behavior 1:123–136.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, G. F., Oldendick, R. W. and Tuchfarber, A. J. (1980). Experiments in filtering political opinions.Political Behavior 2:339–371.Google Scholar
  4. Blalock, H. M. (1964).Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blydenburgh, J. C. (1971). A controlled experiment to measure the effects of personal contact campaigning.Midwest Journal of Political Science 15:365–381.Google Scholar
  6. Bonjean, C. M., and Hullum, J. (1978). Reasons for journal rejection: an analysis of 600 manuscripts.PS 11:480–483.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. S. (1963).Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (1979).Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  9. Dyson, J. (1976). The need for political experimentation. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  10. Eldersveld, S. J. (1956). Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior.American Political Science Review 50:154–165.Google Scholar
  11. Eldersveld, S. J., and Dodge, R. W. (1954) Personal contact or mail propaganda? an experiment in voting turnout and attitude change.” In D. KatzPublic Opinion and Propaganda. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  12. Eulau, H. (1981). Editor's note.Political Behavior 3:3–6.Google Scholar
  13. Eulau, H. (1984). The redwood network project: Small-scale research at the local level.ICPSR Bulletin 4:1–2.Google Scholar
  14. Flemming, R. B., Kohfeld, C. W., and Uhlman, T. M. (1980). The limits of bail reform: A quasi-experimental analysis.Law and Society Review 14:947–976.Google Scholar
  15. Gosnell, H. F. (1927).Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change.American Psychologist 14:8–17.Google Scholar
  17. Iyengar, S., Peters, M. D., and Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the “not-so-minimal” consequences of television news programs.American Political Science Review 76:848–858.Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, A. (1964).The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
  19. Kish, L. (1959). Some statistical problems in research design.American Sociological Review 24:328–338.Google Scholar
  20. Mann, T. E. (1981). Reagan administration proposes sharp cutback in federal support for social science research.PS 14:262–263.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, R. E., and Robyn, D. L. (1975). A field experimental study of direct mail in a congressional campaign: What effects last until election day?Experimental Study of Politics 4:1–37.Google Scholar
  22. Riecken, H. W., and Boruch, R. F. eds. (1974).Social Experimentation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Roper, R. T. (1980). Jury size and verdict consistency: A line has to be drawn somewhere?Law and Society Review 14:977–995.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenthal, R., and Rosnow, R. L. eds. (1969).Artifact in Behavioral Research. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Salisbury, B. R. (1983). Evaluating voting behavior: An experimental examination.Western Political Quarterly 36:88–97.Google Scholar
  26. Saxe, L., and Fine, M. (1981).Social Experiments. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Wahlke, J. C. (1979). Pre-behavioralism in political science.American Political Science Review 73:9–31.Google Scholar
  28. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., Sechrest, L., and Grove, J. B. (1981).Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  29. Weiss, C. W. (1972).Evaluation Research. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Bositis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceThe George Washington UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations