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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, W. C., and Smith, D. J. (1980).Effects of Telephone Canvassing on Turnout and Preferences: A Field Experiment. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
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.
Bishop, G. F., Oldendick, R. W. and Tuchfarber, A. J. (1980). Experiments in filtering political opinions.Political Behavior 2:339–371.
Blalock, H. M. (1964).Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Blydenburgh, J. C. (1971). A controlled experiment to measure the effects of personal contact campaigning.Midwest Journal of Political Science 15:365–381.
Bonjean, C. M., and Hullum, J. (1978). Reasons for journal rejection: an analysis of 600 manuscripts.PS 11:480–483.
Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. S. (1963).Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (1979).Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Dyson, J. (1976). The need for political experimentation. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
Eldersveld, S. J. (1956). Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior.American Political Science Review 50:154–165.
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.
Eulau, H. (1981). Editor's note.Political Behavior 3:3–6.
Eulau, H. (1984). The redwood network project: Small-scale research at the local level.ICPSR Bulletin 4:1–2.
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.
Gosnell, H. F. (1927).Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change.American Psychologist 14:8–17.
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.
Kaplan, A. (1964).The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.
Kish, L. (1959). Some statistical problems in research design.American Sociological Review 24:328–338.
Mann, T. E. (1981). Reagan administration proposes sharp cutback in federal support for social science research.PS 14:262–263.
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.
Riecken, H. W., and Boruch, R. F. eds. (1974).Social Experimentation. New York: Academic Press.
Roper, R. T. (1980). Jury size and verdict consistency: A line has to be drawn somewhere?Law and Society Review 14:977–995.
Rosenthal, R., and Rosnow, R. L. eds. (1969).Artifact in Behavioral Research. New York: Academic Press.
Salisbury, B. R. (1983). Evaluating voting behavior: An experimental examination.Western Political Quarterly 36:88–97.
Saxe, L., and Fine, M. (1981).Social Experiments. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Wahlke, J. C. (1979). Pre-behavioralism in political science.American Political Science Review 73:9–31.
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.
Weiss, C. W. (1972).Evaluation Research. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bositis, D.A. Design strategies for theory testing: The efficient use of field experimentation in local level political research. Polit Behav 7, 374–385 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987212
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987212