A Systematic Review of Field Experiments in Public Administration

• Published date: 01 November 2020
• Author: Jesper Asring Hansen,Lars Tummers
• Date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13181

Research Article

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 921

Abstract: Field experiments have become popular in public administration. By allowing for the identification of

causal effects in realistic settings, field experiments may become central in several research agendas of relevance to

the field. Conducting field experiments is difficult and problems often occur along the way. However, researchers

new to the method have few resources in public administration to consider the problems that arise when conducting

field experiments. This systematic review identifies 42 field experiments in public administration and serves as an

introduction to field experiments in public administration. The article discusses how field experiments developed over

time and highlights trends in field experimentation in public administration. It then discusses issues to consider when

designing field experiments. Among these are costs, practicality, ethics, and validity. Finally, the authors suggest a

future research agenda for public administration field experiments.

Evidence for Practice

• Field experiments have high value for public administration scholars and practitioners, as they may allow for

causal inference in real-world settings.

• Field experiments are often difficult to conduct.

• Researchers and practitioners conducting field experiments should consider, among other things, the costs,

practicality, ethics, and validity of their studies.

Field experiments have become popular in

public administration (James, John, and

Moseley 2017). Scholars examining topics such

as coproduction (Jakobsen 2013), discrimination

(Grohs, Adam, and Knill 2016), and leadership

(Bellé 2014) use this method. The credibility

revolution in economics (Angrist and Pischke 2010)

has diffused into public administration, where a focus

on the identification of causal effects, combined

with preferences for realistic treatments, explains

the proliferation of field experiments. Experimental

realism is a benefit distinguishing field experiments

from other methods with internal validity, such as

survey experiments and lab experiments (Baekgaard

et al. 2015).

Field experiments might become central to new

research agendas in public administration. An

emerging literature examines research questions in

public administration by combining insights from

psychology with public administration (a research

paradigm labeled behavioral public administration;

see Battaglio et al. 2019; Grimmelikhuijsen et al.

2017). Since many of the central questions of this

research agenda (and of public administration in

general) relate to the behavior of citizens, civil

servants, and politicians, field experiments may shed

light on critical questions that remain neglected in

public administration. Yet, to date, there are not many

field experiments in public administration, though

the method is gaining popularity (James, John, and

Moseley 2017). We suspect that this may be because

field experiments are difficult to conduct, and there

is very little inquiry in public administration to

guide researchers in handling the difficulties that

arise when conducting field experiments. This

systematic review serves as an introduction to field

experiments in public administration by highlighting

topics discussed and questions to consider when

conducting field experiments. We provide examples

from public administration and related literatures to

create a detailed resource on how to conduct field

experiments.

We conducted a systematic review of field

experiments in public administration to examine field

experimental research. We followed the PRISMA

(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews

and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, which provide a

27-item checklist for reporting systematic reviews.

Following PRISMA leads to more transparent and

replicable studies (Moher et al. 2009). The first part

Jesper Asring Hansen

Lars Tummers

Utrecht University

A Systematic Review of Field Experiments in Public

Administration

Lars Tummers is Chair of Public

Administration and Organizational Science

in the School of Governance at Utrecht

University, the Netherlands. His main

research interests are public management,

stereotypes, leadership, and behavior

change. He is developing—with others—an

interdisciplinary field combining psychology

and public administration, called behavioral

public administration.

E-mail: l.g.tummers@uu.nl

Jesper Asring Hansen is assistant

professor in the Department of Political

Science and Trygfonden’s Center for Child

Research, Aarhus University. His research

focuses on performance management,

behavioral public administration, and

quantitative text analysis.

E-mail: jesper@ps.au.dk

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 80, Iss. 6, pp. 921–931. © 2020 The

Authors. Public Administration Review

published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13181.

Aarhus University