השוואת שיטות

	Audit Experiment	ניסוי שדה
תחום	Political Science	תכנון ניסויים
משפחה	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
שנת המקור	2011	1920s–1930s (agriculture); 1990s–2000s (social sciences)
הוגה השיטה	Butler & Broockman (political responsiveness audits); Bertrand & Mullainathan (correspondence-audit lineage)	Formalized by R. A. Fisher (1935); systematized in social sciences by Harrison & List (2004)
סוג	Randomized field experiment using matched fictitious requests	Experimental design
מקור מכונן	Butler, D. M., & Broockman, D. E. (2011). Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 463–477.	Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.
כינויים	Correspondence study, Field audit study, Discrimination audit, Responsiveness audit	field trial, natural field experiment, randomized field experiment, field RCT
קשורות	4	5
תקציר	An audit experiment, also called a correspondence or field audit study, sends matched but fictitious requests to real-world targets — such as legislators, landlords, or employers — while randomizing a single treatment cue, then compares the rate and quality of responses. In political science the canonical design follows Butler and Broockman's 2011 study of U.S. state legislators, which varied the putative race signaled by a constituent's name to measure discrimination in responsiveness.	A field experiment applies the logic of a randomized controlled trial in a naturally occurring, real-world environment rather than an artificial laboratory. Participants are randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions while going about everyday activities, allowing researchers to estimate causal effects with high internal validity while preserving a level of ecological realism that laboratory settings cannot offer. The design is especially prominent in economics, public health, political science, and development research.