Research Ethics in Correspondence Testing: An Update

Abstract

Correspondence testing to research discrimination in the marketplace has become common and the use of internet applications has allowed researchers to send greater numbers of applications. While questions of research ethics always arise when planning a correspondence test, the issue receives relatively little attention in published correspondence tests. This paper addresses the question of ethics in correspondence testing in the age of ready internet access. It focusses on the ethical issues that arise in correspondence testing, looking at potential problems (regarding voluntary participation, informed consent, deception, entrapment of employers, employers' rights) and possible solutions, and technical challenges.European country examples show that the ethical questions raised in correspondence testing have to be renegotiated depending on the national context. The paper argues that correspondence testing, if planned carefully and executed responsibly, can meet most of the ethical requirements of Social Science ethics guidelines.

The Unequal Distribution of Opportunity: A National Audit Study of Bureaucratic Discrimination in Primary School Access

“…Although prior audit studies have sought to examine the motivations behind discrimination, there is no single overarching theory. Much of the empirical research focuses on private rental and labor market discrimination (see Flage 2018 andZschirnt andRuedin 2016, respectively), rather than our topic of bureaucratic discrimination. To structure our analysis and propositions, we distinguish between two mechanisms of bureaucratic discrimination.…”

Ethnic Penalties and Hiring Discrimination: Comparing Results from Observational Studies with Field Experiments in the UK

“…The unpaired design of the GEMM study, with only one application sent in response to each job opening, minimized the inconvenience to employers. Following best practices in the correspondence testing literature (Pager, 2007; Zschirnt, 2019), we opted for a collective debriefing of participants, to avoid the risk that individual debriefing of participants may expose them to greater scrutiny by superiors or generate negative emotions, such as embarrassment or shame. To protect employers’ confidentiality, anonymity was guaranteed.…”

Homophobia and the home search: Rental market discrimination against same-sex couples in rural and urban housing markets

“…However, such a design is perhaps the only ecologically valid way of studying a phenomenon like anti-LGBT housing discrimination, behavior that is not only subject to strong social desirability bias but is also illegal in some jurisdictions. Following the recommendations of Zschirnt (2019), the present study adheres to ethical standards by seeking to minimize inconvenience to landlords and anonymizing information such that no individual landlords can be identified.…”