What, Where, Who, and Why? An Empirical Investigation of Positionality in Political Science Field Experiments

Field Experiments in the Global South: Assessing Risks, Localizing Benefits, and Addressing Positionality

“…Ideas for RCTs emerge from various contexts, sometimes removed from the communities being studied. Most proposed experiments are concentrated not only within five Global North countries but also within five academic institutions (Corduneanu-Huci, Dorsch, and Maarek 2022). Regardless of the source of an idea, prioritizing early and ongoing inclusion of community voices is the first imperative for a study (Davis 2020).…”

“…Although all political science studies require ethical and cost-benefit evaluations, RCTs invoke special considerations of identity, positionality, and power dynamics (Haas et al 2022;Kim et al 2022), especially for studies conducted in the Global South. The resource-intensive nature of RCTs means that they often are conceived of and led by scholars from the Global North (Corduneanu-Huci, Dorsch, and Maarek 2022;Panin 2020). This has implications for question choice (Thachil and Vaishnav 2018), site selection (Porteous 2020), and relationships with Global South research partners (Bleck, Dendere, and Sangaré 2018;Fujii 2012;Mwambari 2019).…”

Be Explicit: Identifying and Addressing Misaligned Goals in Collaborative Research Teams

“…First, collaborators who are geographically and culturally distant may have more contrasting motivations, less prior knowledge of one another’s constraints and aims, and may struggle to communicate and address any inconsistencies. Second, power asymmetries may privilege the goals of some individuals over others, leaving those without strong advocates—often, the population under study—particularly ill served (Corduneanu-Huci, Dorsch, and Maarek 2022; Herman et al 2022). These asymmetries are common and not limited to international studies or those of low-income countries by teams based in high-income countries.…”

“…As Haas et al (2022) discussed, divergences in the goals, identities, and incentives of researchers, OPs, and the populations they study are both common and, when unaddressed, can result in ethical and practical challenges. These challenges can be particularly exacerbated in the presence of power asymmetries, a reality of many collaborations that nevertheless can lead to the privileging of some goals over others—with those under study particularly likely to lose out (Corduneanu-Huci, Dorsch, and Maarek 2022; Haas et al 2022; Herman et al 2022). Whereas collaborative research offers several potential benefits, it also generates increased possibilities for confusion and misalignment among both team members and the populations they study.…”