Auditing Ethics: A Cost–Benefit Framework for Audit Studies
| Published date | 01 May 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/14789299211046153 |
| Date | 01 May 2022 |
| Author | Charles Crabtree,Kostanca Dhima |
| Subject Matter | Experiments with Politicians: Ethics, Power, and the Boundaries of Political Science |
https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211046153
Political Studies Review
2022, Vol. 20(2) 209 –216
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14789299211046153
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Auditing Ethics: A
Cost–Benefit Framework
for Audit Studies
Charles Crabtree1 and Kostanca Dhima2
Abstract
The audit study design offers researchers a powerful tool to measure discrimination. Yet ethical
concerns surround the use of this design. In this article, we introduce a cost–benefit framework
that researchers should consider when conducting audit studies. One key insight of this framework
is that when researchers evaluate audit studies due to ethical concerns, they must also evaluate
the relative benefits of studying discrimination through other means. Building on this framework,
we provide a set of practical recommendations that researchers can adopt to (1) minimize costs
(i.e. ethical harm) and (2) maximize benefits (i.e. quality of their research). We hope that our
suggestions contribute to the ongoing, important discussion about ethical issues involving audit
studies and generate better work on discrimination.
Keywords
audit studies, ethics, cost–benefit framework
Accepted: 26 August 2021
The audit study (or correspondence study) experimental design offers researchers a
powerful tool to study discrimination (Heckman, 1998). In an audit study, researchers
typically create a group of individuals (real or fictitious) that are similar in all ways
except one, typically an ascriptive characteristic such as race or gender. Researchers
then randomly assign these individuals, often called auditors, to complete some task,
such as applying for employment, seeking to rent a flat, or asking elected officials for
information. Scholars then compare how individuals—such as prospective employers,
landlords, or legislators—treat the auditors. If auditees respond differently based on the
varying characteristic of the auditors (e.g. their race or gender), then researchers typi-
cally interpret this as evidence of discriminatory behavior. For example, if employers
respond to inquiries from Asian auditors less frequently than inquiries from White
1Department of Government, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
2Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Corresponding author:
Kostanca Dhima, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3424,
USA.
Email: dhima1@tamu.edu
1046153PSW0010.1177/14789299211046153Political Studies ReviewCrabtree and Dhima
research-article2021
Symposia and New Ideas
To continue reading
Request your trial