It is in their potential policy relevance that experiments may make their strongest contribution to innovation and progress in political science. Yet there are good grounds for thinking that the policy world has in place a number of barriers that can limit the impact of experimental evidence. Moreover, some experimenters seem to approach the business of influencing policy with spectacular naivety. In modern democratic societies, engaging with the policy process is a complex and demanding activity. In order to make advances in this quarter, experimenters will need to develop their methods and practices in field experiments and extend their strategies to deal with the demands of a complex policy world.
Coote, Anna, Jessica Allen, and David Woodhead.2004. Finding out what works. London: Kings Fund.
2.
Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia.2006. The growth and development of experimental research in political science. American Political Science Review100 (4): 627-36.
3.
Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber .2003. The underprovision of experiments in political science. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science589:94-112.
4.
Greenberg, David H., Donna Linkz, and Marvin Mandell.2003. Social experimentation and public policy making. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
5.
Jowell, Roger.2003. Trying it out. The role of "pilots" in policy-making. London: Cabinet Office.
6.
Kingdon, John.1995. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins .
7.
Norton, Anne.2004. Political science as a vocation. In Problems and methods in the study of politics, ed. Ian Shapiro, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, 67-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Nutley, Sandra, Isobel Walter, and Huw Davies.2003. From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation9 (2): 125-48.
9.
Piven, Frances Fox.2004. The politics of policy science. In Problems and methods in the study of politics, ed. Ian Shapiro, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, 83-105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Roth, Alvin E.1995. Introduction to experimental economics. In The handbook of experimental economics, ed. John H. Kagel and Alvin E. Roth, 3-109. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Sabatier, Paul, ed. 2007. Theories of the policy process. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.
12.
Sanderson, Ian.2002. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration80 (1): 1-22.
13.
Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell .2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
14.
Shapiro, Ian.2005. The flight from reality in the human sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith , and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. 2004. Problems and methods in the study of politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Stoker, Gerry, and Peter John.2009. Design experiments: Engaging policy makers in the search for evidence about what works. Political Studies57 (2): 337-73.
17.
Torgerson, David J., and Carole J. Torgerson .2008. Designing randomised trials . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
18.
Tsebelis, George.1995. Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science25:289-325.
19.
Weiss, Carol H.1979. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review39 (5): 426-31.
20.
Weiss, Carol H.1993. Where politics and evaluation research meet. American Journal of Evaluation14:93-106.
21.
Young, Ken, Deborah Ashby, Annette Boaz, and Lesley Grayson.2002. Social science and the evidence-based policy movement. Social Policy and Society1 (3): 215-24.
