Second call for bilateral research activities between Switzerland and Subsaharan Africa (S-SAM) now open

The second call for bilateral research activities between Switzerland and Subsaharan Africa (S-SAM) is now open.

We call upon late PhD and early postdoctoral researchers from Subsaharan Africa or from Switzerland to submit proposals for short pilot studies or academic exchanges.

Objective
The objective of the Swiss Subsaharan Africa Migration (S-SAM) network is to build and strengthen long-term partnerships between migration researchers in Subsaharan Africa and Switzerland.

Your Profile
You are at the transition from PhD to established researcher: either a late PhD (typically last year), or early postdoctoral researcher (typically first or second year). You are embedded in a university in a Subsaharan African country or in Switzerland, and study human migration. You have an excellent track record, an innovative idea, and are interested in academic exchange and working towards a joint project.

Topics
Within the large field of human migration, we are in particular interested in projects concerning aspects of migration to Europe before migrants reach their destination. This includes the following topics:

— Reasons and motivations to migrate. Here we seek novel research on aspirations and abilities to migrate, on the nature of different ‘pull’ effects and the choice of destination country, or on the role of information in decisions to migrate. Research may focus on questions of preparations, anticipation of problems ‘en route’ and in the country of destination (e.g. discrimination), or on similarities and differences between South-South and South-North migration.
— Student migration. Here we seek novel research on student migration from Subsaharan Africa to Switzerland and Europe, as a specific motivation to migrate.
— Migration and health. Here we seek novel research on the situation ‘en route’ to Europe, how health affects decisions to migrate (or stay put), how the migration experience itself affects the mental and physical health of migrants, or the migration trajectories of health workers.

Methodologically and regarding academic discipline, the call is open, but innovative and experimental research is encouraged where this is reasonable. We encourage a focus on social mechanisms.

Funding
You can apply for a small pilot study, an exchange, or the combination of the two.

Pilot studies give you the opportunity to carry out your own research with independent funding. We call them ‘pilot studies’ because we want to encourage studies that can eventually expand. The aim of a pilot study should be to obtain sufficient empirical material for a research paper. The indicative budget of a pilot study is CHF 1,000 to 5,000.

Exchanges: For exchanges to Switzerland, the University of Neuchâtel figures as the hub for migration research in Switzerland. You will submit a clear project to be completed during your exchange. The exchange will take place in a bilateral frame between Switzerland and a Subsaharan African country — in either direction. Key countries are: Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda, as well as Côte d’Ivoire, South Africa, and Tanzania. Remuneration for travel and living expenses is according to the guidelines by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The combination with other exchanges is not excluded. The indicative budget of an exchange is CHF 5,000 to 10,000.

All applicants are encouraged to bring external funding (e.g. matching funds), but this is not a requirement.

Timeline
Deadline for submissions is 15 April 2019. Fieldwork in summer or autumn 2019.

Submission and Information
Online form: http://neuchatel.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3jW58GDQ6HWX8fr

Submissions are competitive. For further information refer to the website of S-SAM: http://www.unine.ch/sfm/home/formation/ssam.html where you can also sign up to be notified about further calls and other announcements like possible virtual conferences. Contact didier.ruedin@unine.ch for further information.

Call as PDF

Audit Studies — The Book

There’s a new book edited by S. Michael Gaddis on audit studies. The subtitle promises to go behind the scenes with theory, method, and nuance — and this is what the book provides. As such, the book is a much needed contribution to the literature, where we typically see the results and little how we got there. With (not so) recent concerns around researcher degrees of freedom, the tour behind the scenes offered by the various chapters are an excellent way to make visible and apparent the ‘undisclosed flexibility’ as Simmons et al. called it in 2011. It’s one thing to discuss this in abstract terms, and it’s another thing to sit down with actual research and reflect on the many choices we have as researchers. Indeed, public reflection on research practices may be relatively rare in itself when it comes to quantitative research.

The book comes with a dedicated support webpage: http://auditstudies.com/ (do me the favour to update the “coming soon” banner). On this website, several chapters can be downloaded as pre-prints, though it’s not all the contents if someone is looking for a free book. I hope the authors will make their code available on the website as promised in several places in the book, because this will be another greatly helpful resource for those new to audit studies or looking for new directions.

I greatly enjoyed to read the reflections by other researchers doing audit studies, and would definitely recommend the book to anyone thinking of doing an audit study. At times there were passages that seemed a bit redundant to me, but all the chapters are written in such an accessible way that this didn’t bother me much. Where I think the book falls a bit short is on two fronts. First, it is very US-centric. In itself this is not an issue, but there are several instances where the authors don’t reflect that perhaps in other countries the markets are not organized the same way. In my view, a comparison to other countries and continents would have been fruitful to underline some of these assumptions — I’ve tried to just this on attitudes to immigrants. Second, the book is not a guidebook. I know, it doesn’t claim to be one, but the book asks so many (justified) questions and offers comparatively few concrete guidelines like Vuolo et al. offer it on statistical power. In this sense, the book will stimulate readers to think about their own research design and not provide a template. And this is actually a good thing, because as the chapters make apparent without normally saying so, there is no universal approach that suits different markets in different places and at different times.

So, should you buy the book? Yes if you want to carry out your own audit study, yes if you want to better understand and qualify the results of audit studies, and yes if you’re looking for guidelines — because the book will make you realize that you’re largely on your own. What would probably useful, though, would be a checklist of things to consider, something readers will have to create themselves on the basis of chapters 4 (Joanna Lahey and Ryan Beasley), 5 (Charles Crabtree), and 6 (Mike Vuolo, Christopher Uggen, and Sarah Lageson).

Gaddis, S. Michael, ed. 2018. Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance. Methodos 14. New York: Springer. https://www.springer.com/cn/book/9783319711522

Ruedin, Didier. 2018. ‘Attitudes to Immigrants in South Africa: Personality and Vulnerability’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1428086.

Simmons, Joseph P., Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn. 2011. ‘False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant’. Psychological Science 22 (11): 1359–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.

Vuolo, Mike, Christopher Uggen, and Sarah Lageson. 2016. ‘Statistical Power in Experimental Audit Studies: Cautions and Calculations for Matched Tests With Nominal Outcomes’. Sociological Methods & Research, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115570066.

Zschirnt, Eva, and Didier Ruedin. 2016. ‘Ethnic Discrimination in Hiring Decisions: A Meta-Analysis of Correspondence Tests 1990–2015’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42 (7): 1115–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1133279.>/small>

Pre-Registration: A Reasonable Approach

We probably all know that pre-registration of experiments is a good thing. It’s a real solution to what is increasingly called ‘p-hacking’: doing analyses until you find a statistically significant association (which you then report).

One problem is that most pre-registration protocols are pretty complicated, and as researchers in the social sciences we usually don’t have inclination/incentives to follow complicated protocols typically designed for biomedical experiments. A probably more reasonable approach is AsPredicted: We’re looking at 9 simple and straightforward questions, and we’re looking at pre-registration that remains private until it is made public (but can be shared with reviewers).

Should I pay my interview respondents?

As an interdisciplinary institute, we have recently discussed whether (and under what circumstances) we should pay interview respondents and participants in our studies? Here are a few things I have compiled for this purpose. At this point, I really would like to thank the participants of the Rencontre Scientifique SFM on 28 June 2016 for the discussion and comments.

General Ethical Principles
General ethical principles apply, and the following table reviews a list of general ethical principles taken from the SFM Ethics Guidelines in view of the question of paying interview respondents. The focus is on interview participants in a wider sense to include focus groups, expert interviews, laypersons with expert knowledge, and informants.

Principle Impact of Payment Evaluation
no harm to subjects and researcher not affected by payment neutral
potential benefits to subjects payment clearly as a benefit to subjects positive
informed consent should normally be obtained: participants should be aware of nature of research and their involvement; participants have a right to withdraw consent at any time without giving any reason payment creates incentives to participate when there is no consent; so payment needs to be separated from completion negative
accordance to relevant law and legislation payment is legal, but may be taxable neutral
researchers must respect the rights, dignity, and interests of participants, including assurances of confidentiality and anonymity payment does not affect these obligations on part of the researcher neutral
research involving children should obtain consent from both the parents and the children, consistent with their capacity payment does not affect this neutral
reduce likelihood that research experience is disturbing to participants and others payment does not change this, but may compensate for inadvertent violation of this principle positive
avoid actions that may have deleterious consequences for researchers who come after or undermine reputation of the discipline payment may increase the expectation that other researchers pay (which can undermine future researchers to carry out the same kind of research), payment as such is unlikely to undermine the reputation of the discipline, but may enhance it mixed
ensure that funders appreciate the ethical obligations of researchers not affected, if there is an ethical obligation to pay, this needs to be communicated to the funder – the fact that the project will be more expensive than a competitor’s is no excuse not to follow research ethics neutral

Disciplinary Traditions in Experiments
In experiments, economists almost always pay their participants. Economists worry that without payment there is no real incentive to follow the instructions. With payment there is a possible problem with satisficing.

In psychology, they hardly ever do. Psychologists worry that with payment inherent preferences and motivations are overruled. Without payment there is a potential problem with participants trying to please the researchers.

General Considerations

Participants and their contributions should be respected.

Observation Impact of Payment Evaluation
Respondents in professional capacity are already paid unclear payment not necessary
Respondents in professional capacity may be ordered to participate unclear unclear
People like to talk (about themselves) unnecessary commodification payment not necessary
No obligation to participate, but payments can be interpreted as coercion1 (Boddy et al. 2010), people from poorer background may be more susceptible to this kind of influence undermines informed consent, especially for some parts of society negative
Payment can reduce non-response bias, precisely because payment incites participation (Boddy et al. 2010; Grady 2011). increases participation rates, reduce non-response bias positive
Payment often facilitates recruitment (Grady 2011) facilitates recruitment positive
Is the influence is undue: likely to distort judgement of risks and benefits? Likely to affect giving consent? Payment should never trump freely given informed consent.2 may affect judgement of individuals negative
Reimbursing expenses is different from paying for time, skills, and expertise. The latter are subject to employment law, thus taxable income.3 depends on the form of payment mixed
Payment may lead to fictional accounts4 5 invalid responses negative
Paying creates an obligation that can blur boundaries and undermine trust. undermining trust negative
May skew samples (Grady 2011) skew samples negative
Not paying may introduce bias by excluding participants, e.g. poor who cannot afford to participate, despite having something important to say (Thompson 1996) reduce coverage bias positive

Boddy et al. (2010) suggest: (1) create guidelines when and how payments are made, (2) payment is justified, (3) ensure that those who withdraw are still paid, (4) carefully consider cases where consent may be given only because of the payment

Specific Considerations

In the social sciences it is uncommon to pay interview participants. This, however, does not constitute an ethic statement. Direct costs incurred by participants (e.g. travel expenses) should always be reimbursed.

Sometimes it is necessary to pay to ensure participation (e.g. interviews with prostitutes or taxi drivers (e.g. Gambetta and Hamill 2005), some online survey panels). A similar case is paying for survey respondents, where payment may be necessary to get access.

There are some ideal-typical cases of participants, but in reality the boundaries are fluid: (1) Focus groups, (2) experts in their professional capacity, (3) lay persons with expert knowledge, and (4) informants.

(1) Focus Groups

Participants in focus groups are normally paid. Participants are generally paid a flat amount (depending on the circumstances) to cover travel and a symbolic amount. Focus group participants need to prepare for the focus group, they are asked to come to the venue the researchers specify at a given time (in the other cases considered here, it is the researcher who travels and adjust his or her schedule). The participants are asked to follow the design and have less scope to deviate from it. Payment also creates an informal obligation to turn up, and often motivates participants who would otherwise not participate in such an endeavour despite supporting the research project otherwise: the specificities of a focus group (time, scheduling, and preparations) make it relatively costly to the participants.

(2) Experts in their Professional Capacity

Experts in their professional capacity are not normally paid. There is no reason to. Experts in their professional capacity are in a way paid to participate, but potential direct expenditures (e.g. travel) should be reimbursed if their employer does not cover them. Experts are free to tell the researchers what they want and have more scope to deviate from the questionnaire and participants in a focus group.

(3) Lay Persons with Expert Knowledge

Lay persons with expert knowledge are not normally paid. Lay persons with expert knowledge are like experts in that they are consulted as witnesses and for providing a synthesis – describing the situation of a group, for instance, not (just) about the person in question. They may be active in associations, often on a voluntary basis. At the same time, given their position and expert knowledge, they are often frequently consulted by researchers. They are free, however, to decline participation in a way experts in their professional capacity may not be. They often agree to participate because they have a message to share, and their contribution should be sufficiently recognized. Like with other participants, direct costs (e.g. travel) should always be reimbursed. Lay persons with expert knowledge are free to tell the researchers what they want and have more scope to deviate from the questionnaire and participants in a focus group.

(4) Informants

Informants are not normally paid. Informants are free to decline participation. However, informants can be in a precarious situation (e.g. undocumented migrants). Researchers frequently provide symbolic gestures like vouchers in these situations, but in order not to create pressure to participate, these gestures should probably not be mentioned during recruitment: informants should not participate only or largely because of the rewards. Informants are free to tell the researchers what they want and have more scope to deviate from the questionnaire than participants in a focus group, and contrary to experts and lay persons with expert knowledge, no synthesis is expected on part of the informant.

Should sensitive topics mean more payment? – There is no reason why this should be the case, if anything larger payments can lead to distorted answers.

Should those with higher income receive more payment? – No, payments are allowances and not payments to cover (potential) loss of earnings. The situation is different where access to a group of informants is contingent on payment (e.g. prostitutes).

Conclusion

The decision whether to pay has to be determined on a case-by-case basis

We now recommend that researchers consult the specific consideration above when considering whether to pay participants or not.

1 payment is not coercion (no harm threatened), but may be undue inducement/influence (an offer one cannot refuse, controlling or irresistible influence, strong enough to compel participation against interest) (Grady 2011)

2 money may affect risk assessments and consent (Grady 2011)

3 Free prize draws are frequently used in marketing (not subject to employment laws, not subject to lottery laws). The nature of prizes, cash equivalents, and notification of winners must be clear (Boddy et al. 2010).

4 Film-makers do not pay participants, it’s regarded a “privilege” to tell one’s story, although travel expenses are generally reimbursed; usually there is no money in documentaries; they worry that if you pay, people will tell you what they think you want to hear; experts should be credited; most experts are happy to contribute; when filming with really poor populations, the crew often make a gesture after filming, e.g. food, clothes. Film-makers are worried that paying in advance (or agreeing to pay) leads to fictional accounts.

5 Journalists typically don’t pay. They worry that it affects what people say.

References
Boddy, J., T. Neumann, S. Jennings, V. Morrow, P. Alderson, R. Rees, and W. Gibson. 2010. The Research Ethics Guidebook: A Resource for Social Scientists. http://www.ethicsguidebook.ac.uk/.

Gambetta, D., and H. Hamill. 2005. Streetwise: How Taxi Drivers Establish Their Customers’ Trustworthiness. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Grady, Christine. 2011. “Ethical and Practical Considerations of Paying Research Participants.” Department of Clinical Bioethics Clinical Center/NIH. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/assets/docs/ethical_and_practical_considerations_of_paying_research_participants_508.pdf.

Ruedin, Didier. 2016. “Ethics Guidelines SFM.” SFM University of Neuchâtel.

Thompson, Sonia. 1996. “Paying Respondents and Informants.” Social Research Update 14: 1–5.