Experimentos de survey na administração pública brasileira: conceitos, métodos e exemplos
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
Os experimentos de survey têm se consolidado como uma ferramenta metodológica central na pesquisa em administração pública ao permitir a identificação de relações causais em contextos controlados. Apesar de seu uso crescente na literatura internacional, sua aplicação no Brasil ainda é limitada, especialmente em estudos que envolvem servidores públicos. Este artigo oferece um guia prático para a implementação de experimentos de survey na administração pública brasileira, discutindo suas vantagens, desafios e boas práticas metodológicas. São apresentados três tipos de experimentos amplamente utilizados no campo: experimentos de lista, que reduzem o viés de desejabilidade social na mensuração de atitudes e comportamentos sensíveis; experimentos de vinheta, que analisam como variações controladas em cenários hipotéticos influenciam percepções e julgamentos; e experimentos de checagem de fatos, que avaliam a atualização de crenças diante da exposição a informações corretas. Para cada desenho experimental, o artigo apresenta exemplos empíricos aplicados no Brasil e discute sua lógica causal. Além disso, detalha um passo a passo para a formulação de hipóteses, construção do questionário, coleta de dados e análise estatística dos resultados. O artigo contribui para a difusão do uso de métodos experimentais no campo e para o fortalecimento de pesquisas baseadas em evidências na administração pública brasileira.
Downloads
Detalhes do artigo
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
A RAP compromete-se a contribuir com a proteção dos direitos intelectuais do autor. Nesse sentido:
- Adota a licença CC Attribution 4.0, que permite que os artigos sejam reutilizados e distribuídos sem restrição, desde que o trabalho original seja corretamente citado;
- Assegura os direitos morais e de uso do artigo a autores, conforme CC Attribution 4.0. Os autores mantêm os direitos autorais sob o artigo publicado e o periódico tem o direito de primeira publicação;
- Adota software de verificação de similaridade de conteúdo - plagiarismo (Crossref Similarity Check);
- Recomenda o uso dos critérios de autoria do CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy);
- Adota ações de combate ao plagio e má conduta ética, alinhada às diretrizes do Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
- A revista se reserva o direito de efetuar nas originais alterações apenas de ordem normativa, ortográfica e gramatical com vistas a manter o padrão culto da língua e a padronização de layout, respeitando, contudo, o estilo dos autores. Posteriormente, os autores receberão as versões finais para aprovação antes da publicação.
Mais detalhes do Código de Ética adotado pela RAP podem ser visualizados em Normas Éticas e Código de Conduta.
Referências
Acharya, A., Blackwell, M., & Sen, M. (2018). Analyzing causal mechanisms in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(4), 357-378. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.19
Ahlquist, J. S. (2018). List experiment design, non-strategic respondent error, and item count technique estimators. Political Analysis, 26(1), 34-53. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2017.31
Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(1), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1086/268432
Ames, B., & Guedes-Neto, J. V. (Orgs.). (2025). Inside brazilian bureaucracy: politics and policy implementation in brazilian states. Routledge.
Ames, B., Guedes-Neto, J. V., & McCoy, D. (2025). Bureaucrats and political bias. In B. Ames & J. V. Guedes-Neto (Eds.), Inside brazilian bureaucracy: politics and policy implementation in brazilian states (pp. 31-53). Routledge.
Aruguete, N., Calvo, E., & Ventura, T. (2025). The fact-checking dilemma: fact-checking increases the reputation of the fact-checker but creates perceptions of ideological bias. Research & Politics, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680251323120
Askim, J., Bach, T., & Kolltveit, K. (2024). The professional profile, competence, and responsiveness of senior bureaucrats: a paired survey experiment with citizens and elite respondents. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 35(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae024
Barabas, J., & Jerit, J. (2010). Are survey experiments externally valid? American Political Science Review, 104(2), 226-242. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000092
Battaglio, R. P., Jr., Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2019). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: a synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12994
Bersch, K., & Lotta, G. (2023). Political control and bureaucratic resistance: the case of environmental agencies in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 66(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/lap.2023.22
Bhanot, S. P., & Linos, E. (2020). Behavioral public administration: past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 168-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13129
Blair, G., Coppock, A., & Moor, M. (2020). When to worry about sensitivity bias: a social reference theory and evidence from 30 years of list experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1297-1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000374
Bouwman, R., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2016). Experimental public administration from 1992 to 2014: a systematic literature review and ways forward. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), 110-131. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2015-0129
Caro, F. G., Ho, T., McFadden, D., Gottlieb, A. S., Yee, C., Chan, T., & Winter, J. (2012). Using the internet to administer more realistic vignette experiments. Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 184-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439310391376
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637-655. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055407070554
Coppock, A. (2019). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on mechanical turk: a replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), 613-628. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.10
Coppock, A., Leeper, T. J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2018). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12441-12446. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115
Finkel, S. E., & Geer, J. G. (1998). A spot check: casting doubt on the demobilizing effect of attack advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 573-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991771
Glynn, A. N. (2013). What can we learn with statistical truth serum? Design and analysis of the list experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(S1), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs070
Gonzales-Ocantos, E., Jonge, C. K., Meléndez, C., Osorio, J., & Nickerson, D. W. (2012). Vote buying and social desirability bias: experimental evidence from Nicaragua. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 202-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00540.x
Gould, D. (1996). Using vignettes to collect data for nursing research studies: how valid are the findings? Journal of Clinical Nursing, 5(4), 207-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.1996.tb00253.x
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral public administration: combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12609
Guedes-Neto, J. V., & Peters, B. G. (2021). Working, shirking, and sabotage in times of democratic backsliding: an experimental study in Brazil. In M. W. Bauer, J. Pierre, K. Yesilkagit, B. G. Peters & S. Becker (Eds.), Democratic backsliding and public administration: how populists in government transform state bureaucracies (pp. 221-245). Cambridge University.
Guedes-Neto, J. V., & Peters, B. G. (2025). Bureaucratic resistance in times of democratic backsliding. Cambridge University.
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
Hansen, J. A., & Tummers, L. (2020). A systematic review of field experiments in public administration. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 921-931. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13181
Harden, J. J., Sokhey, A. E., & Runge, K. L. (2019). Accounting for noncompliance in survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 6(3), 199-202. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2019.13
Harrits, G. S., & Møller, M. Ø. (2021). Qualitative vignette experiments: a mixed methods design. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(4), 526-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820977607
Hollibaugh, G. E., Jr., Miles, M. R., & Newswander, C. B. (2019). Why public employees rebel: Guerrilla Government in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13118
James, O., Jilke, S. R., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Behavioural and experimental public administration: emerging contributions and new directions. Public Administration, 95(4), 865-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12363
Jankowski, M., Prokop, C., & Tepe, M. (2020). Representative bureaucracy and public hiring preferences: evidence from a conjoint experiment among German municipal civil servants and private sector employees. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4), 596-618. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa012
Jilke, S., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Survey experiments for public management research. In O. James, S. R. Jilke, & G. G. Van Ryzin (Eds.), Experiments in public management research: challenges and contributions (pp. 117-138). Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676912.007
Kasdan, D. O. (2020). Toward a theory of behavioral public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(4), 605-621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318801506
Kertzer, J. D., & Renshon, J. (2022). Experiments and surveys on political elites. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 529-550. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-013649
Krupnikov, Y., Nam, H. H., & Style, H. (2021). Convenience samples in political science experiments. In J. N. Druckman & D. P. Green (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Political Science (pp. 165-183). Cambridge University.
Kuklinski, J. H., Cobb, M. D., & Gilens, M. (1997). Racial attitudes and the “New South”. Journal of Politics, 59(2), 323-349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381600053470
Lee, D. S., & Park, S. (2020). Ministerial leadership and endorsement of bureaucrats: experimental evidence from presidential governments. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 426-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13153
Li, Y., & Yu, H. (2026). Changes in the accountability obligation, intensity, and working drive of public employees: evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 36(1), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf027
Lobo, J. R. F. (2022). A resistência da burocracia brasileira diante de recuos democráticos: uma análise da PGFN [Dissertação de mestrado, Fundação Getulio Vargas]. Repositório FGV. https://hdl.handle.net/10438/32233
Lobo, J. R. F., Marinho, M., Peci, A., & Guedes-Neto, J. V. (2025). Bureaucrats’ willingness to resist democratic backsliding: an experimental study in the brazilian federal government. Policy Studies, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2025.2546382
Lotta, G. S., Lima, I. A., Fernandez, M., Silveira, M. C., Pedote, J., & Guaranha, O. L. C. (2023). A resposta da burocracia ao contexto de retrocesso democrático: uma análise da atuação de servidores federais durante o Governo Bolsonaro. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, (40), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-3352.2023.40.266094
Meyer-Sahling, J-H., Mikkelsen, K. S., & Schuster, C. (2019). The causal effect of public service motivation on ethical behavior in the public sector: evidence from a large-scale survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy071
Migchelbrink, K., & Van de Walle, S. (2020). When will public officials listen? A vignette experiment on the effects of input legitimacy on public officials’ willingness to use public participation. Public Administration Review, 80(2), 271-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13138
Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2010). Experimental political science and the study of causality: from nature to the lab. Cambridge University.
Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109-138. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.19
Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-based survey experiments. Princeton University.
Mutz, D. C. (2021). Improving experimental treatments in political science. In J. N. Druckman & D. P. Green (Eds.), Advances in experimental political science (pp. 219-238). Cambridge University.
Nathan, N. L., & White, A. (2021). Experiments on and with street-level bureaucrats. In J. N. Druckman & D. P. Green (Eds.), Advances in experimental political science (pp. 509-525). Cambridge University.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine, 33(3), 459-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Ubel, P. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51(2), 127-132. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318279486b
Oliveros, V. (2016). Making it personal: clientelism, favors, and the personalization of public administration in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 48(3), 373-391. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041516818254437
Oliveros, V. (2021a). Patronage at work: public jobs and political services in Argentina. Cambridge University.
Oliveros, V. (2021b). Working for the machine: patronage jobs and political services in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 53(3), 381-427. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041521X15974977783469
Oliveros, V., & Schuster, C. (2017). Merit, tenure, and bureaucratic behavior: evidence from a conjoint experiment in the Dominican Republic. Comparative Political Studies, 51(6), 759-792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017710268
Pedersen, M. J., Stritch, J. M., & Thuesen, F. (2018). Punishment on the frontlines of public service delivery: client ethnicity and caseworker sanctioning decisions in a Scandinavian welfare state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 339-354. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy018
Peters, B. G., & Guedes-Neto, J. V. (2020). Experimental methods A: survey experiments in public administration. In E. Vigoda-Gadot & D. R. Vashdi (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in public administration, management and policy (pp. 218-233). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Porter, E., Wood, T. J., & Kirby, D. (2018). Sex Trafficking, Russian Infiltration, Birth Certificates, and Pedophilia: A Survey Experiment Correcting Fake News. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 5(2), 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2017.32
Shikano, S., Bräuninger, T., & Stoffel, M. (2012). Statistical analysis of experimental data. In B. Kittel, W. J. Luhan, & R. B. Morton (Eds.), Experimental political science: principles and practices (pp. 163-177). Palgrave Macmillan.
Silveira, M. C., Lotta, G. S., Cingolani, L., Guedes-Neto, J. V., Gomide, A. A., & Souza, P. M. S. (2026). The organizational dynamics of bureaucratic resistance to undemocratic pressures: a conjoint experiment in Brazil. Public Administration Review, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.70097
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative Behavior (4th ed.). Simon and Schuster.
Sniderman, P. M. (2011). The logic and design of the survey experiment: an autobiography of a methodological innovation. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (pp. 102-114). Cambridge University.
Sniderman, P. M., & Grob, D. B. (1996). Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 377-399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.377
Sousa, C. A. S. (2024). A influência da remuneração variável na produtividade de analistas de processos de uma Autarquia Federal [Dissertação de mestrado, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas]. Repositório FGV. https://hdl.handle.net/10438/36317
Steiner, P. M., Atzmüller, C., & Su, D. (2016). Designing valid and reliable vignette experiments for survey research: a case study on the fair gender income gap. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 7(2), 52-94. https://doi.org/10.2458/v7i2.20321
Stolte, J. F. (1994). The context of satisficing in vignette research. Journal of Social Psychology, 134(6), 727-733. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9923007
Taylor, B. J. (2006). Factorial Surveys: using vignettes to study professional judgement. The British Journal of Social Work, 36(7), 1187-1207. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch345
Zimmermann, V. S. (2025). Identificação organizacional: uma alternativa para gestão de pessoas no contexto do regime de recuperação fiscal no estado do Rio de Janeiro? [Dissertação de Mestrado, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas]. Repositório FGV. https://hdl.handle.net/10438/36914