Tell me more. Findings from a Scoping Review on the Reporting of Field Experiments in Sociology

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly used in sociology to generate causal evidence. While the uptake of RCTs in sociology has lagged behind other disciplines, recent growth signals a shift toward what some now call “experimental sociology.” However, the methodological promise of RCTs depends not only on random assignment but also on transparent reporting practices that allow readers to assess internal validity, implementation quality, and the generalizability of findings. In this article, we conduct a systematic scoping review of 91 field experiments published since 2000 in high-ranking sociological journals. Using an adapted version of the CONSORT-SPI checklist, we evaluate reporting accuracy across a range of design and implementation indicators. We find substantial variability and frequent omissions in how sociological RCTs are reported, with implications for replicability and the cumulative advancement of causal knowledge. Our findings suggest that sociologists have yet to fully adopt reporting standards developed in other disciplines, and that greater attention to documentation could strengthen the credibility and utility of experimental evidence. We offer concrete recommendations for researchers, reviewers, and journal editors to improve transparency and comparability in sociological field experiments.