Abstract: Randomized experiments are broadly considered to be the gold standard for making empirically informed causal claims. Field experiments (often called randomized controlled trials or RCTs) are randomized studies that feature naturalistic context, participants, treatments, and outcomes in order to provide researchers and policy-makers with the most accurate vision of how laws and practices will play out in the real world. This methodology is particularly well-suited for evaluating if, how, and why individuals and organizations respond to rules and regulations and should be an essential piece in the puzzle of compliance studies. This chapter begins with a brief primer on field experiments, outlining why randomized experiments are so valuable as a methodological tool and how the unique attributes of field experiments provide a distinct set of benefits from similar causality-focused approaches such as laboratory experiments and natural experiments. The chapter then highlights the important assumptions and practical difficulties in conducting and analyzing field experiments, paying particular attention to how these factors can be limitations when studying compliance. The chapter concludes by considering what sorts of compliance-related field experiments are possible by focusing on two areas in which their use is well established – tax compliance and criminal deterrence – and then highlights individual experiments testing a diversity of substantive topics less commonly explored by field experimentalists such as international law, food safety inspections, and the behavior of political elites.