Who are Our Experts? Predictors of Participation in Expert Surveys

IF 1.7 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Peace Economics Peace Science and Public Policy Pub Date : 2020-08-24 DOI:10.1515/peps-2020-0007
C. Steinert, A. Ruggeri
{"title":"Who are Our Experts? Predictors of Participation in Expert Surveys","authors":"C. Steinert, A. Ruggeri","doi":"10.1515/peps-2020-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Who are the colleagues participating when asked to complete expert surveys? This research note investigates which individuals’ characteristics associate with positive responses. Drawing on an expert survey dedicated to post-conflict trials, we collect data on various attributes of both respondents and non-respondents such as their age, sex, academic positions, disciplines, and research outputs. We expect that decisions to participate result from an interplay of (1) individuals’ levels of context-specific expertise, (2) the value attached to their expert role, (3) their confidence in making authoritative statements, and (4) resource constraints. Employing logistic regression models and statistical simulations (n = 414), we find that context-specific expertise is the primary, but not the only determinant of participation. On the one hand and luckily, individuals whose research corresponds closely to the object of study are most likely to participate. On the other hand and unfortunately, individuals with high citation outputs, female experts, and Area Studies-scholars are less likely to respond. Consequently, certain groups are under-represented in expert evaluations frequently considered as authoritative source of knowledge.","PeriodicalId":44635,"journal":{"name":"Peace Economics Peace Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/peps-2020-0007","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peace Economics Peace Science and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2020-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Who are the colleagues participating when asked to complete expert surveys? This research note investigates which individuals’ characteristics associate with positive responses. Drawing on an expert survey dedicated to post-conflict trials, we collect data on various attributes of both respondents and non-respondents such as their age, sex, academic positions, disciplines, and research outputs. We expect that decisions to participate result from an interplay of (1) individuals’ levels of context-specific expertise, (2) the value attached to their expert role, (3) their confidence in making authoritative statements, and (4) resource constraints. Employing logistic regression models and statistical simulations (n = 414), we find that context-specific expertise is the primary, but not the only determinant of participation. On the one hand and luckily, individuals whose research corresponds closely to the object of study are most likely to participate. On the other hand and unfortunately, individuals with high citation outputs, female experts, and Area Studies-scholars are less likely to respond. Consequently, certain groups are under-represented in expert evaluations frequently considered as authoritative source of knowledge.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁是我们的专家?参与专家调查的预测因素
摘要当被要求完成专家调查时,参与调查的同事是谁?本研究报告调查了哪些人的特征与积极反应有关。根据一项专门针对冲突后审判的专家调查,我们收集了受访者和非受访者的各种特征数据,如年龄、性别、学术职位、学科和研究成果。我们预计,参与决策是由以下因素相互作用产生的:(1)个人特定背景的专业知识水平,(2)对其专家角色的重视,(3)他们对发表权威声明的信心,以及(4)资源限制。采用逻辑回归模型和统计模拟(n=414),我们发现特定于情境的专业知识是参与的主要决定因素,但不是唯一的决定因素。一方面,幸运的是,研究与研究对象密切相关的个人最有可能参与。另一方面,不幸的是,引用量高的个人、女性专家和区域研究学者不太可能做出回应。因此,某些群体在经常被视为权威知识来源的专家评价中代表性不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The journal accepts rigorous, non-technical papers especially in research methods in peace science, but also regular papers dealing with all aspects of the peace science field, from pure abstract theory to practical applied research. As a guide to topics: - Arms Control and International Security - Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Studies - Behavioral Studies - Conflict Analysis and Management - Cooperation, Alliances and Games - Crises and War Studies - Critical Economic Aspects of the Global Crises - Deterrence Theory - Empirical and Historical Studies on the Causes of War - Game, Prospect and Related Theory - Harmony and Conflict - Hierarchy Theory
期刊最新文献
Investigating Time-Varying Causality Between Military Spending and Macroeconomic Indicators in the United States An Empirical Investigation on the Determinants of International Migration Determinants of Military Spending in Africa: Do Institutions Matter? Connectedness Among Geopolitical Risk, Inflation, Currency Values, and Exports by TVP-VAR Analysis: A Worldwide Perspective The European Union and Achieving Peace in Ukraine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1