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.

Who are Our Experts? Predictors of Participation in Expert Surveys / C.V. Steinert, A. Ruggeri. - 26:4(2020 Dec), pp. 20200007.1-20200007.24. [10.1515/peps-2020-0007]

Who are Our Experts? Predictors of Participation in Expert Surveys

A. Ruggeri
Ultimo
2020

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.
expert surveysnon-responsepost-conflict trialsgender gap;
Settore SPS/04 - Scienza Politica
dic-2020
24-ago-2020
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Steinert_Ruggeri_PEPS_27.7.20.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Pre-print (manoscritto inviato all'editore)
Dimensione 371.29 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
371.29 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
10.1515_peps-2020-0007(1).pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 657.45 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
657.45 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1044690
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact