IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/pepspp/v26y2020i4p24n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who are Our Experts? Predictors of Participation in Expert Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Steinert Christoph Valentin

    (Department of Political Science IV, University of Mannheim, Parkring 47, 1. OG, 68159Mannheim, Germany)

  • Ruggeri Andrea

    (University of Oxford, Oxford, UK)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Steinert Christoph Valentin & Ruggeri Andrea, 2020. "Who are Our Experts? Predictors of Participation in Expert Surveys," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 26(4), pages 1-24, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:26:y:2020:i:4:p:24:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/peps-2020-0007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2020-0007
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/peps-2020-0007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:26:y:2020:i:4:p:24:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.