IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jdataj/v10y2025i5p72-d1652962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tracking Religious Freedom Violations with the Violent Incidents Database: A Methodological Approach and Comparative Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis P. Petri

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, Latin American University of Science and Technology, Barrio Tournón, San José 10802, Costa Rica
    International Institute for Religious Freedom, Orlando, FL 32878-0068, USA)

  • Kyle J. Wisdom

    (International Institute for Religious Freedom, Orlando, FL 32878-0068, USA)

  • John T. Bainbridge

    (International Institute for Religious Freedom, Orlando, FL 32878-0068, USA)

Abstract

Measuring and comparing religious freedom across countries and over time requires reliable and valid data sources. Existing religious freedom datasets are either based on the coding of qualitative data (such as the Religion and State Project or the Pew Research Center), on expert opinions (V-Dem or the World Watch List) or on surveys (Anti-Defamation League). Each of these approaches has its strengths and limitations. In this study, we present the Violent Incidents Database (VID), a complementary tool designed to collect, record, and analyze violent incidents related to violations of religious freedom based on media reports and other public sources. We critically describe the criteria and process for selecting, coding and verifying the incidents, as well as the categories and indicators used to classify them. We also compare the VID with other existing religious freedom datasets and show how the VID provides a complementary picture of the nature and dynamics of religious freedom violations. We offer a preliminary analysis of the data collected through the end of 2024 with selected figures for data visualization. We conclude by discussing anticipated improvements for the VID as well as its potential applications for policy makers, advocates, and practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis P. Petri & Kyle J. Wisdom & John T. Bainbridge, 2025. "Tracking Religious Freedom Violations with the Violent Incidents Database: A Methodological Approach and Comparative Analysis," Data, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-26, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jdataj:v:10:y:2025:i:5:p:72-:d:1652962
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/10/5/72/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/10/5/72/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ouchi, Fumika, 2004. "A literature review on the use of expert opinion in probabilistic risk analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3201, The World Bank.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hanea, D.M. & Jagtman, H.M. & van Alphen, L.L.M.M. & Ale, B.J.M., 2010. "Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the expert and non-expert opinion in fire risk in buildings," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 729-741.
    2. Keith Coble & Zhijun Yang & M. Darren Hudson, 2011. "Using experimental economics to evaluate alternative subjective elicitation procedures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(14), pages 1729-1736.
    3. Marta O. Soares & Jo C. Dumville & Rebecca L. Ashby & Cynthia P. Iglesias & Laura Bojke & Una Adderley & Elizabeth McGinnis & Nikki Stubbs & David J. Torgerson & Karl Claxton & Nicky Cullum, 2013. "Methods to Assess Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Further Research When Data Are Sparse," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 415-436, April.
    4. Moffitt, L. Joe & Osteen, Craig D., 2006. "Prioritizing Invasive Species Threats Under Uncertainty," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(01), pages 1-11, April.
    5. Zhijun Yang & K. H. Coble & M. Darren Hudson, 2009. "The role of individual personality type in subjective risk elicitation outcomes," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 209-222, March.
    6. Moffitt L. Joe & Stranlund John K. & Field Barry C., 2005. "Inspections to Avert Terrorism: Robustness Under Severe Uncertainty," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-19, September.
    7. S. Ali Naji Nasrabadi Yazd & Amirhossein Salamirad & Siamak Kheybari & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "An efficiency-based aggregate production planning model for multi-line manufacturing systems," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 2008-2024, December.
    8. Werner, Christoph & Bedford, Tim & Cooke, Roger M. & Hanea, Anca M. & Morales-Nápoles, Oswaldo, 2017. "Expert judgement for dependence in probabilistic modelling: A systematic literature review and future research directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 801-819.
    9. Elena M. Parilina & Georges Zaccour, 2022. "Sustainable Cooperation in Dynamic Games on Event Trees with Players’ Asymmetric Beliefs," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 194(1), pages 92-120, July.
    10. Deborah F. Shmueli & Ehud Segal & Michal Ben Gal & Eran Feitelson & Amnon Reichman, 2019. "Earthquake readiness in volatile regions: the case of Israel," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 98(2), pages 405-423, September.

    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:gam:jdataj:v:10:y:2025:i:5:p:72-:d:1652962. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.