Olivier Bergeron-Boutin, John M. Carey, Gretchen Helmke, Eli Rau
{"title":"专家偏见与民主侵蚀:评估专家对当代美国民主的看法","authors":"Olivier Bergeron-Boutin, John M. Carey, Gretchen Helmke, Eli Rau","doi":"10.1017/s1049096523000719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In an important contribution to scholarship on measuring democratic performance, Little and Meng suggest that bias among expert coders accounts for erosion in ratings of democratic quality and performance observed in recent years. Drawing on 19 waves of survey data on US democracy from academic experts and from the public collected by Bright Line Watch (BLW), this study looks for but does not find manifestations of the type of expert bias that Little and Meng posit. Although we are unable to provide a direct test of Little and Meng’s hypothesis, several analyses provide reassurance that expert samples are an informative source to measure democratic performance. We find that respondents who have participated more frequently in BLW surveys, who have coded for V-Dem, and who are vocal about the state of American democracy on Twitter are no more pessimistic than other participants.","PeriodicalId":515403,"journal":{"name":"PS: Political Science & Politics","volume":"29 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expert Bias and Democratic Erosion: Assessing Expert Perceptions of Contemporary American Democracy\",\"authors\":\"Olivier Bergeron-Boutin, John M. Carey, Gretchen Helmke, Eli Rau\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1049096523000719\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In an important contribution to scholarship on measuring democratic performance, Little and Meng suggest that bias among expert coders accounts for erosion in ratings of democratic quality and performance observed in recent years. Drawing on 19 waves of survey data on US democracy from academic experts and from the public collected by Bright Line Watch (BLW), this study looks for but does not find manifestations of the type of expert bias that Little and Meng posit. Although we are unable to provide a direct test of Little and Meng’s hypothesis, several analyses provide reassurance that expert samples are an informative source to measure democratic performance. We find that respondents who have participated more frequently in BLW surveys, who have coded for V-Dem, and who are vocal about the state of American democracy on Twitter are no more pessimistic than other participants.\",\"PeriodicalId\":515403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PS: Political Science & Politics\",\"volume\":\"29 22\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PS: Political Science & Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096523000719\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PS: Political Science & Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096523000719","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
利特尔(Little)和孟(Meng)对衡量民主绩效的学术研究做出了重要贡献,他们认为,专家编码者的偏见是近年来观察到的民主质量和绩效评分下降的原因。本研究利用 "光明线观察"(BLW)从学术专家和公众那里收集的 19 波有关美国民主的调查数据,寻找但并未发现 Little 和 Meng 所假设的那种专家偏见的表现。虽然我们无法直接检验 Little 和 Meng 的假设,但几项分析再次证明专家样本是衡量民主表现的信息来源。我们发现,那些更频繁地参与 BLW 调查、为 V-Dem 编码以及在 Twitter 上对美国民主状况发表意见的受访者并不比其他参与者更悲观。
Expert Bias and Democratic Erosion: Assessing Expert Perceptions of Contemporary American Democracy
In an important contribution to scholarship on measuring democratic performance, Little and Meng suggest that bias among expert coders accounts for erosion in ratings of democratic quality and performance observed in recent years. Drawing on 19 waves of survey data on US democracy from academic experts and from the public collected by Bright Line Watch (BLW), this study looks for but does not find manifestations of the type of expert bias that Little and Meng posit. Although we are unable to provide a direct test of Little and Meng’s hypothesis, several analyses provide reassurance that expert samples are an informative source to measure democratic performance. We find that respondents who have participated more frequently in BLW surveys, who have coded for V-Dem, and who are vocal about the state of American democracy on Twitter are no more pessimistic than other participants.