Judgment and measurement in political science

Andreas Schedler

doi:10.1017/S1537592711004889

Judgment and measurement in political science

Andreas Schedler^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas
IPSA Research Committee on Concepts and Methods

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract (may include machine translation)

Standard methodological advice in political science warns against the distortion of measurement decisions by judgmental elements. Judgment is subjective, common wisdom asserts, it produces opaque, biased, and unreliable data. This article, by contrast, argues that judgment is a critical intersubjective ingredient of political measurement that needs to be acknowledged and rationalized, rather than exorcised.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	21-36
Number of pages	16
Journal	Perspectives on Politics
Volume	10
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711004889
State	Published - Mar 2012
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1017/S1537592711004889

Cite this

@article{da69cea920a74d5a8dacdc4bd7336a9f,

title = "Judgment and measurement in political science",

abstract = "Standard methodological advice in political science warns against the distortion of measurement decisions by judgmental elements. Judgment is subjective, common wisdom asserts, it produces opaque, biased, and unreliable data. This article, by contrast, argues that judgment is a critical intersubjective ingredient of political measurement that needs to be acknowledged and rationalized, rather than exorcised.",

author = "Andreas Schedler",

year = "2012",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1017/S1537592711004889",

language = "English",

volume = "10",

pages = "21--36",

journal = "Perspectives on Politics",

issn = "1537-5927",

publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Judgment and measurement in political science

AU - Schedler, Andreas

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - Standard methodological advice in political science warns against the distortion of measurement decisions by judgmental elements. Judgment is subjective, common wisdom asserts, it produces opaque, biased, and unreliable data. This article, by contrast, argues that judgment is a critical intersubjective ingredient of political measurement that needs to be acknowledged and rationalized, rather than exorcised.

AB - Standard methodological advice in political science warns against the distortion of measurement decisions by judgmental elements. Judgment is subjective, common wisdom asserts, it produces opaque, biased, and unreliable data. This article, by contrast, argues that judgment is a critical intersubjective ingredient of political measurement that needs to be acknowledged and rationalized, rather than exorcised.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84856548496

U2 - 10.1017/S1537592711004889

DO - 10.1017/S1537592711004889

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84856548496

SN - 1537-5927

VL - 10

SP - 21

EP - 36

JO - Perspectives on Politics

JF - Perspectives on Politics

IS - 1

ER -

Judgment and measurement in political science

Abstract (may include machine translation)

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this