Meritocracy Voting: Measuring the Unmeasurable

ResearchSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Phillips, Peter en
dc.date.accessioned 2018-10-11T01:53:01Z en
dc.date.issued 2016-01-01 en
dc.identifier.issn 0747-4938 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2292/40744 en
dc.description.abstract © 2016, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Learned societies commonly carry out selection processes to add new fellows to an existing fellowship. Criteria vary across societies but are typically based on subjective judgments concerning the merit of individuals who are nominated for fellowships. These subjective assessments may be made by existing fellows as they vote in elections to determine the new fellows or they may be decided by a selection committee of fellows and officers of the society who determine merit after reviewing nominations and written assessments. Human judgment inevitably plays a central role in these determinations and, notwithstanding its limitations, is usually regarded as being a necessary ingredient in making an overall assessment of qualifications for fellowship. The present article suggests a mechanism by which these merit assessments may be complemented with a quantitative rule that incorporates both subjective and objective elements. The goal of “measuring merit” may be elusive, but quantitative assessment rules can help to widen the effective electorate (for instance, by including the decisions of editors, the judgments of independent referees, and received opinion about research) and mitigate distortions that can arise from cluster effects, invisible college coalition voting, and inner sanctum bias. The rule considered here is designed to assist the selection process by explicitly taking into account subjective assessments of individual candidates for election as well as direct quantitative measures of quality obtained from bibliometric data. Audit methods are suggested to mitigate possible gaming effects by electors in the peer review process. The methodology has application to a wide arena of quality assessment and professional ranking exercises. Some specific issues of implementation are discussed in the context of the Econometric Society fellowship elections. en
dc.relation.ispartofseries Econometric Reviews en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. en
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm en
dc.title Meritocracy Voting: Measuring the Unmeasurable en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1080/07474938.2014.956633 en
pubs.issue 1 en
pubs.begin-page 2 en
pubs.volume 35 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The author en
pubs.end-page 40 en
pubs.publication-status Published en
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess en
pubs.subtype Journal Article en
pubs.elements-id 510442 en
pubs.org-id Business and Economics en
pubs.org-id Economics en
dc.identifier.eissn 1532-4168 en


Full text options

Full text for this item is not available in ResearchSpace.

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Advanced Search

Browse