1,721,244 research outputs found
Electoral Learning and Capacity Building (ELECT) data
No full textThe Electoral Integrity Project at Harvard University and the University of Sydney (www.electoralintegrityproject.com) developed ELECT data, release 1.0.
Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) are the central agencies responsible for running elections in countries around the world. Too little is however known about the common challenges facing these agencies, and how to expand capacity and skills associated with professional electoral administration.
The Electoral Integrity Project launched the Electoral Learning and Capacity Building (ELECT) study in 2016. The study has two components:
1. The ELECT Organizational Survey, that gathered macro-level information about the agency from upper-management personnel in 35 diverse EMBs worldwide.
2. The ELECT Staff Survey, that gathered individual-level evidence from staff working within EMBs, with a special focus on two selected case studies (South Korea and Mexico).
For both the Organisational and Staff surveys, the following files can be accessed:
a) dataset in Stata and SPSS formats;
b) codebook;
c) questionnaire.
The EIP acknowledges support from the Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate from the Australian Research Council (ARC ref: FL110100093), and from the Association of World Election Bodies (A-WEB; http://www.aweb.org).
**** EIP further publications:
BOOKS • LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. 2014. Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World. London: Sage Publications. • Nai, Alessandro and Walter, Annemarie. Eds. 2015 New Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Why Attack Politics Matters. Colchester: ECPR Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2014. Advancing Electoral Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2015. Contentious Elections: From Ballots to the Barricades. New York: Routledge. • Norris, Pippa. 2014. Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa. 2015. Why Elections Fail. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa and Andrea Abel van Es. Eds. 2016. Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press. ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS • W. Frank. 2013. ‘Assessing the quality of elections.’ Journal of Democracy. 24(4): 124-135.• Lago, Ignacio and Martínez i Coma, Ferran. 2016. ‘Challenge or Consent? Understanding Losers’ Reactions in Mass Elections’. Government and Opposition doi:10.1071/gov.3015.31 • Martínez i Coma, Ferran and Lago, Ignacio. 2016. 'Gerrymandering in Comparative Perspective’ Party Politics DOI: 10.1177/1354068816642806 • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘Does the world agree about standards of electoral integrity? Evidence for the diffusion of global norms.’ Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4):576-588. • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘The new research agenda studying electoral integrity’. Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4): 563-575.57 • Norris, Pippa. 2014. ‘Electoral integrity and political legitimacy.’ In Comparing Democracies 4. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. London: Sage. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. ‘Measuring electoral integrity: A new dataset.’ PS: Political Science & Politics. 47(4): 789-798. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral integrity in East Asia.’ Routledge Handbook on Democratization in East Asia. Tun-jen Cheng and Yun-han Chu. Eds. Routledge: New York. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral transitions: Stumbling out of the gate.’ In Rebooting Transitology – Democratization in the 21st Century. Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou and Timothy D. Sisk. Eds. • Pietsch, Juliet; Michael Miller and Jeffrey Karp. 2015. ‘Public support for democracy in transitional regimes.’ Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 25(1): 1–9. DOI: 10.1080/17457289.2014. • Smith, Rodney. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Confidence in paper-based and electronic voting channels: Evidence from Australia.’ Australian Journal of Political Science. ID: 1093091 DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2015.1093091 dx.doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099097 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘From sticks to carrots: Electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986-2012’, Government and Opposition 50(3): 521 - 548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.6 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘When Guardians Matter Most: Exploring the Conditions under Which Electoral Management Body Institutional Design Affects Election Integrity’, Irish Political Studies, 30(4): 454 - 481, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099097 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘From sticks to carrots: Electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986-2012’, Government and Opposition 50(3): 521 - 548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.6 REPORTS • Grömping, Max and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2015 ‘Electoral Integrity in Africa’. • Norris, Pippa; Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. ‘The Year in Elections, 2013’. • Norris, Pippa; Ferran Martínez i Coma and Max Grömping. 2015. ‘The Year in Elections, 2014’. • Norris, Pippa; Andrea Abel van Es and Lisa Fennis. 2015. ‘Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective’. • Several authors. 2015. Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Workshop: Model Curriculum. Stockholm: International IDEA
Electoral Learning and Capacity Building (ELECT) data
No full textThe Electoral Integrity Project at Harvard University and the University of Sydney (www.electoralintegrityproject.com) developed ELECT data, release 1.0.
Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) are the central agencies responsible for running elections in countries around the world. Too little is however known about the common challenges facing these agencies, and how to expand capacity and skills associated with professional electoral administration.
The Electoral Integrity Project launched the Electoral Learning and Capacity Building (ELECT) study in 2016. The study has two components:
1. The ELECT Organizational Survey, that gathered macro-level information about the agency from upper-management personnel in 35 diverse EMBs worldwide.
2. The ELECT Staff Survey, that gathered individual-level evidence from staff working within EMBs, with a special focus on two selected case studies (South Korea and Mexico).
For both the Organisational and Staff surveys, the following files can be accessed:
a) dataset in Stata and SPSS formats;
b) codebook;
c) questionnaire.
The EIP acknowledges support from the Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate from the Australian Research Council (ARC ref: FL110100093), and from the Association of World Election Bodies (A-WEB; http://www.aweb.org).
**** EIP further publications:
BOOKS • LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. 2014. Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World. London: Sage Publications. • Nai, Alessandro and Walter, Annemarie. Eds. 2015 New Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Why Attack Politics Matters. Colchester: ECPR Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2014. Advancing Electoral Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2015. Contentious Elections: From Ballots to the Barricades. New York: Routledge. • Norris, Pippa. 2014. Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa. 2015. Why Elections Fail. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa and Andrea Abel van Es. Eds. 2016. Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press. ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS • W. Frank. 2013. ‘Assessing the quality of elections.’ Journal of Democracy. 24(4): 124-135.• Lago, Ignacio and Martínez i Coma, Ferran. 2016. ‘Challenge or Consent? Understanding Losers’ Reactions in Mass Elections’. Government and Opposition doi:10.1071/gov.3015.31 • Martínez i Coma, Ferran and Lago, Ignacio. 2016. 'Gerrymandering in Comparative Perspective’ Party Politics DOI: 10.1177/1354068816642806 • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘Does the world agree about standards of electoral integrity? Evidence for the diffusion of global norms.’ Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4):576-588. • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘The new research agenda studying electoral integrity’. Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4): 563-575.57 • Norris, Pippa. 2014. ‘Electoral integrity and political legitimacy.’ In Comparing Democracies 4. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. London: Sage. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. ‘Measuring electoral integrity: A new dataset.’ PS: Political Science & Politics. 47(4): 789-798. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral integrity in East Asia.’ Routledge Handbook on Democratization in East Asia. Tun-jen Cheng and Yun-han Chu. Eds. Routledge: New York. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral transitions: Stumbling out of the gate.’ In Rebooting Transitology – Democratization in the 21st Century. Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou and Timothy D. Sisk. Eds. • Pietsch, Juliet; Michael Miller and Jeffrey Karp. 2015. ‘Public support for democracy in transitional regimes.’ Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 25(1): 1–9. DOI: 10.1080/17457289.2014. • Smith, Rodney. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Confidence in paper-based and electronic voting channels: Evidence from Australia.’ Australian Journal of Political Science. ID: 1093091 DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2015.1093091 dx.doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099097 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘From sticks to carrots: Electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986-2012’, Government and Opposition 50(3): 521 - 548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.6 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘When Guardians Matter Most: Exploring the Conditions under Which Electoral Management Body Institutional Design Affects Election Integrity’, Irish Political Studies, 30(4): 454 - 481, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099097 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘From sticks to carrots: Electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986-2012’, Government and Opposition 50(3): 521 - 548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.6 REPORTS • Grömping, Max and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2015 ‘Electoral Integrity in Africa’. • Norris, Pippa; Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. ‘The Year in Elections, 2013’. • Norris, Pippa; Ferran Martínez i Coma and Max Grömping. 2015. ‘The Year in Elections, 2014’. • Norris, Pippa; Andrea Abel van Es and Lisa Fennis. 2015. ‘Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective’. • Several authors. 2015. Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Workshop: Model Curriculum. Stockholm: International IDEA
The Australian Voter Experience (AVE) dataset
No full textThe Electoral Integrity Project at Harvard University and the University of Sydney (www.electoralintegrityproject.com) developed the AVE data, release 1.0.
The dataset contains information from a three-wave panel survey designed to gather the views of a representative sample of ordinary Australians just before and after the 2nd July 2016 Australian federal elections. The survey monitored Australian voters’ experience at the polls, perceptions of the integrity and convenience of the registration and voting process, patterns of civic engagement, public confidence in electoral administration, and attitudes towards reforms, such as civic education campaigns and convenience voting facilities.
Respondents were initially contacted in the week before the election between 28 June and 1 July and completed an online questionnaire lasting approximately 15 minutes. This forms the pre-election base line survey (wave 1). The same individuals were contacted again after the election to complete a longer survey, an average of 25 minutes in length. Respondents in wave 2 were contacted between 4 July and 19 July, with two thirds completing the survey after the first week. About six weeks later, the same respondents were interviewed again (wave 3) beginning on 23 August and ending on 13 September. The initial sample contains 2,139 valid responses for the first wave of questionnaires, 1,838 for the second wave (an 86 percent retention rate), and 1,543 for the third wave (84 percent retention rate). Overall, 72 percent of the respondents were carried over from the pre-election wave to the final wave.
The following files can be accessed:
a) dataset in Stata and SPSS formats;
b) codebook;
c) questionnaire.
The EIP acknowledges support from the Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate from the Australian Research Council (ARC ref: FL110100093).
**** EIP further publications:
BOOKS • LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. 2014. Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World. London: Sage Publications. • Nai, Alessandro and Walter, Annemarie. Eds. 2015 New Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Why Attack Politics Matters. Colchester: ECPR Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2014. Advancing Electoral Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2015. Contentious Elections: From Ballots to the Barricades. New York: Routledge. • Norris, Pippa. 2014. Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa. 2015. Why Elections Fail. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa and Andrea Abel van Es. Eds. 2016. Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press. ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS • W. Frank. 2013. ‘Assessing the quality of elections.’ Journal of Democracy. 24(4): 124-135.• Lago, Ignacio and Martínez i Coma, Ferran. 2016. ‘Challenge or Consent? Understanding Losers’ Reactions in Mass Elections’. Government and Opposition doi:10.1071/gov.3015.31 • Martínez i Coma, Ferran and Lago, Ignacio. 2016. 'Gerrymandering in Comparative Perspective’ Party Politics DOI: 10.1177/1354068816642806 • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘Does the world agree about standards of electoral integrity? Evidence for the diffusion of global norms.’ Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4):576-588. • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘The new research agenda studying electoral integrity’. Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4): 563-575.57 • Norris, Pippa. 2014. ‘Electoral integrity and political legitimacy.’ In Comparing Democracies 4. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. London: Sage. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. ‘Measuring electoral integrity: A new dataset.’ PS: Political Science & Politics. 47(4): 789-798. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral integrity in East Asia.’ Routledge Handbook on Democratization in East Asia. Tun-jen Cheng and Yun-han Chu. Eds. Routledge: New York. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral transitions: Stumbling out of the gate.’ In Rebooting Transitology – Democratization in the 21st Century. Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou and Timothy D. Sisk. Eds. • Pietsch, Juliet; Michael Miller and Jeffrey Karp. 2015. ‘Public support for democracy in transitional regimes.’ Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 25(1): 1–9. DOI: 10.1080/17457289.2014. • Smith, Rodney. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Confidence in paper-based and electronic voting channels: Evidence from Australia.’ Australian Journal of Political Science. ID: 1093091 DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2015.1093091 dx.doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099097 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘From sticks to carrots: Electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986-2012’, Government and Opposition 50(3): 521 - 548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.6 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘When Guardians Matter Most: Exploring the Conditions under Which Electoral Management Body Institutional Design Affects Election Integrity’, Irish Political Studies, 30(4): 454 - 481, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099097 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘From sticks to carrots: Electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986-2012’, Government and Opposition 50(3): 521 - 548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.6 REPORTS • Grömping, Max and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2015 ‘Electoral Integrity in Africa’. • Norris, Pippa; Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. ‘The Year in Elections, 2013’. • Norris, Pippa; Ferran Martínez i Coma and Max Grömping. 2015. ‘The Year in Elections, 2014’. • Norris, Pippa; Andrea Abel van Es and Lisa Fennis. 2015. ‘Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective’. • Several authors. 2015. Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Workshop: Model Curriculum. Stockholm: International IDEA
The Australian Voter Experience (AVE) dataset
No full textThe Electoral Integrity Project at Harvard University and the University of Sydney (www.electoralintegrityproject.com) developed the AVE data, release 1.0.
The dataset contains information from a three-wave panel survey designed to gather the views of a representative sample of ordinary Australians just before and after the 2nd July 2016 Australian federal elections. The survey monitored Australian voters’ experience at the polls, perceptions of the integrity and convenience of the registration and voting process, patterns of civic engagement, public confidence in electoral administration, and attitudes towards reforms, such as civic education campaigns and convenience voting facilities.
Respondents were initially contacted in the week before the election between 28 June and 1 July and completed an online questionnaire lasting approximately 15 minutes. This forms the pre-election base line survey (wave 1). The same individuals were contacted again after the election to complete a longer survey, an average of 25 minutes in length. Respondents in wave 2 were contacted between 4 July and 19 July, with two thirds completing the survey after the first week. About six weeks later, the same respondents were interviewed again (wave 3) beginning on 23 August and ending on 13 September. The initial sample contains 2,139 valid responses for the first wave of questionnaires, 1,838 for the second wave (an 86 percent retention rate), and 1,543 for the third wave (84 percent retention rate). Overall, 72 percent of the respondents were carried over from the pre-election wave to the final wave.
The following files can be accessed:
a) dataset in Stata and SPSS formats;
b) codebook;
c) questionnaire.
The EIP acknowledges support from the Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate from the Australian Research Council (ARC ref: FL110100093).
**** EIP further publications:
BOOKS • LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. 2014. Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World. London: Sage Publications. • Nai, Alessandro and Walter, Annemarie. Eds. 2015 New Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Why Attack Politics Matters. Colchester: ECPR Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2014. Advancing Electoral Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2015. Contentious Elections: From Ballots to the Barricades. New York: Routledge. • Norris, Pippa. 2014. Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa. 2015. Why Elections Fail. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa and Andrea Abel van Es. Eds. 2016. Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press. ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS • W. Frank. 2013. ‘Assessing the quality of elections.’ Journal of Democracy. 24(4): 124-135.• Lago, Ignacio and Martínez i Coma, Ferran. 2016. ‘Challenge or Consent? Understanding Losers’ Reactions in Mass Elections’. Government and Opposition doi:10.1071/gov.3015.31 • Martínez i Coma, Ferran and Lago, Ignacio. 2016. 'Gerrymandering in Comparative Perspective’ Party Politics DOI: 10.1177/1354068816642806 • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘Does the world agree about standards of electoral integrity? Evidence for the diffusion of global norms.’ Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4):576-588. • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘The new research agenda studying electoral integrity’. Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4): 563-575.57 • Norris, Pippa. 2014. ‘Electoral integrity and political legitimacy.’ In Comparing Democracies 4. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. London: Sage. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. ‘Measuring electoral integrity: A new dataset.’ PS: Political Science & Politics. 47(4): 789-798. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral integrity in East Asia.’ Routledge Handbook on Democratization in East Asia. Tun-jen Cheng and Yun-han Chu. Eds. Routledge: New York. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral transitions: Stumbling out of the gate.’ In Rebooting Transitology – Democratization in the 21st Century. Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou and Timothy D. Sisk. Eds. • Pietsch, Juliet; Michael Miller and Jeffrey Karp. 2015. ‘Public support for democracy in transitional regimes.’ Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 25(1): 1–9. DOI: 10.1080/17457289.2014. • Smith, Rodney. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Confidence in paper-based and electronic voting channels: Evidence from Australia.’ Australian Journal of Political Science. ID: 1093091 DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2015.1093091 dx.doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099097 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘From sticks to carrots: Electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986-2012’, Government and Opposition 50(3): 521 - 548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.6 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘When Guardians Matter Most: Exploring the Conditions under Which Electoral Management Body Institutional Design Affects Election Integrity’, Irish Political Studies, 30(4): 454 - 481, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099097 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘From sticks to carrots: Electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986-2012’, Government and Opposition 50(3): 521 - 548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.6 REPORTS • Grömping, Max and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2015 ‘Electoral Integrity in Africa’. • Norris, Pippa; Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. ‘The Year in Elections, 2013’. • Norris, Pippa; Ferran Martínez i Coma and Max Grömping. 2015. ‘The Year in Elections, 2014’. • Norris, Pippa; Andrea Abel van Es and Lisa Fennis. 2015. ‘Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective’. • Several authors. 2015. Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Workshop: Model Curriculum. Stockholm: International IDEA
Global Party Survey, 2019
No full textThe Global Party Survey, 2019 (GPS) is an international expert survey directed by Pippa Norris (Harvard University). Drawing on 1,861 party and election experts, the Global Party Survey, 2019 estimates key ideological values, issue positions, and populist rhetoric for 1,043 parties in 163 countries.
The research project is designed to replicate the tried and tested methods of expert surveys, while simultaneously innovating and broadening the research agenda in several important ways.
• By expanding the geographic scope of coverage, including parties and countries in all inhabited continents, it allows users to move beyond the traditional focus on Europe.
• By incorporating continuous scaled measures of populist rhetoric, as well as ideological values, analysts can compare the degree to which all parties commonly adopt this discourse, not simply confining analysis to those designated a priori in binary categories as ‘populist’ parties.
• By including party codes used in many other related cross-national studies, the dataset facilitates easy merger for multilevel analysis, such as by comparing party positions with their institutional characteristics or with the attitudes of their voters.
• At the same time, however, sufficient continuity is preserved with prior research measuring party positions to facilitate comparison with these established datasets. Several robustness and validity tests increase confidence in the external validity of the new study. More: www.GlobalPartySurvey.org @PippaN1
ECPR-IPSA World of Political Science survey 2019
No full textThe baseline ECPR-IPSA World of Political Science survey (WPS-2019) was first launched by Pippa Norris in spring 2019. The study, conducted in conjunction with the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) and the International Political Science Association (IPSA), seeks to provide a representative profile of the political science profession across the globe.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The survey of the profession was designed to address several issues:
• Firstly, what are the background characteristics, qualifications, and career profiles of political scientists employed in higher education in different cohorts, regions and countries around the world, such as terms of gender, work status, institutional affiliations, and academic rank? How has this changed in recent years?
• Secondly, do political scientists living and working worldwide share common or divergent perceptions about their work roles, and thus the relative importance of teaching and mentoring, research and publication, university and professional service, and real-world policy impact?
• Fourthly, how does the social diversity of political science vary and how do study and employment opportunities vary for groups in the profession?
• Finally, how do colleagues evaluate developments in the profession, and what is thought to have been lost -- and what gained in recent years?
Subsequent surveys are planned to build on this baseline in order to replicate and monitor developments, as well as adding new questions on key thematic issues.
METHODS AND DATA
The World of Political Science (WPS) surveys of the profession have been designed to gather information about the discipline, including the social background and work experiences of political scientists, their professional training, technical skills, and formal qualifications, as well as their role perceptions, methodological approaches, sub-fields of research, and perceptions of changes to academic life. The surveys provide the broadest geographic scope for any previous equivalent study in the discipline.
The WPS-2019 questionnaire can be downloaded here in PDF format.
Invitations asking political scientists to participate are widely distributed through social media notifications (Facebook, emails, and Twitter), the ECPR Newsletter list and IPSA lists, and through newsletters among several national associations (CPSA, PSA UK, Australian PSA, and the Russian PSA).
All individual responses in the study are treated as anonymous and no identifiable personal data is collected in the survey. Data collected by the ECPR is treated in the strictest confidence, under the terms of the UK Data Protection Act and in accordance with the ECPR’s Privacy Policy.
Technical queries should be sent to the Survey Administrator, ECPR’s Communications Manager, Rebecca Gethen [email protected].
SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATE
For the WPS-2019 survey, 2,446 responses were collected overall, including from respondents who were studying or working in 102 countries and eight global regions, including North America (the US and Canada), Western, Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia-Pacific and continental Africa. (Unfortunately, too few data points limit reliable analysis of the profession in the Middle East and North Africa, where political science departments are also least likely to be well developed.) The dataset also allows analysis of national samples in several countries with many participants, such as in Italy (79), Australia (70), Russia (73), Canada (78), the Netherlands (87), Nigeria (116), the UK (238), Germany (246), and the United States (281).
One important qualification to the survey should be noted, however; by tapping into ECPR and IPSA networks and email membership lists, the survey may potentially systematically over-represent political scientists who are already actively involved in these organizations, and thus most likely to be globalized, while under-representing colleagues who have not joined these international organizations.
This potential bias was checked by examining the survey data which monitored how actively respondents said that they attended meetings of the ECPR, IPSA and their national association. The results suggest that the overwhelming majority of survey participants reported that they ‘Never’ or ‘Not very often’ attended the ECPR (70%) or IPSA (84%) meetings, while the majority (62%) said that they were ‘Fairly’ or ‘Very’ active in their national association meetings. Thus, the survey may overestimate the most internationally engaged scholars, but respondents are likely to provide a reasonably representative cross-section of the profession as a whole
ECPR-IPSA World of Political Science survey 2023
No full textThe first ECPR-IPSA World of Political Science survey (WPS-2019), conducted in conjunction with the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) and the International Political Science Association (IPSA), was implemented by Pippa Norris in spring 2019.
This second study, WPS-2023, seeks to update the evidence, to pursue new themes, and to provide a representative profile of the political science profession across the globe.
It has been designed to gather information about multiple aspects within the discipline, including
1. Nation of current work or study;
2. Academic work experiences, satisfaction, and perceptions;
3. Ideological values;
4. Equality, diversity and inclusion within the discipline;
5. Experience and perceptions of academic freedom;
6. Preferences for in-person or online communications;
7. Their background characteristics, including socio-demographic, educational qualifications, institutional contexts, methods and sub-fields;
8. Academic geographic mobility; and
9. The macro-level national context of academic and media freedom within each society of work or study, from V-Dem 13.0.
Overall 1,989 valid responses were collected online between 29 November 2022 and 31 January 2023. This included replies from respondents who were political scientists currently studying or working in 103 countries worldwide
Public Sentinel : News Media and Governance Reform
No full textDo the news media especially if they are
free, plural and independent of government control have an
impact on the quality of governance? To many, the answer to
that question is not only obvious, it is blindingly so. The
news media have contributed to the improvement of governance
in several countries, especially through their ability to
expose corrupt deeds and speak truth to power. The problem,
however, is that as the governance reform agenda evolves in
the field of international development, the role of the news
media is still uncertain. Opportunities to strengthen the
news media will always depend on the situation in each
country, and will always depend on the interplay of forces
within each country. In other words, the political economic
realities will always determine what can be achieved. What
that means is that those who want to improve media systems
in their own countries must learn to build effective
coalitions. That is where work is really needed.
Nonetheless, it is possible to do two things. First, it is
possible to bring together how the news media can contribute
to good governance outcomes. Second, it is possible to draw
the necessary policy implications. This book will contribute
to a greater awareness of the potential contributions of
independent news media to governance reform efforts around
the world
Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, (PEI-7.0)
No full textThis dataset by the Electoral Integrity Project evaluates the quality of elections held around the world. Based on a rolling survey collecting the views of election experts, this research provides independent and reliable evidence to compare whether countries meet international standards of electoral integrity. PEI-7.0 cumulative release covers 336 national parliamentary and presidential contests held worldwide in 166 countries from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2018. For each contest, 40 election experts receive an electronic invitation to fill the survey. The survey includes assessments from 3,821 election experts, with a mean response rate of 28%. The study collects 49 indicators to compare elections. These indicators are clustered to evaluate eleven stages in the electoral cycle as well as generating an overall summary Perception of Electoral Integrity (PEI) 100-point index and comparative ranking. The datasets are available for analysis at three levels: COUNTRY-level (166 observations); ELECTION-level (336 observations), and also EXPERT-level (3,821 observations). Each dataset can be downloaded in STATA, SPSS, CSV and EXCEL formats
NORRIS, Pippa. Democratic Deficit: critical citizens revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 334 p.
Get PDFNORRIS, Pippa. Democratic Deficit: critical citizens revisited. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2011. 334 p
- …
