Review of approaches and methods for identifying experts in organizational research
https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2022-10-57-65
Abstract
In scientific studies, three approaches are used to identify experts in organizational research: sociological, behavioral, and cognitive. In the sociological approach, the emphasis is on the socio-political status of a person. The behavioral approach focuses on how choices are made in situations of uncertainty. In the cognitive approach, the subject of the thought process is considered directly. The article shows the limitations of each of the approaches. Methods for identification of experts in organizational research in domestic and foreign scientific studies are given. Methods are considered: social acclamation, political influence, problem situation, personal involvement, external cues, self-ratings, past performance, knowledge tests, psychological traits. The advantages and disadvantages of each method are shown. Expert identification methods provide a set of opportunities for researchers of organization and organizational behavior, depending on the need for: expert judgment or expert knowledge; expert evaluation procedures or the product of professional activity; knowledge of a topic, a problem, highly specialized markets or representation of the interests of specific actors, groups, ideas, concepts. The author uses general logical research methods: induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis, scientific abstraction, comparison and contrasting.
About the Author
E. M. Shironina
Perm National Research Polytechnic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena M. Shironina, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Assoc. Prof. at the Economics and Industrial Management Department
Perm
References
1. Olenev V.M., Shironina E.M. Research techniques of the future in strategic management. Economy and Entrepreneurship. 2021;12(137):831–834. https://doi.org/10.34925/EIP.2021.137.12.164
2. Sims B.H., Wiedlea A.K., Wilson G.D. Expert Opinion in Reliability. In: F. Ruggeri, R.S. Kenett, F.W. Faltin (eds.) Encyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability. New Jersey: Wiley; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470061572.eqr110
3. Fildes R., Goodwin P., Lawrence M., Nikolopoulos K. Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: An empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning. International Journal of Forecasting. 2009;25(1):3–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2008.11.010
4. Nikolopoulos K., Lawrence M., Goodwin P., Fildes R. On the accuracy of judgmental interventions on forecasting support systems. Working Paper. Lancaster: The Department of Management Science, Lancaster University; 2005.
5. Franses P.H., Legerstee R. Do experts’ adjustments on model-based SKU-level forecasts improve forecast quality. Journal of Forecasting. 2010;29(3):331–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.1129
6. Melnik P.B. Mathematical model of the expert. Innovation and expertise: scientific works. 2020;2(30):40–64. https://doi.org/10.35264/1996-2274-2020-2-40-64
7. Mauksch S., von der Gracht H.A., Gordon T.J. Who is an expert for foresight? A review of identification methods. Techno-logical Forecasting & Social Change. 2020;154:119982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119982
8. Agnew N.M., Ford K.M., Hayes P.J. 10 Expertise In Context: Personally Constructed, Socially Selected and Reality-Relevant? International Journal of Expert Systems. 1997;7(1):65–88.
9. Eyal G. For a sociology of expertise: the social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology. 2013;118(4):863–907. https://doi.org/10.1086/668448
10. Baker J., Lovell K., Harris N. How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ‘expert’ within Delphi panel techniques. Nurse Researcher. 2006;14(1). https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2006.10.14.1.59.c6010
11. Devaney L., Henchion M. Who is a Delphi ‘expert’? Reflections on a bioeconomy expert selection procedure from Ireland.
12. Futures. 2018; 99 (1): 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.03.017
13. Ecken P., Gnatzy T., von der Gracht H.A. Desirability bias in foresight: consequences for decision quality based on Delphi results. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2011;78(9):1654–1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.05.006
14. Almandoz J., Tilcsik A. When experts become liabilities: domain experts on boards and organizational failure. Academy of Management Journal. 2016;59(4):1124–1149. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1211
15. Finkelstein S. Don’t Be Blinded by Your Own Expertise. Harvard Business Review. May–June 2019. https://hbr.org/2019/05/dont-be-blinded-by-your-own-expertise?ab=at_art_art_1x4_s03 (accessed 17.08.2022).
16. Bonaccorsi A., Apreda R., Fantonia G. Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020;151:119855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119855
17. Belton I., MacDonald A., Wright G., Hamlin I. Improving the practical application of the Delphi method in group-based judgment: a six-step prescription for a well-founded and defensible process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2019;147:72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.07.002
18. Chi M. Two Approaches to the Study of Experts’ Characteristics. In K. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796.002
19. Ericsson K.A., Prietula M.J., Cokely E.T. The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review. July–August 2007. https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-making-of-an-expert (accessed 03.08.2022).
20. Kuchinke K.P. Employee expertises the status of the theory and the literature. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 1997;10(4):72– 86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1997.tb00068.x
21. Tetlock P.E., Gardner D. Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. New York: Crown Publishing Group; 2015. 352 p.
22. Mellers B., Stone E., Murray T., Minster A., Rohrbaugh N., Bishop M., Chen E., Baker J., Hou Y., Horowitz M., Ungar L., Tetlock P. Identifying and cultivating superforecasters as a method of improving probabilistic predictions. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2015;10(3):267–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615577794
23. Müller M.O., Groesser S.N., Ulli-Beer S. How do we know who to include in collaborative research? Toward a method for the identification of experts. European Journal of Operational Research. 2012;216(2):495–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.014
Review
For citations:
Shironina E.M. Review of approaches and methods for identifying experts in organizational research. Vestnik Universiteta. 2022;(10):57-65. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2022-10-57-65
Views:
306
Email this article 