reference : Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy

JSON YAML text HTML Turtle N-Triples JSON Triples RDF+XML RDF+JSON Graphviz SVG
Bibliographic fields
reftype Journal Article
Abstract The elicitation of scientific and technical judgments from experts, in the form of subjective probability distributions, can be a valuable addition to other forms of evidence in support of public policy decision making. This paper explores when it is sensible to perform such elicitation and how that can best be done. A number of key issues are discussed, including topics on which there are, and are not, experts who have knowledge that provides a basis for making informed predictive judgments; the inadequacy of only using qualitative uncertainty language; the role of cognitive heuristics and of overconfidence; the choice of experts; the development, refinement, and iterative testing of elicitation protocols that are designed to help experts to consider systematically all relevant knowledge when they make their judgments; the treatment of uncertainty about model functional form; diversity of expert opinion; and when it does or does not make sense to combine judgments from different experts. Although it may be tempting to view expert elicitation as a low-cost, low-effort alternative to conducting serious research and analysis, it is neither. Rather, expert elicitation should build on and use the best available research and analysis and be undertaken only when, given those, the state of knowledge will remain insufficient to support timely informed assessment and decision making.
Author Morgan, M. Granger
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1319946111
Date May 20, 2014
Issue 20
Journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Pages 7176-7184
Title Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy
Volume 111
Year 2014
Bibliographic identifiers
_record_number 21386
_uuid 42c619a3-768b-4a22-9dd6-73b52af9426c