Conducting quantitative studies with the participation of political elites: best practices for designing the study and soliciting the participation of political elites

Abstract

Conducting quantitative research (e.g., surveys, a large number of interviews, experiments) with the participation of political elites is typically challenging. Given that a population of political elites is typically small by definition, a particular challenge is obtaining a sufficiently high number of observations and, thus, a certain response rate. This paper focuses on two questions related to this challenge: (1) What are best practices for designing the study? And (2) what are best practices for soliciting the participation of political elites? To arrive at these best practices, we (a) examine which factors explain the variation in response rates across surveys within and between large-scale, multi-wave survey projects by statistically analyzing a newly compiled dataset of 342 political elite surveys from eight projects, spanning 30 years and 58 countries, (b) integrate the typically scattered findings from the existing literature and (c) discuss results from an original expert survey among researchers with experience with such research (n = 23). By compiling a comprehensive list of best practices, systematically testing some widely held believes about response rates and by providing benchmarks for response rates depending on country, survey mode and elite type, we aim to facilitate future studies where participation of political elites is required. This will contribute to our knowledge and understanding of political elites’ opinions, information processing and decision making and thereby of the functioning of representative democracies.

Members of the European Parliament on Social Media: Why Do They Use Facebook and Twitter?

“…The questionnaire included questions about social media. The response rate was 17.2%, which is not high but is also not unusual in social science research regarding political elites (Harden, 2013; Vis and Stolwijk, 2021), and this rate was sufficient for our purpose. The questionnaire was sent to all MEPs in English only.…”

All of the Above: Lobbying Allied, Undecided, and Opposing Lawmakers in Committee and on the Floor

“…This appears low but is close to that of several recent studies of political elites, who are getting more difficult to reach in the Internet age (cf. Li 2018; Vis and Stolwijk 2021).…”

To Keep the Law or to Repeal It: Views of Parliamentarians On the Call to Decriminalise Attempted Suicide in Ghana

“…In sub-Saharan Africa, MPs are expected to be accessible to their constituents, but the busy nature of their work often makes them less available for engagements outside parliamentary duties ( Stapenhurst et al, 2020 ). This challenge of time constraint has been implicated for the reality that in some contexts, MPs may be a hard-to-reach population for research ( Vis & Stolwijk, 2020 ), while published studies with lower response rates involving MPs are not uncommon ( Alemna & Skouby, 2000 ; Rao et al, 2020 ; Sakyi, 2010 ). Against this backdrop, some studies have (rather) found useful the analysis of Parliamentary Hansards to help gauge MPs’ views and how they frame health issues of national and international importance such as youth mental health ( Whiteford et al, 2016 ), HIV/AIDS and reproductive health ( Muula, 2006 ), malnutrition ( Namugumya et al, 2021 ), and public place restriction on smoking ( Asbridge, 2004 ).…”