Methods and Evidence
Methods and Evidence
This chapter seek to clarify the underlying concepts of electoral integrity and malpractice, and to consider what systematic, valid, and reliable evidence is available to allow scholars and practitioners to monitor the quality of elections. The chapter reviews the pros and cons of several methods and analytical techniques. Previous studies have usually relied upon one or several primary sources, including case studies, performance indices, and elite interviews, content analysis of observer mission reports, human rights reports, coding of news media coverage, forensic analysis of election results, randomized evaluations through natural or field experiments, and also public opinion surveys. It is argued that many of these approaches are useful, but they each suffer from important limitations, for example in terms of conceptual validity, cross-national coverage, and/or capacity to monitor all sequential stages throughout the electoral cycle. It is therefore useful to supplement this evidence through gathering evidence from a global survey of expert opinion. The new Perception of Electoral Integrity Index (PEI), it is suggested, offers a comprehensive, systematic, and robust measure that can usefully supplement many other sources of empirical evidence, playing a valuable role for both the academic and the policymaking communities.
Keywords: electoral integrity, electoral malpractice, election results, Perception of Electoral Integrity Index, PEI, empirical evidence
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
