IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v21y2024i3p143-159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose Judgement? Reflections on Elicitation in Bayesian Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Simon French

    (Management Sciences and Marketing, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester M15 6PB, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Bayesian statistical, risk, and decision analyses require that one addresses many uncertainties and preferences, modelling those that can be with subjective probabilities and utilities, perhaps supported by sensitivity explorations. Subjective probabilities need eliciting either in their entirety or partially via prior distributions that are updated in the light of data during the analysis. Some uncertainties, however, are not easily modelled probabilistically, either because they are deep or because they relate to uncertainties in the modelling process itself. Preferences also require elicitation, a process which in many cases constructs these by contextualising broader values to the issues at hand. We discuss broader issues of elicitation without getting into specific details of the elicitation process. We also briefly discuss communication because elicitation sets the context for all subsequent communications to the problem owners and stakeholders. In particular, we emphasise the need for the problem owners to be fully acquainted with all the residual uncertainties at the end of the analysis, not just those captured quantitatively within the modelling. Moreover, we also consider whose uncertainties and preferences should be elicited and addressed by the analysis, arguing that the answer may be different in the varied contexts of Bayesian statistical, risk, and decision analyses. Moreover, the model may be constructed from a synthesis of several people’s judgements.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon French, 2024. "Whose Judgement? Reflections on Elicitation in Bayesian Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 143-159, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:21:y:2024:i:3:p:143-159
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2023.0073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.0073
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2023.0073?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theodor J. Stewart & Alison Joubert & Ron Janssen, 2010. "MCDA Framework for Fishing Rights Allocation in South Africa," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 247-265, May.
    2. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    4. Simon French, 2003. "Modelling, making inferences and making decisions: The roles of sensitivity analysis," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 11(2), pages 229-251, December.
    5. Simon French, 2015. "Cynefin: uncertainty, small worlds and scenarios," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 66(10), pages 1635-1645, October.
    6. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    7. Julia R. Falconer & Eibe Frank & Devon L. L. Polaschek & Chaitanya Joshi, 2022. "Methods for Eliciting Informative Prior Distributions: A Critical Review," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 189-204, September.
    8. Kelly, Jerry S., 1978. "Arrow Impossibility Theorems," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780124033504 edited by Shell, Karl.
    9. Simon French & Nikolaos Argyris, 2018. "Decision Analysis and Political Processes," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 208-222, December.
    10. Alec Morton & Mara Airoldi & Lawrence D. Phillips, 2009. "Nuclear Risk Management on Stage: A Decision Analysis Perspective on the UK's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 764-779, May.
    11. Manuele Leonelli & James Smith, 2015. "Bayesian decision support for complex systems with many distributed experts," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 517-542, December.
    12. Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar, 2016. "The ASA's Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(2), pages 129-133, May.
    13. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    14. Naomi C. Brownstein & Thomas A. Louis & Anthony O’Hagan & Jane Pendergast, 2019. "The Role of Expert Judgment in Statistical Inference and Evidence-Based Decision-Making," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 56-68, March.
    15. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    16. S French & A J Maule & G Mythen, 2005. "Soft modelling in risk communication and management: examples in handling food risk," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(8), pages 879-888, August.
    17. Stewart, Theodor J. & French, Simon & Rios, Jesus, 2013. "Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning—Review and extension," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 679-688.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lawrence D. Phillips, 2024. "Comment on “Whose Judgement? Reflections on Elicitation in Bayesian Analysis”," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 160-162, September.
    2. Simon French, 2024. "Reply to “Comment on ‘Whose Judgement? Reflections on Elicitation in Bayesian Analysis’”," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 163-164, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simon French & Nikolaos Argyris, 2018. "Decision Analysis and Political Processes," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 208-222, December.
    2. Maksim Gladyshev, 2019. "Vulnerability Of Voting Paradoxes As A Criteria For Voting Procedure Selection," HSE Working papers WP BRP 70/PS/2019, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    3. Peter Fishburn & Steven Brams, 1984. "Manipulability of voting by sincere truncation of preferences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 397-410, January.
    4. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer & René Romen, 2024. "Relaxed notions of Condorcet-consistency and efficiency for strategyproof social decision schemes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(1), pages 19-55, August.
    5. Bock, Hans-Hermann & Day, William H. E. & McMorris, F. R., 1998. "Consensus rules for committee elections," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 219-232, May.
    6. Marco LiCalzi, 2022. "Bipartite choices," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(2), pages 551-568, December.
    7. John C. McCabe-Dansted & Arkadii Slinko, 2006. "Exploratory Analysis of Similarities Between Social Choice Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 77-107, January.
    8. James Schummer, 1999. "Almost-dominant Strategy Implementation," Discussion Papers 1278, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    9. Aleskerov, Fuad & Karabekyan, Daniel & Sanver, M. Remzi & Yakuba, Vyacheslav, 2012. "On the manipulability of voting rules: The case of 4 and 5 alternatives," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 67-73.
    10. Lirong Xia, 2020. "How Likely Are Large Elections Tied?," Papers 2011.03791, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    11. Dindar, Hayrullah & Lainé, Jean, 2017. "Manipulation of single-winner large elections by vote pairing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 105-107.
    12. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    13. Brandt, Felix & Saile, Christian & Stricker, Christian, 2022. "Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    14. Souvik Roy & Soumyarup Sadhukhan, 2019. "A characterization of random min–max domains and its applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 887-906, November.
    15. Mizukami, Hideki & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Wakayama, Takuma, 2003. "Strategy-Proof Sharing," Working Papers 1170, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    16. Bruno Frey, 2011. "Tullock challenges: happiness, revolutions, and democracy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 269-281, September.
    17. Donaldson, Jason & Piacentino, Giorgia & Malenko, Nadya, 2017. "Deadlock on the Board," CEPR Discussion Papers 12503, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Takamiya, Koji, 2001. "Coalition strategy-proofness and monotonicity in Shapley-Scarf housing markets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 201-213, March.
    19. Freixas, Josep & Parker, Cameron, 2015. "Manipulation in games with multiple levels of output," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 144-151.
    20. Burak Can & Peter Csoka & Emre Ergin, 2017. "How to choose a non-manipulable delegation?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1713, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:21:y:2024:i:3:p:143-159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.