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
    ---><---

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.