10,500 rated or chosen profiles from 1,050 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 7 attributes.

About this table

Description	Paired conjoint on participatory processes: 1,050 Finnish adults (Qualtrics panel) chose between two hypothetical participatory processes in 5 comparisons, varying policy issue, inclusiveness, number of gatherings, transparency, online vs face-to-face meetings, how participants form judgements and whether the outcome is binding or advisory; outcome is a forced choice.
Reference	Christensen, H. S. (2020). How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis. European Political Science Review, 12(2), 239-253.
DOI	10.1017/S1755773920000107
Licence	CC BY 4.0
Source data	https://osf.io/cjn6u/

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). Five pairs of participatory processes; choice = the alternative the respondent prefers (forced choice, no opt-out). No randomization restrictions (article). Levels stored as the article's English Table 1 wording; task/profile inferred from row order (one chosen per pair verified). N = 1,050 as in the article; the article's AMCEs (advisory +9.3, moderated discussion +11.5, regional reform +14 points) reproduce.

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents	1,050
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	10,500
Tasks per respondent (most)	5
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	7
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	democracy institutions
A profile represents	policy
Country	FI
Language shown	unknown
Language of stored levels	en
Task order	inferred from row order
Profile position	inferred from row order

Task order or profile position was rebuilt from row order; analyses of position or task order should leave it out.

Outcomes:

choice	Which of the two participatory processes do you prefer? (paraphrase) [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_considered_judgementattr_efficiencyattr_inclusivenessattr_policy_issueattr_popular_controlattr_transferabilityattr_transparencychoiceidprofiletask

The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):

# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("christensen_2020_participatory", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("christensen_2020_participatory", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Christensen_2020, title={How citizens evaluate participatory processes: a conjoint analysis}, volume={12}, ISSN={1755-7747}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1755773920000107}, DOI={10.1017/s1755773920000107}, number={2}, journal={European Political Science Review}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Christensen, Henrik Serup}, year={2020}, month=Mar, pages={239–253} }

Version and provenance

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint v4.2
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/qkye-q530
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v4.2
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0