72,354 rated or chosen profiles from 12,059 respondents, in up to 3 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 4 attributes.
One of 2 tables from the same source; this one is the energy_governance table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | Dynata online samples in Brazil, Germany, South Africa and the US (Aug-Sep 2023, n=12,059) compared 3 pairs of proposals for a new global organization on energy production and consumption, varying whether companies, scientists, civil-society organizations and individual energy consumers get a lot of say; they chose the most appropriate proposal and rated confidence in the organization (1-7). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Ecker-Ehrhardt, M., Verhaegen, S., & Quack, S. (2025). Nonstate actor inclusion and the social legitimacy of global governance institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 69(2), sqaf040. |
| DOI | 10.1093/isq/sqaf040 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CJAETN |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 12,059 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 72,354 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 3 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 4 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | international economy |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | organisation |
| Country | BR, DE, ZA, US |
| Language shown | unknown |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | observed in the data (not documented by the source): the two proposals in a pair never have the same actor combination (0 of 36,177 pairs; about 2,261 expected if each were drawn independently from the 16), and only about 95 of the 120 possible unordered pairs occur; the 16 combinations occur 3,973-5,193 times each although every single actor is Yes in 50% of profiles. The article says only 'randomly drawn from 16 possible combinations' |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Because the attribute levels were not randomized independently, an estimator has to account for the restriction; a plain difference in means across levels can mislead.
Outcomes:
| choice | Which proposal do you find most appropriate? [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| rating | How much confidence would you have in this new organization if created as proposed? [rating, 1 (None at all) to 7 (A lot of confidence)] |
attr_citizensattr_companiesattr_csosattr_scientistschoicecov_countrycov_survey_weightidprofileratingtasktrial_block_ordertrial_costs_benefitstrial_governmenttrial_scope
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.
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("eckerehrhardt_2025_energy_governance", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("eckerehrhardt_2025_energy_governance", source="conj")
@article{Ecker_Ehrhardt_2025, title={Nonstate Actor Inclusion and the Social Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions}, volume={69}, ISSN={1468-2478}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf040}, DOI={10.1093/isq/sqaf040}, number={2}, journal={International Studies Quarterly}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias and Verhaegen, Soetkin and Quack, Sigrid}, year={2025}, month=Mar }
| 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 |