20,050 rated or chosen profiles from 2,005 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 9 attributes.
One of 3 tables from the same source; this one is the finland table. The others are listed under Related tables.
| Description | Finnish adults (n=2,005, Qualtrics panel, 2021-22) chose between pairs of hypothetical citizens' forums varying on 9 design features (issue, convenor, recruitment, size, composition, aim, consensus, output, authorization). Forced choice; no rating was collected in Finland. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Goldberg, S., Lindell, M., & Bächtiger, A. (2025). Empowered minipublics for democratic renewal? Evidence from three conjoint experiments in the United States, Ireland, and Finland. American Political Science Review, 119(3), 1393-1410. |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0003055424001163 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DN2QHA |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,005 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 20,050 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 5 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 9 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | democracy institutions |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | FI |
| Language shown | fi |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | observed in the data (not documented by the source): levels balanced within respondent: for 99% of respondents each binary attribute takes each level in exactly 5 of their 10 profiles (e.g. recruitment 1,989 of 2,005), and the two forums in a pair share a level in only ~42-46% of pairs (authorization 28%), so levels were not drawn independently (a balanced/without-replacement scheme, undocumented) |
| 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 | As a general matter, which of the two scenarios do you prefer? (translated) [choice, forced] |
|---|
attr_aimattr_authorizationattr_degree_of_consensusattr_group_compositionattr_group_sizeattr_initiativeattr_issueattr_outputattr_recruitmentchoicecov_agecov_educationcov_experience_valuecov_familiaritycov_gendercov_retro_appropriatecov_salience_climatecov_salience_immigrationcov_satisfaction_democracycov_trust_citizens1cov_trust_citizens2cov_trust_governmentcov_trust_minipublicscov_trust_parliamentcov_trust_politiciansidprofiletask
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("goldberg_2025_minipublics_finland", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("goldberg_2025_minipublics_finland", source="conj")
@article{GOLDBERG_2024, title={Empowered Minipublics for Democratic Renewal? Evidence from Three Conjoint Experiments in the United States, Ireland, and Finland}, volume={119}, ISSN={1537-5943}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055424001163}, DOI={10.1017/s0003055424001163}, number={3}, journal={American Political Science Review}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={GOLDBERG, SASKIA and LINDELL, MARINA and BÄCHTIGER, ANDRÉ}, year={2024}, month=Nov, pages={1393–1410} }
| 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 |