Methodological Choices in Peer Nomination Research

Abstract

Although peer nomination measures have been used by researchers for nearly a century, common methodological practices and rules of thumb (e.g., which variables to measure; use of limited vs. unlimited nomination methods) have continued to develop in recent decades. At the same time, other key aspects of the basic nomination procedure (e.g., whether nonparticipants should be included as nominees, the consequences of pairing code numbers with names on rosters) are underdiscussed and understudied. Beyond providing a general introduction to peer nomination methods and their utility, the current article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various methodological choices facing researchers who wish to use peer nomination methods, in addition to other considerations that researchers must make in collecting peer nomination data (e.g., establishing reliability and validity, maximizing participation rates, computerized assessments). This article provides recommendations for researchers based on empirical findings (where possible) and the typical practices used in the recent published literature.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 120 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.