Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:03:30.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GRADING IN GROUPS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2016

Michael Morreau
Michael Morreau*
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, Postboks 6050 Langnes, 9037 Tromsø, Norway. Email: michael.morreau@uit.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Juries, committees and experts panels commonly appraise things of one kind or another on the basis of grades awarded by several people. When everybody's grading thresholds are known to be the same, the results sometimes can be counted on to reflect the graders’ opinion. Otherwise, they often cannot. Under certain conditions, Arrow's ‘impossibility’ theorem entails that judgements reached by aggregating grades do not reliably track any collective sense of better and worse at all. These claims are made by adapting the Arrow–Sen framework for social choice to study grading in groups.

Keywords

GradingContextSocial ChoiceArrow's Theorem
Type
Symposium on Rational Choice and Philosophy
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 323 - 352
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andreou, C. 2015. Parity, comparability, and choice. Journal of Philosophy 112: 5–22.Google Scholar
Arrow, K.J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York, NY: Wiley. [2nd edn, 1963].Google Scholar
Balinski, M. and Laraki, R.. 2010. Majority Judgement: Measuring, Ranking and Electing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H., Oxman, A., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., Norris, S. and Guyatt, G.. 2011. GRADE Guidelines: 3. Rating the Quality of Evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 401–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, R. 2002. The possibility of parity. Ethics 112: 659–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G., Murray, C., Salomon, J. and Tandon, A.. 2004. Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review 98: 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2013. Social choice theory. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), ed. Zalta, E.N.. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/social-choice/>..>Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1961 [1690].An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Volumes 1 and 2. London: Dent and Sons.Google Scholar
Maniquet, F. and Mongin, P.. 2015. Approval voting and Arrow's impossibility theorem. Social Choice and Welfare 44: 519–532Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. 2014. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111: 7176–7184.Google Scholar
Morreau, M. 2014. Arrow's theorem. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), ed. Zalta, E.N.. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/arrows-theorem/>..' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Morreau,+M.2014.+Arrow's+theorem.+In+The+Stanford+Encyclopedia+of+Philosophy+(Winter+2014+Edition),+ed.+Zalta,+E.N..+.>Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1970. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.Google Scholar