Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Does the accuracy of expert judgment comply with common sense: caveat emptor

Does the accuracy of expert judgment comply with common sense: caveat emptor Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine critically the accuracy of expert judgment, drawing on empirical evidence and theory from multiple disciplines. It suggests that counsel offered with confidence by experts might, under certain circumstances, be without merit, and presents approaches to assessing the accuracy of such counsel. Design/methodology/approach – The paper synthesizes research findings on expert judgment drawn from multiple fields, including psychology, criminal justice, political science, and decision analysis. It examines internal and external factors affecting the veracity of what experts may judge to be matters of common sense, using a semiotic structure. Findings – In multiple domains, including management, expert accuracy is, in general, no better than chance. Increased experience, however, is often accompanied by an unjustified increase in self‐confidence. Practical implications – While the dynamic nature of decision making in organizations renders the development of a codified, reliable knowledge base potentially unachievable, there is value in recognizing these limitations, and employing tactics to explore more thoroughly both problem and solutions spaces Originality/value – The paper's originality lies in its integration of recent, multiple‐disciplinary research as a basis for persuading decision makers of the perils of accepting expert advice without skepticism. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Management Decision Emerald Publishing

Does the accuracy of expert judgment comply with common sense: caveat emptor

Management Decision , Volume 47 (3): 16 – Apr 3, 2009

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/does-the-accuracy-of-expert-judgment-comply-with-common-sense-caveat-ymVsy83T8e

References (56)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0025-1747
DOI
10.1108/00251740910946714
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine critically the accuracy of expert judgment, drawing on empirical evidence and theory from multiple disciplines. It suggests that counsel offered with confidence by experts might, under certain circumstances, be without merit, and presents approaches to assessing the accuracy of such counsel. Design/methodology/approach – The paper synthesizes research findings on expert judgment drawn from multiple fields, including psychology, criminal justice, political science, and decision analysis. It examines internal and external factors affecting the veracity of what experts may judge to be matters of common sense, using a semiotic structure. Findings – In multiple domains, including management, expert accuracy is, in general, no better than chance. Increased experience, however, is often accompanied by an unjustified increase in self‐confidence. Practical implications – While the dynamic nature of decision making in organizations renders the development of a codified, reliable knowledge base potentially unachievable, there is value in recognizing these limitations, and employing tactics to explore more thoroughly both problem and solutions spaces Originality/value – The paper's originality lies in its integration of recent, multiple‐disciplinary research as a basis for persuading decision makers of the perils of accepting expert advice without skepticism.

Journal

Management DecisionEmerald Publishing

Published: Apr 3, 2009

Keywords: Consultants; Decision making; Risk assessment

There are no references for this article.