Advancing Methodological Knowledge Within State and Local Demography: a Case Study

Advancing Methodological Knowledge Within State and Local Demography: a Case Study Much of the academic literature dealing with state and local demography involves the development and evaluation of methods for estimating population. The focus on estimation methods is not surprising because they are used in many states to allocate resources. The quality control in regard to the validity and reliability afforded these methods by the traditional academic peer review process is important because, among other things, it serves to reduce the high potential for conflict that exists when resources are at stake. There are, however, methods being used by state and local demographers that have not been subject to peer review. While not necessarily unsound, these “fugitive” methods serve to keep the potential for conflict high because of the uncertainty regarding their validity and reliability. This paper examines just such a situation in the form of a case study. It is a discussion of a regression model developed in Nevada following the 2000 census that led to conflict over its use to estimate the population of Clark County, Nevada in 2002. The discussion reveals statistical and methodological shortcomings in this model that lead to an alternative model not subject to these shortcomings. This example illustrates how this type of analysis and discussion can lead to a wider understanding of methods on the part of practitioners through the corrective process of academic peer review. It also suggests that states in which estimates are used to allocate resources would be well-served by subjecting new methods being considered for use to academic peer review before they are adopted. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Population Research and Policy Review Springer Journals

Advancing Methodological Knowledge Within State and Local Demography: a Case Study

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/advancing-methodological-knowledge-within-state-and-local-demography-a-zVMuUo2mlt
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Social Sciences; Demography; Sociology, general; Population Economics
ISSN
0167-5923
eISSN
1573-7829
D.O.I.
10.1023/B:POPU.0000040046.44909.8c
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Much of the academic literature dealing with state and local demography involves the development and evaluation of methods for estimating population. The focus on estimation methods is not surprising because they are used in many states to allocate resources. The quality control in regard to the validity and reliability afforded these methods by the traditional academic peer review process is important because, among other things, it serves to reduce the high potential for conflict that exists when resources are at stake. There are, however, methods being used by state and local demographers that have not been subject to peer review. While not necessarily unsound, these “fugitive” methods serve to keep the potential for conflict high because of the uncertainty regarding their validity and reliability. This paper examines just such a situation in the form of a case study. It is a discussion of a regression model developed in Nevada following the 2000 census that led to conflict over its use to estimate the population of Clark County, Nevada in 2002. The discussion reveals statistical and methodological shortcomings in this model that lead to an alternative model not subject to these shortcomings. This example illustrates how this type of analysis and discussion can lead to a wider understanding of methods on the part of practitioners through the corrective process of academic peer review. It also suggests that states in which estimates are used to allocate resources would be well-served by subjecting new methods being considered for use to academic peer review before they are adopted.

Journal

Population Research and Policy ReviewSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 9, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed
Create lists to
organize your research
Export lists, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off