Show simple item record

Digitale Daten, Verwaltungsdaten und standardisierte Befragungen im Vergleich. Update des klassischen Werkzeugkastens zur Ermittlung der Datenqualität von Massendaten, am Beispiel von Korruptionsdaten
[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorGraeff, Peterde
dc.contributor.authorBaur, Ninade
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-08T12:48:39Z
dc.date.available2020-12-16T00:00:03Z
dc.date.issued2020de
dc.identifier.issn0172-6404de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/68306
dc.description.abstractIn the digital age, new data types have become available that can, potentially, be used in social science research. Besides data that were originally created for scientific purposes (research-elicited data), administrative mass data (traditional-type big data) and data from digital devices (new-type big data) have become more and more relevant for research processes. Both data types can be subsumed under the term “big data.” In this paper, we scrutinize the quality of administrative mass data on corruption in contrast to research-elicited data (e.g., survey data). Since data quality is crucial for the measurement of a social phenomenon such as corruption, we pose the question of how a social phenomenon can be measured by means of data from these different sources. As a first step, we refer to the so-called Bick-Mueller-Model. It was developed in the 1980s for observing the special features and particularities of administrative mass data (traditional-type big data). We contrast this model with the so-called Error-Approach that is typically applied in survey research. In order to account for new trends in data generation and application, we show the progress that has been made since Bick and Mueller introduced their model and discuss new features of digitalism and new technologies. We conclude that the features of the so-called Bick-Mueller are useful for tackling the particularities of administrative data and also – to some degree – new-type big data. The “error” perspective that is inherent both in the classical survey research and in the so-called Bick-Mueller model also applies to new-type big data when it comes to assessing their quality. Moreover, it is possible that the data from these different sources can complement each other. For this, researchers must be aware of the fact that neither data source actually measures corruption directly. For answering specific research questions, it is crucial to consider the advantages and disadvantages of using specific data types.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcSozialwissenschaften, Soziologiede
dc.subject.ddcSocial sciences, sociology, anthropologyen
dc.subject.otherdata quality; measurement; big data; mass data; process-generated data; process-produced data; digital data; survey data; digital methods; computational social sciences; survey methodology; total survey error; corruptionde
dc.titleDigital Data, Administrative Data, and Survey Compared: Updating the Classical Toolbox for Assessing Data Quality of Big Data, Exemplified by the Generation of Corruption Datade
dc.title.alternativeDigitale Daten, Verwaltungsdaten und standardisierte Befragungen im Vergleich. Update des klassischen Werkzeugkastens zur Ermittlung der Datenqualität von Massendaten, am Beispiel von Korruptionsdatende
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.source.journalHistorical Social Research
dc.source.volume45de
dc.publisher.countryDEU
dc.source.issue3de
dc.subject.classozErhebungstechniken und Analysetechniken der Sozialwissenschaftende
dc.subject.classozMethods and Techniques of Data Collection and Data Analysis, Statistical Methods, Computer Methodsen
dc.subject.thesozDigitalisierungde
dc.subject.thesozdigitalizationen
dc.subject.thesozDatende
dc.subject.thesozdataen
dc.subject.thesozDatengewinnungde
dc.subject.thesozdata captureen
dc.subject.thesozDatenqualitätde
dc.subject.thesozdata qualityen
dc.subject.thesozMessungde
dc.subject.thesozmeasurementen
dc.subject.thesozKorruptionde
dc.subject.thesozcorruptionen
dc.subject.thesozUmfrageforschungde
dc.subject.thesozsurvey researchen
dc.subject.thesozMethodologiede
dc.subject.thesozmethodologyen
dc.subject.thesozMethodenvergleichde
dc.subject.thesozcomparison of methodsen
dc.subject.thesozModellvergleichde
dc.subject.thesozmodel comparisonen
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
ssoar.contributor.institutionGESISde
internal.statusnoch nicht fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10063943
internal.identifier.thesoz10034708
internal.identifier.thesoz10040547
internal.identifier.thesoz10055811
internal.identifier.thesoz10036930
internal.identifier.thesoz10038818
internal.identifier.thesoz10040714
internal.identifier.thesoz10043388
internal.identifier.thesoz10052208
internal.identifier.thesoz10052601
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo244-269de
internal.identifier.classoz10105
internal.identifier.journal152
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc300
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.45.2020.3.244-269de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
dc.subject.classhort30300de
dc.subject.classhort10200de
internal.embargo.terms2020-12-16
internal.pdf.wellformedtrue
internal.pdf.encryptedfalse
ssoar.urn.registrationfalsede


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record