My colleague, Professor S.I. Strong, recently conducted a large-scale empirical study on the use and perception of international commercial mediation and conciliation that appears to be the first of its kind. The information was gathered to assist the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) as it considers a proposal from the Government of the United States regarding a possible convention in this area of law. Professor Strong’s preliminary report on the research was cited in documents circulated by the UNCITRAL Secretariat in advance of upcoming deliberations.
The study collected detailed data on 34 different questions from 221 respondents from all over the world. Survey participants included private practitioners, neutrals, in-house counsel, government lawyers, academics and judges with expertise in both domestic and international proceedings. The results described in the preliminary report will soon be published in an article presenting an expanded final analysis of the underlying data.
A good start, it will be interesting to see responses, I hope it also covers the reasons behind why some countries have emerged as ‘mediation hot spots’, especially in Asia like Malaysia and Singapore, how we can compete with them in this lucrative market?
No. Self-selecting surveys (as this study is) are often characterized as “convenience” surveys. Convenience surveys are an excellent means of “developing hypotheses early in the course of research, identifying various issues surrounding the research subject, defining response categories for multiple-response questions, or collecting other sorts of noninferential data.” Lee Epstein & Gary King, The Rules of Inference, 69 U. CHI. L. REV. 1, 9 (2002); see also MATTHIAS SCHONLAU ET AL., CONDUCTING RESEARCH SURVEYS VIA E-MAIL AND THE WEB 5-18 (2002) (discussing studies on research methodology conducted by the RAND Corporation). Because this is a qualitative study rather than a quantitative one, sample size is of less relevance. Indeed, other international surveys have generated fewer responses and have still been considered valid. See SCHONLAU ET AL., at 36. The methodological section of the report discusses these issues in more detail.
Isn’t the number of participants (221) inadequate to make a inferences that the project seeks to achieve?