In a previous blog post I proposed a Public Policy Survey of Political Scientists. I proposed using the potential reviewer pool from an academic journal to identify a small group of experts to ask about a pressing public policy issue.

Michael Colaresi, journal co-editor at International Interactions, has agreed to use their potential review pool to identify experts on a given topic. As I noted in a previous post, there are costs and benefits of focusing on a journal review pool, as opposed to a broader membership. This post presents our first trial run.

We asked a total of 50 academics, all experts in this area, three questions about U.S. policy towards ISIS. We received 30 responses. Here we present the raw results without any commentary. Michael put together some nice graphics on the three questions and the correlations across questions.

All three questions were statements and respondents were presented with five options.

Question 1: The current airstrikes on ISIS will roll back their advances in the region (N=30).

Question 2: I support the President’s decision to strike ISIS.

Question 3: If the airstrikes against ISIS continues beyond two years in their current intensity, the majority of the public will not support continued airstrikes against ISIS.

Comments from the Respondents

For each question we gave respondents the option to provide additional background information or justifications for their answers. I am not going to provide individual comments here, but there were a number of common themes.

First, a number of respondents indicated that the airstrikes on ISIS aren’t sufficient to roll back ISIS, although they can slow or stop ISIS advances. A number of respondents also indicated that additional military force, including ground troops, would be necessary to roll back ISIS.

Second, while the majority of respondents agreed with the President’s airstrikes against ISIS, a few respondents indicated that this policy will likely fall short of the ambitious goals of stopping ISIS.

Third, respondents were not only mixed on the third question, the comments indicated an even larger divide on public support for bombing. But the most common response was that public support was largely contingent the U.S. avoiding any casualties.

Interpretation and Post-Game

The goal of this survey is to present expert opinions on a pressing policy issue. I have my own interpretation of the implications of this survey, and have some thoughts on the value (and limitations) of this type of expert survey. But this is for the next blog post.

We will certainly run another one of these surveys using the International Interactions potential review pool again next month. Please send me an email if you have thoughts about questions.

Can I add an Appendix to a Blog Post?

In case you are wondering about the correlations between the three questions: