Collaborative Research: The Art of Conversation

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

As information technology has become more widespread, it is now increasinglypossible for decision makers, such as CEOs and legislators, to obtain advice froma variety of experts with di!ering areas of expertise. Conventional wisdom suggeststhat, as a result, the decision maker will reach better decisions. This, however, ignoresthe fact that experts may withhold or distort information in the hope of influencingthe decision in a direction favorable to them. Thus, a decision maker needs to considerhow the structure of communication -- the conversation --affects how informative isthe advice received from experts. This project investigates how the structure ofcommunication a!ects the quality of decisions.The first part of the project concerns conversations between an uninformed deci-sion maker and an informed expert. When the expert sends a written report, unac-companied by any dialogue, this results in substantial information loss. A face-to-facemeeting between a decision maker and an expert, however, leads to an improvementin the informativeness of expert advice--even though the decision maker is completelyuninformed. Both the decision maker and the expert benefit from the conversation.This leads us to examine the following questions: How much information can be cred-ibly transmitted in a face-to-face meeting? Is it possible to induce the expert to fullydisclose his information?In many situations, the decision maker himself may be knowledgeable about someaspects of the decision. As an example, an entrepreneur may have detailed knowl-edge about the growth prospects of his product, but still require financial expertise intaking his company public. The second part of the project concerns communicationin such situations--where both the decision maker and the expert have some rele-vant information. Once again, the structure of communication can critically affectthe amount of information exchanged. For instance, there are many circumstanceswhere back-and-forth communication does not lead to information gains--even if thedecision maker is informed--and we identify these circumstances. This leads us toask the following questions: Is the situation improved by adding more rounds of com-munication? Is a face-to-face meeting superior to a back-and-forth exchange, such asvia E-mail?The third part concerns situations where decisions are multi-faceted and informa-tion is dispersed among many "specialist" experts. For instance, a piece of legislationmay impact both employment and the environment. Different lobbying groups arelikely to possess expertise in each of these areas. We study whether providing expertswith an opportunity to communicate with one another improves the informativenessof their advice. Is the situation improved if the decision maker also participates? Isthe situation improved if there is overlap in the experts' specialized knowledge?