The strongest methodology in the calibration set for survey research. Carnegie documents its sampling approach, discloses limitations, and even flags where a competing survey (Equality Labs) used flawed methods. This is what accountability looks like in practice.
This evaluation applies the CID Rubric v0.3.2 to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's 2020 report "Indian American Attitudes Survey (IAAS 2020)." The composite score of 7.6/10 (Adequate) reflects adequate methodology with room for improvement in several dimensions. A non-compensatory cap was applied, reducing the raw weighted score from 7.78 to 7.6.
A full academic narrative for this report is in preparation. The dimensional analysis below is generated from scored data. See the Scoring Data view for the complete evidence trail.
Political and religious identity constructs operationalized through validated question batteries. Community-specific terminology defined with examples.
YouGov panel with quality screening and panel-level demographic profiling. Weighting methodology documented against ACS benchmarks.
ACS-weighted YouGov panel. Denominator reporting at 236 and 225 flags — near-universal across survey items. Subgroup n's reported throughout.
Questions posed symmetrically across religious and political identity categories. Zero directional content in question framing.
csohate.org appears once in citations — provenance verification pending
Carnegie is an independent nonpartisan institution. No documented advocacy positions on Indian American identity politics.
⚑ Scoring rule limits grade — no documented data access pathway
Data not available for open download and no formal research request process is documented. Under the revised rule (v0.3.1), a documented formal request process would satisfy the standard — as it does for Pew. Carnegie does not currently document such a process.
Carnegie institutional transparency. Funding disclosed. Authors named with affiliations.
Footnote 29 constitutes affirmative counter-evidence engagement — explicit critique of a competing methodology. This is the highest D8 score in the corpus at this score range.
Post-publication citation analysis tracks how this report's findings have been represented in subsequent publications, policy documents, media coverage, and advocacy materials. Entries marked as escalations indicate instances where the report was cited with scope or authority beyond what the original methodology establishes.
Claimed scope: Indian American partisan preferences as a community
Established scope: YouGov panel weighted to ACS — robust estimate, but panel methodology not disclosed in political citations
Partisan findings cited without disclosing the YouGov panel methodology or ACS weighting. Survey design is nonpartisan; the way it is cited in campaign materials is often not.
Scope: Defense of Equality Labs sampling approach without engaging the representativeness argument
The Equality Labs published response to footnote 29 does not address the core representativeness critique. The critique stands unrebutted on methodological grounds.
This evaluation assesses methodological rigor only. It does not evaluate the factual accuracy of individual claims or the existence of the phenomena the report describes. The CID Rubric v0.3.2 is designed for published research reports; application to certain document types requires adapted interpretation of specific dimensions. The CID has not independently investigated the organizations or individuals referenced in the report.