How DRD Collects and Reports Contributed Institutional Data

collect_and_use_data_image.jpg

Data researchers can be assured that DRD's data is representative of national and global trends. DRD's consulting data scientist Jonathan Katz worked with the technology team to establish consistent methods of data collection and clear boundaries for data presentation. As a result, researchers will be confident in the data’s strength as they examine global trends drawn from cases involving claimants and respondents in 134 nations.

Institutional case administration processes are significantly similar worldwide, allowing DRD to present subsets of data as representative of overall processes in the field as a whole. Established statistical boundaries and consistent data collection ensure data researchers that DRD’s case data present a reasonable overview of international arbitration and mediation occurring in arbitration and mediation entities.

By examining data from up to 100 questions for each arbitration case, and 42 questions for each mediation case, DRD has found significant commonalities across case data. While institutional process rules vary slightly, the over-all administrative processes of initiating, considering, awarding, withdrawing, and settling international commercial arbitration and mediation cases are fundamentally alike—meaning that the data can be aggregated and compared. In order to ensure accurate and representative reporting, DRD has established statistical boundaries that prevent the release of non-representative data. If an area of case processing activity leaves unclear whether a given data-set may be reported as representative, or indicative of the whole, then the DRD data report will indicate “not enough data for analysis.” Only once the data set is sufficient will the data be reported.

As a consequence of the statistical approach described above, one can see that an understanding of international commercial arbitration and mediation processes is not dependent upon data reporting by all institutions which administer such cases. Rather, a representative amount of data from the field provides insight and serviceable information as to the actions and conduct of the institutional mediation/arbitration field as a whole.

The data is also strengthened through its geographic diversity and presentation of aggregated time, cost, and case types around the world. In addition to reporting on institutional process activities, DRD reports on the participation of “claimants and respondents” by geographic region, since parties across the globe are engaged in cases in many different institutions worldwide. Presently the DRD database has cases involving claimants and respondents from 134 nations. 

Initially, participating entities will submit historical data for the period 2010- 2015, giving DRD a solid reporting foundation, albeit with somewhat fewer questions for historical cases than for current cases. Because DRD Data is dynamic, and updated weekly, researchers will be able to monitor data changes in their specific area of interest. 

Through the power of data, DRD is changing the field of dispute resolution. Data gives institutions and researchers the ability to improve their strategic decision-making, and hone their dispute resolution processes. Together with our data contributors, DRD is empowering a bright future for dispute resolution around the world.