Indian American Attitudes Survey (IAAS 2020)

What This Report Is

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published this survey in 2020. It asked about 1,200 Indian American adults about their political views, religious identity, and attitudes toward India-related policy. The survey used YouGov, an online polling platform, and weighted results to match U.S. Census data.

What We Looked At

How a study is done determines whether you can trust what it found. The Citation Integrity Dashboard evaluates methodology — how the research was done — not conclusions — what the research found. We classified this report as a Survey (a study that asks a defined group of people structured questions). That classification determines which standards we apply.

What We Found

The biggest problem is data access. We scored Verification Standards — whether outsiders can check the data themselves — at 5 out of 10. Carnegie does not offer its survey data for download. It also does not publish a formal process for researchers to request access. Compare this to Pew Research Center, which maintains a documented archive request system. Without either option, no one outside Carnegie can independently verify the results. This single score is what kept the report from reaching Research-Grade (a score of 8.0 or above, which means the methodology meets peer-reviewed social science standards).

The strongest dimension is sampling. We scored Case Capture and Sampling — whether the people surveyed actually represent the population the report claims to describe — at 9 out of 10. Carnegie recruited respondents through YouGov’s online panel. It then weighted the results to match American Community Survey demographics. Nearly every survey question reports the number of people who answered it. That level of denominator reporting (telling you how many people a percentage is based on) is the high-water mark in our scored corpus.

Coverage symmetry scored 8 out of 10. This dimension measures whether a report’s questions are framed fairly across groups. Carnegie asked the same questions across religious and political identity categories. We found zero directional framing — no questions worded to push respondents toward a particular answer.

The standout finding involves counter-evidence. We scored Counter-Evidence — whether a report engages with research that challenges its own field — at 8 out of 10. Footnote 29 in the Carnegie report directly critiques the Equality Labs caste survey’s sampling method. That survey used snowball sampling (where participants recruit other participants, which skews the results toward people who already agree). Carnegie’s footnote is the only instance in our scored corpus where a nonpartisan institution explicitly documented a methodological failure in a widely cited advocacy survey. That is what peer accountability looks like in practice.

The Bottom Line

Carnegie’s 2020 Indian American Attitudes Survey scored 7.6 out of 10. That places it in the Adequate grade band (usable with caveats, but gaps present). A non-compensatory cap was applied — a rule that prevents a report from reaching a higher grade when a specific dimension falls below a threshold. Here, the data access score of 5 out of 10 blocked the report from Research-Grade status. If Carnegie documents a formal process for researchers to request data, the score would likely rise above 8.0. The score reflects methodology only. The report’s conclusions may be entirely correct even though its data access practices have gaps.