Analyse von Meinungsdisparitäten in der Technikbewertung mit der Delphi-Methode

Grupp, Hariolf; Blind, Knut; Cuhls, Kerstin

doi:10.1007/978-3-663-09682-5_3

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Figure 2 illustrates, from a starting point with widely distributed expert opinions, a group consensus may be possible. On other occasions, opinions will coalesce to some degree around a number of different perspectives (a stable dissensus, seen in examples like biotechnology or energy, e.g., Grupp, 1995). In all cases, however, the opinions within the group are to some degree more clustered at the end of the Delphi process than they were at the outset.…”

Section: Detailed Analysis Of Two Illustrative Examples Of Large‐scal...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies reported recruiting experts “worldwide,” one study involved 56 countries, one involved a group of Latin American and Caribbean countries, one involved five countries (Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, and Greece) and one involved two countries (Germany and Japan) directly. There are also survey reports in which the results from within a focal country were compared cross‐nationally at a later stage (e.g., Cuhls & Kuwahara, 1994; Cuhls et al, 1995; Cuhls et al, 2002; Grupp, 1995).…”

Section: Content Analysis Of Large‐scale Delphi Surveys Used For Scie...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cuhls et al (1995) reported evidence consistent with option 1 when, in an unintended experiment, it was found that self‐reported high‐level experts were not attracted towards false‐consensus numerical between‐rounds feedback, but low‐level experts were (see also Cuhls & Kuwahara, 1994; Grupp, 1995).…”

Section: Detailed Analysis Of Two Illustrative Examples Of Large‐scal...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A critical evaluation of 42, large‐scale, science and technology foresight Delphi surveys

Belton

Cuhls

Wright

2022

Futures & Foresight Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large‐scale Delphi surveys on technology foresight started in the 1960s and involve an average of about 2000 participants answering, potentially, up to about 450 items. This contrasts sharply with the participation and content of the more common, smaller‐scale Delphi surveys. Previously, Belton et al. developed “six steps” to underpin a well‐founded and defensible Delphi process and we apply these steps in a novel evaluation of the quality of 42 large‐scale technology foresight surveys. Using a detailed analysis of two exemplar studies and a content analysis of all 42 surveys, we explore whether such surveys differ systematically from “traditional” smaller‐scale Delphi surveys and, if so, why this may be and what it may mean for the quality of data produced. We conclude that there are some problematic issues within these surveys—to do with (i) data quality in both the numerical summarizing of participant's between‐round feedback and in the reporting of final round numerical responses, (ii) the infrequent elicitation of rationales to justify participants' proffered numerical responses, and, when such rationales are elicited, (iii) the between‐round summary and presentation of the rationales. We speculate on the reasons for these design differences in the extant large‐scale surveys and conclude that extra‐survey political influences, such as differing objectives and the need to demonstrate wide‐ranging expert participation, may be the underlying cause. We conclude with considerations and recommendations for the design of future large‐scale Delphi surveys to enable the underlying process to become better‐founded and more defensible to procedural evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Detailed Analysis Of Two Illustrative Examples Of Large‐scal...mentioning

confidence: 99%