Policy experts' propensity to change their opinion along Delphi rounds

Makkonen, Marika; Hujala, Teppo; Uusivuori, Jussi

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.020

Cited by 49 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Clear positioning requires a clear opinion on something, hence opinions may not yet have been clear in this learning stage. While other studies applying argument Delphi have already reported frequent changes in expert opinions (Makkonen et al 2016), the present study could not observe the frequently reported tendency to adjust opinion to majorities, maybe because of a lack of clear majorities in the first round. As with every expert-based research design, limitations regarding sample selection must be taken into account.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 98%

Two experts, three opinions: volatile organic compounds’ testing methods and regulative systems

Huber

Hesser

et al. 2017

Eur. J. Wood Prod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 98%

Two experts, three opinions: volatile organic compounds’ testing methods and regulative systems

Huber

Hesser

et al. 2017

Eur. J. Wood Prod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To address the growing demand for answers and respond to a creeping pessimism in science's ability to provide solutions, there is an unfolding coproductionist paradigm starting to take hold that emphasizes more democratic forms of knowledge creation and decision-making (Chilvers & Kearnes, 2015;Hussler et al, 2011). In response to these emerging trends and challenges, the Delphi technique has evolved substantially and contributes toward more democratic forms of research (Linstone & Turoff, 2011;Makkonen et al, 2016). Democracy itself is evolving, and a feature that has come to define modern day democracy is an added emphasis on political equality (Dahl, 2006;Fishman, 2016).…”

Section: Delphi Panel Evolution: Beyond Forecasting Activities and Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Forecasting: Using a Modified Delphi Method to Build Upon Participatory Action Research in Developing Principles for a Just and Inclusive Energy Transition

Revez

Dunphy

Harris

et al. 2020

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy transition debates have been characterized by a strong emphasis on the technical implications of shifting away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, with little consideration of social contexts. This is now changing, with a growing emphasis on reconfiguring the social aspects of energy, particularly in terms of introducing more democratic processes into behavior change and energy practice engagements. This article situates itself within these debates and demonstrates the transformative potential of combining participatory action research (PAR) approaches with a modified Delphi method for understanding energy transition issues, particularly beyond forecasting instruments. There remains a dearth in literature combining the Delphi method with PAR; its application in the field of energy transitions is very innovative. PAR draws from grassroots and local-based knowledge, Delphi panels typically focus on the insights from a panel of professional experts. In combining these two approaches, to develop principles for an inclusive and just energy transition, a reflexive form of dialogue emerges that gives voice to what are often considered dissonant or mismatched perspectives. Furthermore, the experimental use of a modified Delphi panel, combined with PAR, offers a strategy to promote knowledge sharing between different groups and to counter potential communication barriers among different actors in society. This article shows how a modified Delphi panel approach is considerably enhanced by combining elements of PAR, raising the potential of Delphi panels beyond forecasting instruments, which often seek to determine the way the future “will be,” toward an envisioning tool that collaboratively seeks to explore the way a low-carbon system “could be,” or perhaps “should be.” The development of energy transition principles, endorsed through the modified Delphi panel, offers a concrete way to enact practices of energy justice within a more democratized energy system.

show abstract

“…Three rounds proved sufficient to attain stability in the responses, as shown by the McNemar Chi-square test results between Rounds 2 and 3. A panellist’s contemplation of whether or not to change opinion between rounds is a prerequisite for promoting a high-quality group opinion [80]. A key to successful Delphi process is to enable some panellists to change their opinion as a result of considering the views of their peers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fact that the Delphi panel was comprised by different types of panellists - experts and stakeholders - and from heterogeneous fields of expertise and geographical regions enhanced further differentiation in the analysis and the quality of the results, leading us to verify if the differences in opinion varied as a function of these characteristics. As reported by Makkonen, Hujala & Uusivuori [80], Delphi respondents could include not only neutral experts but also experts with high stakes, predetermined opinions and motivations. Thus, the intent was to study the effect of panellists’ expertise on perceptions about relevant indicators to appraise population health.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIndicators are essential instruments for monitoring and evaluating population health. The selection of a multidimensional set of indicators should not only reflect the scientific evidence on health outcomes and health determinants, but also the views of health experts and stakeholders. The aim of this study is to describe the Delphi selection process designed to promote agreement on indicators considered relevant to evaluate population health at the European regional level.MethodsIndicators were selected in a Delphi survey conducted using a web-platform designed to implement and monitor participatory processes. It involved a panel of 51 experts and 30 stakeholders from different areas of knowledge and geographies. In three consecutive rounds the panel indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with indicator’s relevance for evaluating population health in Europe. Inferential statistics were applied to draw conclusions on observed level of agreement (Scott’s Pi interrater reliability coefficient) and opinion change (McNemar Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to check if the field of expertise influenced the panellist responses (Wilk’s Lambda test).ResultsThe panel participated extensively in the study (overall response rate: 80%). Eighty indicators reached group agreement for selection in the areas of: economic and social environment (12); demographic change (5); lifestyle and health behaviours (8); physical environment (6); built environment (12); healthcare services (11) and health outcomes (26). Higher convergence of group opinion towards agreement on the relevance of indicators was seen for lifestyle and health behaviours, healthcare services, and health outcomes. The panellists’ field of expertise influenced responses: statistically significant differences were found for economic and social environment (p < 0.05 in round 1 and 2), physical environment (p < 0.01 in round 1) and health outcomes (p < 0.01 in round 3).ConclusionsThe high levels of participation observed in this study, by involving experts and stakeholders and ascertaining their views, underpinned the added value of using a transparent Web-Delphi process to promote agreement on what indicators are relevant to appraise population health.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5463-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Policy experts' propensity to change their opinion along Delphi rounds

Cited by 49 publications

References 25 publications

Two experts, three opinions: volatile organic compounds’ testing methods and regulative systems

Two experts, three opinions: volatile organic compounds’ testing methods and regulative systems

Beyond Forecasting: Using a Modified Delphi Method to Build Upon Participatory Action Research in Developing Principles for a Just and Inclusive Energy Transition

Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About