The Consensus Group Technique in Social Research

Abstract

The Consensus Group Technique is a new method for carrying out qualitative research in small groups. It was designed particularly for use in participative research, by which relatively untrained moderators may obtain more reliable data than is possible in these circumstances with focus groups. The principle of consensus groups is almost the opposite from the principle of surveys: In consensus groups, instead of using questions with fixed wording and determining the distribution of multiple-choice answers, a criterion level of agreement is set (usually around 75%) and statements are modified to determine whether the criterion level can be met.Most types of social research use an analytical approach. Users of this approach seek to understand the world by breaking it down into small units, then reassembling those units to form generalizations. Accordingly, much social research-apart from ethnographic anthropology-focuses on defining differences between individuals and population segments.An alternative mode of research, which could be considered synthetic rather than analytic, would seek similarities rather than differences. What sort of research could that lead to?The paradigm of survey research is that the questions and possible answers are fixed, so only the percentages can vary. But what if that paradigm were reversed: What if a criterion percentage were set at a certain (high) level, and the wording varied as necessary to reach that level? There would no longer be questions and answers as such, only statements of accepted truths. This could be synthesis.The underlying principle is that by varying the meaning and wording of statements, it is often possible to find a proposition with which most people will agree. Naturally, the percentage who agree will depend on the level of agreement used as a criterion. This could range from fervent evangelism down to grudging acceptance. Much of the time there will not be agreement, as there are many issues on which the population is divided. However, where underlying agreement exists, why not try to define it?

National consensus on the definition, investigation, and classification of meniscal lesions of the knee

“…A combination of validated nominal group techniques and the Delphi process was applied, in accordance with the development of consensus statements published by other groups [25][26][27][28][29]. An overview of the process is summarised in Figure 1.…”

“…Each proposed modification to a definition was put to a vote and the level of agreement was recorded. A pre-defined and accepted agreement threshold of 80% (12/15) or more of the group was required before progressing to a new topic [26].…”

Creating Guardians of Physiologic Birth: The Development of an Educational Initiative for Student Midwives in the Netherlands

“…RP shares some similarities with participatory action research methodologies, in particular, stakeholder involvement. It differs from other consensus methodologies in that it does not seek to evaluate or improve upon an existing product or generate preliminary findings for further investigation …”

Modeling and evaluation of product quality at conceptual design stage

“…Intermittently, it has a medium influence on manufacturing compatibility and raw material quality. Similarly, other relations among the product quality features are determined using methods, such as consensus group technique (List 2001). The off-diagonal elements representing the varying degrees of influences among the quality features are developed and are shown in Table 2.…”