The Policy Delphi: Purpose, Structure, and Application

Abstract

This paper has two major purposes. First, it presents argument and evidence related to the suitability of using Policy Delphi in the formulation of national or federal water policy. Much of the associated discussion is organized in terms of a comparison of Delphi purpose and structure with those of other Idea Generating Strategies (IGSs). Second, it presents argument and evidence related to the value of expert opinion, and its role as an integral component of any Policy Delphi application. Associated discussion focuses on the identification and declaration of expert sampling criteria in the context of water and other policy. In addition, a recommendation is presented to consultants, managers, stategists, and others who must regularly synthesize divergent opinion and evidence and bring forth policy statements. The conclusions indicate that a Policy Delphi has no structural elements that would limit its application to water policy development or other environmental management problems that demand definition.

Public involvement in the development of a management plan for the Moose River Route region of Mount Robson Provincial Park

“…This change in the power relationship between experts and members of the public has generated a significant amount of debate on the value of expert opinion. Some individuals believe that expert opinion should carry no more weight than that of the public, whereas others feel that expert opinion is both legitimate and relevant (Needham & de Loe, 1990). …”

“…Nagel observes that combining knowledge with power and competence with correct motivation is an ongoing difficulty of public involvement processes. Needham and de Loe (1990) suggest that one way to get around this difficulty is to accept expert opinion as only one component of the decision-making process. Similarly, both McMullin and Neilson (1991) and suggest that balance of opinion is the best approach to take when the decision-making process is value-laden or hampered by a lack of Nagel (1987) argues that it is unreasonable to assume that the average individual could make informed decisions on issues as complicated as the licensing of nuclear power plants or the regulation of recombinant DNA experiments.…”

“…2.2.7 .5 SURVEYS Surveys differ from the previous three techniques in that they are not an idea-generating group process (Needham & de Loe, 1990). Although capable of idea generation, the main focus of surveys is the collection of representative public opinion.…”

“…The Delphi technique is a low-intensity, idea-generating group process (Needham & de Loe, 1990). Other idea-generating group processes with higher levels of intensity include workshops, focus groups and advisory groups.…”

“…According to Fish and Osborn (1992), Helmer (1994), Needham and de Loe (1990), Rotondi and Gustafson (1996) and Ziglio (1996) these benefits include:…”