Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Altered pages. Add: pages, doi. Removed URL that duplicated identifier. Removed access-date with no URL. Formatted dashes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Dominic3203 | Linked from User:Jim.belk/Most_viewed_math_articles_(2010) | #UCB_webform_linked 229/998 |
Seabreezes1 (talk | contribs) Addded paragrphy about barrier to true consensus |
||
Line 7:
Special attention has to be paid to the formulation of the Delphi theses and the definition and selection of the experts in order to avoid methodological weaknesses that severely threaten the validity and reliability of the results.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Markmann C, Spickermann A, von der Gracht HA, Brem A | title = Improving the question formulation in Delphi-like surveys: Analysis of the effects of abstract language and amount of information on response behavior. | journal = Futures & Foresight Science | date = March 2021 | volume = 3 | issue = 1 | pages = e56 | doi = 10.1002/ffo2.56 | s2cid = 225273393 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Mauksch S, Heiko A, Gordon TJ | title = Who is an expert for foresight? A review of identification methods. | journal = Technological Forecasting and Social Change | date = May 2020 | volume = 154 | pages = 119982 | doi = 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119982 | s2cid = 216161197 }} </ref>
Ensuring that the participants have requisite expertise and that more domineering participants do not overwhelm weaker-willed participants, as the first group tends to be less inclined to change their minds and the second group is more motivated to fit in can be a barrier to reaching true consensus. <ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Shang, Zshida| title = Use of Delphi in health sciences research: A narrative review. | journal = Medicine (Baltimore)| date = Feb 2023 | volume = 102 | issue = 7 | doi = 10.1097/MD.0000000000032829 | PMID = 36800594}}</ref>
==History==
| |||