Delphi method: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:45, 15 October 2005

Revision as of 13:10, 31 October 2005

Line 1:

==The Delphi method and consensus building==

The '''Delphi method''' ishas traditionally been a technique aimed at building an agreement, or [[consensus]] about an opinion or view, without necessarily having people meet face to face, such as through surveys, questionaires, emails etc. This technique, if used effectively, can be highly efficient and generate new knowledge.

To build consensus, the Delphi method often uses the [[Hegelian dialectic]] process of ''thesis'' (establishing an opinion or view), ''antithesis'' (conflicting opinion or view) and finally ''synthesis'' (a new agreement or consensus), with synthesis becoming the new thesis. All participants in the process shall then either change their views to align with the new thesis, or support the new thesis, to establish a new common view. The goal is a continual evolution towards 'oneness of mind', or consensus on the opinion or view.

Line 52:

Despite these shortcomings, today the Delphi method is a widely accepted forecasting tool and has been used successfully for thousands of studies in areas varying from [[technology forecasting]] to [[drug abuse]].

== Delphi applications not aiming at consensus ==

Traditionally the Delphi method has aimed at a consensus of the most probable future by iteration. The [http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch3b1.html Policy Delphi] launched by Murray Turoff instead is a decision support method aiming at structuring and discussing the diverse views of the preferred future. The Argument Delphi developed by Osmo Kuusi focuses on ongoing discussion and finding relevant arguments rather than focusing on the output. The [http://www.tukkk.fi/tutu/dpd.htm Disaggregative Policy Delphi] developed by Petri Tapio uses cluster analysis as a systematic tool to construct various scenarios of the future in the latest Delphi round. The respondent's view on the probable and the preferable future are dealt with as separate cases.

== See Also ==