delphi_inquieries by shimeiyan

VIEWS: 22 PAGES: 24

									 Corenet
Delphi
 Project
enquiry
Personal details

Joost Van den Cruyce
Junior researcher at OIVO –
  CRIOC

Main tasks:
Lobby
Expert (environment,IT,
  standards)
External projects
Introduction: Common
questions
• Lobby: What are the current
  opinions, is there a consensus
  possible?
• Expert: What is the most efficient
  approach? Does everyone within a
  group of social stakeholders share
  the same opinion, and what are
  their motifs?
• Project: What are the experts
  opinions on current and future
Introduction: participative approach

• Need for a participative approach
  – Uni-directional (informative)
  – bi-directional (consultative)
  – active participation: based on a
    partnership in which citizens,
    stakeholders, experts and/or politicians
    actively engage in (policy) debate. All
    parties involved can frame the issue to a
    greater or lesser extent.
Introduction: border criteria participative
approach
• underlying values and principles that must
  be clarified before detailed proposals are
  brought forward (exploration)
• themes that require ethical, social or
  cultural study and may call for a choice
  between fundamental values and
  principles (sensitive issues)
• policy issues that call for a combination of
  public awareness, learning, a search for
  solutions and emotional or moral
  acceptance of the eventual decision (learn
  from each other)
• a clearly defined set of options or
  proposals that support the search for
Delphi: Rationale

• There exists a multide of tools to
  support a participative approach:
 - 21st Century Town Meeting   - Focus Group
 - Charrette                   - PAME (Participatory Assessment,
 - Citizens Jury               Monitoring & Evaluation)
 - Consensus Conference        - Planning Cell
 - Deliberative Polling®       - Scenario Building Exercise
 - Delphi                      - Technology Festival
 - Expert Panel                - The World Café
Delphi: Rationale

+ budget
+ geographical constraints
+ anonimity
+ prevent heated non-constructive
  debates
+ everyone will get equal chance to
  praticipate
+consensus seeking
Delphi: Rationale

- no open questions (partly solved
  by including comments)
- participation rate unknown
- slow process (compared to face-
  to-face meeting)
- project applicant need to
  understand Delphi process
Delphi: Succes
factors
• Societal Context
   –   Good timing with public controversy
   –   Good timing with de facto policy-making
   –   Good relevance of the topic
   –   Political culture open for (informal) participation
• Institutional Context
   – Link to the political sphere
   – Credibility and reputation of the (organising) institution
• Properties of the Arrangement
   – Precise definition of the political goals
   – Fairness of the process as perceived by political observers
     (ex independency)
   – Product of the arrangement aiming at practical
     implementation
   – Involvement of political actors in the process
Methodology
Methodology
Methodology

• identification and recruitment of the
  different social groups involved
• Find for each group sufficient number
  of ppl (take into account low response
  rate)
• In case their statute is unclear let them
  decide
• Open or restricted perticipation?
Preparation of any introductory material

• Extremely important: saves time, prevents
  confusion
• Clearly explain the delphi process and
  goals, promise openness
• Explain motives and context, prove
  independency
• Ask participant to associate him with a
  social stakeholdersgroup (env-NGO,
  government, industry (producer and/or
  distribution), independent
  expert/university, cons. org., …
Questionnaire (first round)

• List of statements/scenario’s, keep number
  within limits
• No compound statements
• Don’t go too soft but don’t offend, provoke
  constructive comments
• Evaluation on a scale of 1-5 or 1-6, possibility
  to abstain or not qualified + room for
  (optional) comments
• Possibility to create different participant
  specific lists (to avoid too lengthy
  questionnaires)
Questionnaire (first round)
Questionnaire (first round)

• Mailing: keep mail short but complete,
  specify time needed to complete
• MS Word document in Annex, online
  tools exist
• At least 3 weeks response time
• Send reminder
• Expect responses after deadline
Evaluation and summary of responses

• Combine groups if too few
  respondents
• Our tools: excel sheets and
  some VBA scripts, but
  specialised software exists to
  speed up analysis
• Analysis and summary of
  comments take up most of the
  time
Second and subsequent round
questionnaires
• Graphical representation is a must
• Give feedback about participation of
  each group
• DO NOT change statements,
  definitions or scenario’s
• Possibility to add additional statements,
  definitions or scenario’s
• You can include additional information
  to prevent ambiguity that occured
  during the first round
Second and subsequent round
questionnaires
Second and subsequent round
questionnaires
• Summarize comments after each
  question or if not too many or too
  lengthy comments:
  Het aanbod kan beperkt worden.


  Het grote aanbod van biociden motiveert de consument niet in de richting van alternatieven


  misschien is er een groot aanbod in “ referenties producten” , maar in aantal actieve stoffen is dit aanbod zeker niet groot te noemen. ( neem bijvoorbeeld de rodenticiden,
          waar hooguit een aantal actieve stoffen beschikbaar zijn voor verdelging van bijvoorbeeld ratten/muizen ) ,op het gevaar van resistentie af…..


  Elle set déjà trop restreindre en nombre de matières actives


  het aanbod is eerder te gering zodat er een risico voor resistentie bestaat


  het gevaar is zelfs dat er te weinig aanbod is zodat resistentie ontstaat.


  Le problème actuel vient surtout d’un manque d’information par rapport aux alternatives et d’un matraquage publicitaire de la part des firmes phytopharmaceutiques.


  Te algemene zin, het zal wellicht afhangen van het “te bestrijden” probleem. Overigens wordt hier al gesproken over een keuze voor alternatieven. Voor bepaalde
          problemen lijkt de keuze voor preventie prioritair.
Second and subsequent round
questionnaires
• When sending: same timing principles
  as during first round
• Warn for lengthy document, give an
  accurate prediction about time
  needed to complete the questionnaire
• Specify date (+/-) of final report
Final report printing and dissemination

• Most of the work can be re-used from
  last questionnaire
• Try to summarize comments, keep it
  objective!
• If needed, analyse possibility of
  consensus and main divergences (both
  between and within the groups)
• Global conlusion
• Send it to project applicant and
  participants
?
Further reading

• Guide on participative methods
http://www.viwta.be/content/en/new_Manual_for_P
   articipation.cfm
• On request we provide the final
  report of the Alcohol Delphi as a
  concrete example (by mail) or
  consult Corenet

								
To top