Is diversity in Delphi panelist groups useful? Evidence from a French forecasting exercise on the future of nuclear energy
By Caroline Hussler, P. Muller, P. Rondé. 2011
121 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/972faa13608adcc8149fd9dfb7e7d78b273443b6
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Sociology and Political Science
- Heiko A. Gracht
- Mike Clarke
- Douglas G. Altman
- Jane M. Blazeby
- Elizabeth Gargon
- A. Spickermann
- Farid Dahdouh-Guebas
- J. McNeill
Citations in the corpus
- The Delphi technique: Past, present, and future prospects — Introduction to the special issue☆ (2011, background): “• Including experts and laypeople to increase the variety of viewpoints amongst first round opinions— even though the lay opinions will be less stable and tend to reduce to expert viewpoints over rounds [13] • Creating artificial heterogeneity in opinions at the first Delphi round – using role-playi”
- Identifying key knowledge needs for evidence‐based conservation of wild insect pollinators: a collaborative cross‐sectoral exercise (2013, background): “Including as wide a range of interests as possible in the group has been demonstrated by social psychologists to be important for eliciting expert judgement effectively (Yaniv, 2011; Bolger & Wright, 2011; Hussler et al., 2011).”
- The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017, background): “Delphi performance has seldom been investigated in general [106].”
- Heading towards a multimodal city of the future (2014, background): “9% is sufficient for this type of survey and analysis since Delphi surveys do not aim for representativeness, rather a high degree of expertise and heterogeneous viewpoints [117–119].”
- The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: applications and guidelines (2015, methodology): “Initially, the Delphi technique was designed for ‘experts’, but it is increasingly becoming more inclusive (Rowe & Wright 2011). For example, Hussler, Muller & Rond e (2011) recommend including participants from a greater diversity of backgrounds. The breadth of participants (e.g. practitioners, con”