دلفی ترکیبی : یک روش برای تسهیل مشارکت از سوی کارشناسان در زمینه های حرفه ای
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|1032||2011||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 10929 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 78, Issue 9, November 2011, Pages 1629–1641
This work presents a new methodology based on three well-known qualitative techniques (Focus Group, Nominal Group Technique and Delphi method), with a view to harmonising their potentialities and reducing their limitations, through application in real contexts with experts who are professionals in their respective activities. The main contribution of this methodology is its joint consideration of the needs of the investigators and also of experts who act in professional contexts, in order to improve the effectiveness of preceding techniques in achieving the scientific and social objectives of the study. We have tested this methodological approach in three real cases, with experts holding different responsibilities in different companies and public organisations, and the results secured are highly satisfactory, due to both the quantity and quality of the proposals obtained, and the satisfaction exhibited by the experts taking part, with regard to the research methodology.
What is the best way of extracting and processing the information possessed by a set of professionals concerning a problem or phenomenon? Since Helmer and Rescher  and  laid the foundations for the scientific use of expert opinion in the areas of decision and prediction, different techniques have been developed over the years aimed at responding to the initial question, in different contexts and with different objectives. All these techniques have, in general, sought to contribute improvements in one or some of the fields of action originally delimited by Helmer : 1- improvement in the selection of the most suitable information sources for each concrete case (relying on the appropriate experts), 2- assisting in the effective development of experts' activities, facilitating transmission of the information required, and 3- development of methodologies of action that make the processing of that information possible, achieving outcomes of greater quality. This methodological development is still of relevance, because knowledge advances and because needs change with time. In this regard, one sphere of great scientific and social interest is the obtaining of ranked lists of problems, practices, solutions… regarding a specific phenomenon using the tacit knowledge of professional experts who are undergoing problems, carrying out practices or applying solutions in their respective contexts of action. By professionals we refer to experts who voluntarily collaborate in a forecasting or group decision activity, freely contributing their knowledge, which is normally a product of their usual working activity. From this category we exclude, therefore, students, scholarship holders and other “captive experts”. For this purpose different group techniques may be employed, some of which already have a broad academic history of application. However, those of us who apply them feel that there is much more knowledge that we have been unable to access. A good deal of the possible inefficiency stems from the fact that it is difficult to find an active route to the professionals who possess the knowledge we are eager for and hard to get them to make that knowledge explicit: it is not easy to locate them, they tend to have little time at their disposal, it is complicated to bring them together in face-to-face sessions, they have needs and interests different from those of researchers, they tend to be hard to pin down in their answers, they may have fears, personal characteristics and assumed roles that limit their responses, and so forth. Consequently, the right methodologies need to be developed for these kinds of experts and research objects. With this view in mind, we make a methodology proposal in this work that is a hybrid of three techniques that are widely acknowledged and have a long track record: directed face-to-face discussion groups or Focus Groups, the Delphi Method and the Nominal Group Technique. Each of the three has its own characteristics that are highly suitable for obtaining the required results from this kind of expert, but they also have their disadvantages. A careful combination of these characteristics can reduce their limitations whilst retaining what they contribute. In the article we set out the characteristics and limitations of the Focus Group, the Delphi and the NGT, the purpose, configuration and development of the proposed hybrid methodology, which we have called Hybrid Delphi, and the practical application of this new methodology in three different professional contexts.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Hybrid Delphi is a technique that differs in its structure and objectives from other techniques based on the judgement of experts. It is characterised by the fact that it offers its results as a consequence of the application of a methodology that structures its three basic factors (FG, NGT and Delphi) in a particular way. The order established is fixed and reasoned. Modification of it would alter the result. Not only is it chronological, but it also seeks to feed and channel a flow of information and knowledge, in a process where experts are involved and their contributions improved, towards a result that is higher than that which would be obtained by independently employing the techniques on which it is based. FG output is input for NGT, and NGT output is the main input for Delphi. It is not, therefore, a “modified Delphi”, as the Delphi, in itself, is not modified. The Delphi is fed through the FG-NGT process. The final output is that of the Delphi, which has the capacity to reorder and improve the outputs of the other two techniques, which it has received in the form of input. This is why it is fundamentally a Delphi, but not just a Delphi. The final result must be understood and interpreted within the combination of the three techniques that make up a holistic whole. For this reason we proposed the name Hybrid Delphi. It is a general defined structure, which lends itself to being adapted and applied to different contexts. Another element that characterises and distinguishes the Hybrid Delphi is its joint consideration of the needs of the investigator, and also of experts who act in professional contexts, in order to improve the effectiveness of preceding techniques in achieving the scientific and social objectives of the study. The investigator needs to gather the knowledge, opinion and creativity that are possessed principally by these professional experts, so s/he needs to secure collaboration from a sufficient number of qualified experts and establish the conditions for the extraction, transmission and efficient treatment of such knowledge. Then again, the main activity of these experts is not that of collaborating with the investigator; they collaborate voluntarily in the degree to which their participation serves to satisfy their own needs for relation, learning, recognition, etc., and does not ask too much of them in terms of time or risk. The methodology proposed takes care of both aspects. It influences all the factors that might affect output in line with the consensus development methods identified by Black et al.  in their exhaustive bibliographical review: the way the task is set, selection of participants, the selection and presentation of scientific information, the way any interaction is structured and the method for synthesising individual judgments. Starting out from the strengths of three preceding tested techniques (Focus Group, NGT and Delphi), it overcomes their weaknesses. To do so, it configures a process of synthesis, which sequentially orders the application of these techniques and tailors the characteristics and dynamic of each of them to the objective and context of application of the Hybrid Delphi. Thereby, it tackles the problems involved in working with experts in professional contexts, more effectively than do the techniques from which it has sprung. It is suitable, therefore, for attracting, collecting and combining the knowledge of professional experts who voluntarily collaborate in an activity that for them is secondary. The experts, meanwhile, find it an interesting activity that binds them to no commitments, through which they learn, mix with others and test out their ideas, whilst contributing to investigations of social interest. This encourages them to be effective in their collaboration and to repeat the experience on other occasions, as it proves to be engaging and useful. This is corroborated by the assessments of the experts who took part in the three applications carried out to date with this methodology. The best token of the satisfaction produced by their participation in an investigation employing this methodology is that they would all be willing to participate again in a similar dynamic. This methodology, therefore, facilitates the participation, involvement and interaction of real experts, in real contexts, and, deriving from such interaction (quantitative and, above all, qualitative feedback), changes of opinion that lead to superior group results. This constitutes the foundations for improvement in the quality of the outcome of any Delphi process . But certainly, a future line of research that emerges from this proposal is the performance of more tests whose purpose would be to unequivocally validate (or refute) its effectiveness. It is necessary, although not easy in professional contexts, to compare, in homogeneous conditions, the quality and quantity of this methodology's contributions (ideas, opinions, proposals) with those obtained from other preceding techniques, especially with those captured separately using each of the techniques analysed (FG, NGT and Delphi), or with paired combinations of techniques. Likewise, the outcomes of the Hybrid Delphi and those of other techniques will have to be compared in terms of experts’ perception of satisfaction with their participation, their acceptance of the outcomes and willingness to repeat their participation in similar investigations. If a greater number of controlled experiences were carried out, this would also equip us to propose and test contingent modifications when applying the different stages of the Hybrid Delphi, depending on the different professional contexts in which it takes place (experts belonging to a single organisation, pool of experts from diverse backgrounds, professional bureaucracies, etc.), on the needs of the experts participating (predominance of a desire for learning, for social relations,…) and on the objectives of each investigation (obtaining and ranking ideas, ordering alternatives, making decisions, making forecasts, giving impetus to learning and participation….). Consequently, an interesting line of research opens up, the aim of which will be to deliver to researchers and practitioners a Hybrid Delphi that is tested and adapted to their specific needs