A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi
Integrating knowledge and values across a range of stakeholders and experts is a common goal of, and challenge in, forecasting and planning processes across numerous decision-making domains. In this paper we present a virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytical participatory group process which we applied in a planning study. The process was a combination of concept mapping and a policy Delphi. The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi offers an iterative process that is meant to foster critical, dissensus-based thinking by a group about an evaluation problem. In particular, it offers a platform on which to structure the group brainstorming of ideas, integrates knowledge and values, and creates a shared conceptual framework for addressing evaluation problems. We discuss the merits and limitations of this process and compare it with other public engagement mechanisms for decision-making. We argue that the use of a Concept Mapping Policy Delphi is relevant in forecasting and decision-making processes that aim to integrate information which is from various disparate points of view in order to clarify arguments and values, democratize and mediate public participation, and/or provide strategic advice about scenarios or planning options, while mitigating the problematic aspects of face-to-face group processes.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Nick Novakowski & Barry Wellar, 2008. "Using the Delphi technique in normative planning research: methodological design considerations," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 40(6), pages 1485-1500, June.
- Hung, Hsin-Ling & Altschuld, James W. & Lee, Yi-Fang, 2008. "Methodological and conceptual issues confronting a cross-country Delphi study of educational program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 191-198, May.
- Sally Davenport & Shirley Leitch, 2005. "Agoras, ancient and modern, and a framework for science-society debate," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 137-153, April.
- Helga Nowotny, 2003. "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 151-156, June.
- Bruna De Marchi, 2003. "Public participation and risk governance," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 171-176, June.
- Caracelli, Valerie J., 1989. "Structured conceptualization : A framework for interpreting evaluation results," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 45-52, January.
- Steve Rayner, 2003. "Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 163-170, June.
- J Francisca Caron-Flinterman & Jacqueline E W Broerse & Julia Teerling & Melissa L Y van Alst & Simon Klaasen & L Edwin Swart & Joske F G Bunders, 2006. "Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 291-304, May.
- Sutherland, Stephanie & Katz, Steven, 2005. "Concept mapping methodology: A catalyst for organizational learning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 257-269, August.
- Wright, George & Goodwin, Paul, 2009. "Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability: Enhancing the scenario method," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 813-825, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:27:y::i:1:p:152-165. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.