IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v27yi1p152-165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi

Author

Listed:
  • Klenk, Nicole L.
  • Hickey, Gordon M.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:27:y::i:1:p:152-165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169-2070(10)00086-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Helga Nowotny, 2003. "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 151-156, June.
    4. Bruna De Marchi, 2003. "Public participation and risk governance," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 171-176, June.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Caracelli, Valerie J., 1989. "Structured conceptualization : A framework for interpreting evaluation results," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 45-52, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Trochim, William M. K., 1989. "An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
    10. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hop, G.E. & Mourits, M.C.M. & Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2014. "Future structural developments in Dutch and German livestock production and implications for contagious livestock disease control," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 95-114.
    2. Makkonen, Mari & Pätäri, Satu & Jantunen, Ari & Viljainen, Satu, 2012. "Competition in the European electricity markets – outcomes of a Delphi study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 431-440.
    3. Spickermann, Alexander & Zimmermann, Martin & von der Gracht, Heiko A., 2014. "Surface- and deep-level diversity in panel selection — Exploring diversity effects on response behaviour in foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 105-120.
    4. de Loë, Rob C. & Melnychuk, Natalya & Murray, Dan & Plummer, Ryan, 2016. "Advancing the State of Policy Delphi Practice: A Systematic Review Evaluating Methodological Evolution, Innovation, and Opportunities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 78-88.
    5. Wright, George & Rowe, Gene, 2011. "Group-based judgmental forecasting: An integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, January.
    6. Winkler, Jens & Kuklinski, Christian Paul Jian-Wei & Moser, Roger, 2015. "Decision making in emerging markets: The Delphi approach's contribution to coping with uncertainty and equivocality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1118-1126.
    7. repec:eee:intfor:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Valenzuela-Montes, Luis M. & Soria-Lara, Julio A. & Navarro-Ligero, Miguel L., 2016. "Analysing stakeholders' perception of Light Rail Transit as an opportunity to achieve sustainable mobility in Granada (Spain)," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 391-399.
    9. Marzieh Fallah & Lanndon Ocampo, 2021. "The use of the Delphi method with non-parametric analysis for identifying sustainability criteria and indicators in evaluating ecotourism management: the case of Penang National Park (Malaysia)," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 45-62, March.
    10. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "How can formal research networks produce more socially robust forest science?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 44-56.
    11. Aldossary, Naief A. & Rezgui, Yacine & Kwan, Alan, 2015. "Consensus-based low carbon domestic design framework for sustainable homes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 417-432.
    12. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165.
    2. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    3. Urban, Jennifer Brown & Hargraves, Monica & Trochim, William M., 2014. "Evolutionary Evaluation: Implications for evaluators, researchers, practitioners, funders and the evidence-based program mandate," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 127-139.
    4. Van Holen, Frank & Van Loock, Julie & Belenger, Laurence & Vanderfaeillie, Johan, 2017. "Concept mapping the needs of grandmothers who take care of their grandchildren in formal foster care in Flanders," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 159-167.
    5. Péladeau, Normand & Dagenais, Christian & Ridde, Valéry, 2017. "Concept mapping internal validity: A case of misconceived mapping?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 56-63.
    6. Michael Barnett, 2016. "Accountability and global governance: The view from paternalism," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 134-148, June.
    7. Dare, Lynn & Nowicki, Elizabeth, 2019. "Engaging children and youth in research and evaluation using group concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    9. Chiasson, Guy & Angelstam, Per & Axelsson, Robert & Doyon, Frederik, 2019. "Towards collaborative forest planning in Canadian and Swedish hinterlands: Different institutional trajectories?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 334-345.
    10. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.
    11. Laura Borge & Stefanie Bröring, 2020. "What affects technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas? A multi-stakeholder concept mapping study in the bioeconomy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 430-460, April.
    12. Mohammed Abdullatif Almulla & Mahdi Mohammed Alamri, 2021. "Using Conceptual Mapping for Learning to Affect Students’ Motivation and Academic Achievement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, April.
    13. Caroline Schlinkert & Marleen Gillebaart & Jeroen Benjamins & Maartje P. Poelman & Denise de Ridder, 2020. "Snacks and The City: Unexpected Low Sales of an Easy-Access, Tasty, and Healthy Snack at an Urban Snacking Hotspot," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter, 2016. "Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: A case analysis of the use of ‘scenario improvisation’ method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 97-108.
    15. Lyall, Catherine & Tait, Joyce, 2019. "Beyond the limits to governance: New rules of engagement for the tentative governance of the life sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1128-1137.
    16. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    17. Goldman, Alyssa W. & Kane, Mary, 2014. "Concept mapping and network analysis: An analytic approach to measure ties among constructs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 9-17.
    18. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    19. 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.
    20. Derbyshire, James, 2017. "Potential surprise theory as a theoretical foundation for scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 77-87.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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 you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.