Tulsa Topics

This is the second post in a multi-post series. The first post was titled "Delphi Technique or Method." Although I know there is a start and a finish to this series, I'm not sure how many entries will be posted between the start and finish. Indulge me for a moment, if I don't get to the "real" topic immediately.

Obviously in modern day terms, the Delphi Technique doesn't include going to Greece and asking the Pythia at Mount Parnassus what our futures may or may not have in store for us. So what IS the Delphi Technique? That's a good question! I'll start that answer with the original application of the Delphi Technique.

The objective of most Delphi applications is the reliable and creative exploration of ideas or the production of suitable information for decision making. The Delphi Technique is based on a structured process for collecting and distilling knowledge from a group of experts by means of a series of questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion feedback. The technique or method represents a useful communication device among a group of experts and thus facilitates the formation of a group judgement. The Delphi method has been developed in order to make discussion between experts possible without permitting a certain social interactive behavior as happens during a normal group discussion and hampers opinion forming. Without full full scientific knowledge, decision-makers have to rely on their own intuition or on expert opinion. The Delphi method has been widely used to generate forecasts in technology, education, and other fields.

The technology forecasting studies which eventually led to the development of the Delphi method started in 1944. At that time the military asked Douglas Aircraft company to prepare a forecast of future technological capabilities that might be of interest to the military. The military got the Douglas Aircraft company to establish in 1946 a Project RAND (an acronym for Research and Development) to study the "broad subject of inter-continental warfare other then surface." In 1959 Helmer and fellow RAND researcher Rescher published a paper on "The Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences," which provide a philosophical base for forecasting. The paper argued that in fields that have not yet developed to the point of having scientific laws, the testimony of experts is permissible. The problem is how to use this testimony and, specifically, how to combine the testimony of a number of experts into a single useful statement. The Delphi method recognizes human judgement as legitimate and useful inputs in generating forecasts. Single experts sometimes suffer biases; group meetings suffer from "follow the leader" tendencies and reluctance to abandon previously stated opinions. In order to overcome these shortcomings the basic notion of the Delphi method, theoretical assumptions and methodological procedures developed in the 1950s and 1960s at the RAND Corporation. Forecasts about various aspect of the future are often derived through the collation of expert judgement.

Unfortunately the Delphi method is also sometimes used for a normal inquiry among a number of experts. Delphi has found its way into industry, government, and finally, education. It has simultaneously expanded beyond technological forecasting.

Not so different from ancient Greece times when a person or entity went to the Pythia at Mount Parnassus to "forecast" your future sans consensus. Speaking of consensus...... here's one definition:

con sen sus n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

Here's some more information and thought on what a consensus is or isn't. (via Wikipedia)-

"Consensus as collective thought"

A close equivalent phrase might be the "collective opinion" of a group, keeping in mind that a high degree of variation is still possible among individuals, and certainly if there must be individual commitment to follow up the decision with action, this variation remains important. There is considerable debate and research into both collective intelligence and consensus decision making.

Consensus usually involves collaboration, rather than compromise. Instead of one opinion being adopted by a plurality, stakeholders are brought together (often with facilitation) until a convergent decision is developed. If this is done in a purely mechanical way it can result in simple trading—we'll sacrifice this if you'll sacrifice that. Genuine consensus typically requires more focus on developing the relationships among stakeholders, so that they work together to achieve agreements based on willing consent.

"Consensus in democracy"

As this example suggests, the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy. Democracy, in its rawest form, direct democracy, has been criticized by a significant number of scholars since the time of Plato as well as adherents to strict republican principles, and is sometimes referred to as the "tyranny of the majority", with the implication that one faction of the society is dominating other factions, possibly repressively.

Others, however, argue that if the democracy adheres to principles of consensus, becoming a deliberative democracy, then party or factional dominance can be minimized and decisions will be more representative of the entire society.

"Drawbacks to consensus"

Business and political analysts have pointed out a number of problems with consensus decision making. A too-strict requirement of consensus may effectively give a small self-interested minority group veto power over decisions. Decision by consensus may take an extremely long time to occur, and thus may be intolerable for urgent matters, e.g. those of executive decisions.

In some cases, consensus decision making may encourage groupthink, a situation in which people modify their opinions to reflect what they believe others want them to think, leading to a situation in which a group makes a decision that none of the members individually think is wise. It can also lead to a few dominant individuals making all decisions. Finally, consensus decision making may fail in a situation where there simply is no agreement possible, and interests are irreconcilable.

Food for thought until my next post: What is your definition of a consensus? What is your definition of regionalism? Feel free to comment on this post, but note the Tulsa Topics commenting policy.