Methoden vergleichen
Prüfen Sie die ausgewählten Methoden nebeneinander; abweichende Zeilen sind hervorgehoben.
| Citizens' Jury Method× | Nominal Group Technique× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fachgebiet≠ | Public Policy | Qualitativ |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Entstehungsjahr≠ | 1986 | 1971 |
| Urheber≠ | Ned Crosby (Jefferson Center); Peter Dienel developed the parallel Planungszelle | André L. Delbecq and Andrew H. Van de Ven |
| Typ≠ | Deliberative mini-public method | Qualitative research method |
| Wegweisende Quelle≠ | Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizens panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 46(2), 170–178. DOI ↗ | Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for problem identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), 466–492. link ↗ |
| Aliasnamen≠ | Citizens Jury, Citizen Panel, Citizens' Panel | NGT, structured group process, nominal group process, priority-setting group method |
| Verwandt≠ | 4 | 6 |
| Zusammenfassung≠ | A citizens' jury is a deliberative method that convenes a small, demographically representative panel of randomly selected citizens to consider a policy question in depth and produce reasoned recommendations. Modelled loosely on the trial jury, it gives ordinary people time, balanced information, expert witnesses and skilled facilitation so they can deliberate and reach a considered judgement on behalf of the wider public. Developed in the United States by Ned Crosby and his Jefferson Center, with a parallel German tradition (the Planungszelle) created by Peter Dienel, it is a leading form of deliberative 'mini-public'. | The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is a structured group facilitation method designed to generate and prioritise ideas, problems, or solutions while ensuring equal participation from all members. Developed by Delbecq and Van de Ven in 1971, it combines silent individual idea generation with structured group discussion and systematic voting to produce a ranked list of priorities. Unlike unstructured focus groups, NGT prevents dominant voices from suppressing quieter participants, making it especially valuable for needs assessment, program planning, and stakeholder priority-setting in applied research and policy contexts. |
| ScholarGateDatensatz ↗ |
|
|