Methoden vergleichen
Prüfen Sie die ausgewählten Methoden nebeneinander; abweichende Zeilen sind hervorgehoben.
| Deliberative Polling× | Policy Delphi× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fachgebiet | Public Policy | Public Policy |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Entstehungsjahr≠ | 1991 | 1970 |
| Urheber≠ | James S. Fishkin | Murray Turoff |
| Typ≠ | Deliberative survey method | Structured, iterative expert-deliberation technique for policy |
| Wegweisende Quelle≠ | Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN: 9780300051636 | Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 149–171. DOI ↗ |
| Aliasnamen | Deliberative Poll, Deliberative Opinion Poll, Fishkin Deliberative Polling | Policy Delphi Technique, Turoff Policy Delphi, Decision Delphi |
| Verwandt≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Zusammenfassung≠ | Deliberative Polling is a method, devised by James Fishkin, that combines the representativeness of a scientific opinion survey with the informed reflection of deliberation. A large, random and representative sample of citizens is first polled on an issue, then gathered to deliberate over balanced materials and dialogue with experts and one another, and finally polled again. The change between the before and after surveys reveals what the public would think about an issue if it were genuinely informed and had the opportunity to consider it — Fishkin's idea of 'counterfactual' or considered public opinion. | The policy Delphi is a structured, iterative technique for eliciting and organising informed opinion on contested policy issues. Unlike the classical Delphi, which seeks consensus on a forecast, the policy Delphi is explicitly designed to generate the strongest possible opposing positions on a policy question and to expose the full range of options, supporting arguments and disagreements among a panel of knowledgeable stakeholders. Introduced by Murray Turoff in 1970, it conducts several anonymous rounds in which participants rate policy statements on dimensions such as desirability and feasibility, see aggregated feedback and the reasoning behind divergent views, and revise their positions — surfacing structured intelligence for decision-makers rather than a forced agreement. |
| ScholarGateDatensatz ↗ |
|
|