Сравнение методов

	Citizens' Jury Method	Policy Delphi
Область	Public Policy	Public Policy
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Год появления	1986	1970
Автор метода	Ned Crosby (Jefferson Center); Peter Dienel developed the parallel Planungszelle	Murray Turoff
Тип	Deliberative mini-public method	Structured, iterative expert-deliberation technique for policy
Основополагающий источник	Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizens panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 46(2), 170–178.	Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 149–171.
Другие названия	Citizens Jury, Citizen Panel, Citizens' Panel	Policy Delphi Technique, Turoff Policy Delphi, Decision Delphi
Связанные	4	3
Сводка	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 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.