Jämför metoder
Granska de valda metoderna sida vid sida; rader som skiljer sig är markerade.
| Deliberative Polling× | Nominell Gruppteknik – Strukturerad Metod för Gruppkonsensus× | |
|---|---|---|
| Ämnesområde≠ | Public Policy | Kvalitativa metoder |
| Familj | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Ursprungsår≠ | 1991 | 1971 |
| Upphovsperson≠ | James S. Fishkin | André L. Delbecq and Andrew H. Van de Ven |
| Typ≠ | Deliberative survey method | Qualitative research method |
| Ursprungskälla≠ | Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN: 9780300051636 | 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 ↗ |
| Alias≠ | Deliberative Poll, Deliberative Opinion Poll, Fishkin Deliberative Polling | NGT, structured group process, nominal group process, priority-setting group method |
| Närliggande≠ | 4 | 6 |
| Sammanfattning≠ | 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 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. |
| ScholarGateDatamängd ↗ |
|
|