Jämför metoder
Granska de valda metoderna sida vid sida; rader som skiljer sig är markerade.
| Multi-source Delphi-tekniken× | Nominell Gruppteknik – Strukturerad Metod för Gruppkonsensus× | |
|---|---|---|
| Ämnesområde≠ | Surveymetodik | Kvalitativa metoder |
| Familj | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Ursprungsår≠ | 1975–2000s | 1971 |
| Upphovsperson≠ | Extension of the classic Delphi method; multi-source framing attributed to diverse practitioners building on Linstone & Turoff (1975) | André L. Delbecq and Andrew H. Van de Ven |
| Typ≠ | Structured consensus-building technique | Qualitative research method |
| Ursprungskälla≠ | Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley. link ↗ | 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 | Multi-stakeholder Delphi, Diverse-panel Delphi, Multi-group Delphi, MSDT | NGT, structured group process, nominal group process, priority-setting group method |
| Närliggande≠ | 3 | 6 |
| Sammanfattning≠ | The Multi-source Delphi Technique is a structured, iterative consensus-building method that deliberately recruits expert panellists from multiple, distinct stakeholder groups or knowledge sources. By ensuring that no single professional community or institution dominates the panel, it reduces homogeneity bias and captures a broader range of perspectives than a conventional single-group Delphi. Panellists respond anonymously across successive rounds, receiving aggregated group feedback between rounds until consensus or a stable level of agreement is reached. | 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 ↗ |
|
|