The Delphi: An Underutilized Method of Scholarly and Practical Research for a Public Relations Field in Transition

This paper introduces, analyzes, and explains the Delphi method of research, particularly as it applies to certain aspects of the public relations industry. The Delphi technique became known some fifty years ago when the Rand Corporation used it extensively for forecasting. Since then, scholars and forecasters have used it periodically for early, qualitative explorations into complex issues or domains. The overall purpose of the Delphi is to facilitate formal discussion among selected experts in a given domain around a particular topic; it is particularly useful when those experts cannot easily come together in one place. The method encourages the sharing of diverging worldviews over a few “rounds” or iterations in the hope that the views may converge into some direction around the given topic. For this reason, the Delphi has often been used in situations or environments that tend to be somewhat ambiguous and where interviews and surveys are neither timely nor appropriate. Public relations scholars started incorporating the Delphi method into their research in the late 1980s, and the technique has since been employed to explore broad-ranging issues among experts on at least seven or eight occasions. It has also been used to explore ethical norms. However, public relations literature contains little discussion about the technique and its possible applications or implications for developing knowledge in the field. This paper, then, is intended to dissect the Delphi method so as to offer guidance to public relations scholars who may wish to use it in future studies. The authors, both of whom have conducted Delphi studies, believe that the method is valuable in examining topics that are emerging or underdeveloped in the field; however, certain precautions are necessary in order to ensure that the research achieves the desired effects. The paper is created through a literature review of similar articles on Delphi studies in other domains, notably health communications, followed by an examination of some studies conducted to advance issues in public relations. The authors explore the most appropriate situations for using a Delphi and list the benefits and disbenefits of different aspects or applications of the method. They trace the evolution of Delphi research from its early roots into the era of the Internet and social media, which offer new tools for increasing the number of respondents and moving through the Delphi process more quickly than could previously be done. In advancing such an examination of the Delphi, this paper should be a useful addition to emerging public relations literature

Standardised method for reporting exercise programmes : protocol for a modified Delphi study

Introduction Exercise is integral to health across the lifespan and important for people with chronic health conditions. A systematic review of exercise trials for chronic conditions reported suboptimal descriptions of the evaluated interventions and concluded that this hinders interpretation and replication. The aim of this project is to develop a standardised method for reporting essential exercise programme details being evaluated in clinical trials. Methods and analysis A modified Delphi technique will be used to gain consensus among international exercise experts. We will use three sequential rounds of anonymous online questionnaires to refine a standardised checklist. A draft checklist of potentially relevant items was developed based on the results of a systematic review of exercise systematic reviews. An international panel of experts was identified by exercise systematic review authorship, established international profile in exercise research and practice and by peer referral. In round 1, the international panel of experts will be asked to rate the importance of each draft item and provide additional suggestions for revisions or new items. Consensus will be considered reached if at least 70% of the panel strongly agree/disagree that an item should be included or excluded. Where agreement is not reached or there are suggestions for altered or new items, these will be taken to round 2 together with an aggregated summary of round 1 responses. Following the second round, a ranking of item importance will be made to rationalise the number of items. The final template will be distributed to panel members for approval. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was received from The Cabrini Institute Ethics Committee, Melbourne, Australia (HREC 02-07-04-14). We plan to use a stepwise process to develop and refine a standardised and internationally agreed template for explicit reporting of exercise programmes. The template will be generalisable across all types of exercise interventions. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations

Is the Delphi method valid for business ethics? A survey analysis

Although Delphi has come a long way in the development of the method itself, or even in business organisation, it has not been used at all in business ethics. To fill this gap, we have reviewed the literature on the use of Delphi in business, and particularly in the field of business ethics; we have also evidenced the method’s lack of use in this field, but noted its potential contribution to this research stream. An online survey has been administered to scholars in business ethics that have previously participated in a Delphi survey. The scholars come from nine different countries, and the survey has been held between January 2015 and March-June 2016. The findings show that in the experts’ opinion Delphi is as rigorous, appropriate and useful as any other research method in the field of business ethics, such as focus group, interviews, surveys (online) and case analysis. The Delphi method is assessed anonymously and economically by a group of experts dispersed around the world. Moreover, applying the Delphi method in business ethics could enrich the consensus on limiting the fuzzy area in which ethical business decisions (ethical decision-making) are argued and determined. It is a way of facilitating the search for a solution to the ethical dilemmas delimiting a problem, which is a further advantage of the Delphi technique

The development of QUADAS : a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: In the era of evidence based medicine, with systematic reviews as its cornerstone, adequate quality assessment tools should be available. There is currently a lack of a systematically developed and evaluated tool for the assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. The aim of this project was to combine empirical evidence and expert opinion in a formal consensus method to develop a tool to be used in systematic reviews to assess the quality of primary studies of diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi procedure to develop the quality assessment tool by refining an initial list of items. Members of the Delphi panel were experts in the area of diagnostic research. The results of three previously conducted reviews of the diagnostic literature were used to generate a list of potential items for inclusion in the tool and to provide an evidence base upon which to develop the tool. RESULTS: A total of nine experts in the field of diagnostics took part in the Delphi procedure. The Delphi procedure consisted of four rounds, after which agreement was reached on the items to be included in the tool which we have called QUADAS. The initial list of 28 items was reduced to fourteen items in the final tool. Items included covered patient spectrum, reference standard, disease progression bias, verification bias, review bias, clinical review bias, incorporation bias, test execution, study withdrawals, and indeterminate results. The QUADAS tool is presented together with guidelines for scoring each of the items included in the tool. CONCLUSIONS: This project has produced an evidence based quality assessment tool to be used in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. Further work to determine the usability and validity of the tool continue

A Delphi survey to determine how educational interventions for evidence-based practice should be reported:Stage 2 of the development of a reporting guideline

BACKGROUND: Undertaking a Delphi exercise is recommended during the second stage in the development process for a reporting guideline. To continue the development for the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) a Delphi survey was undertaken to determine the consensus opinion of researchers, journal editors and educators in evidence-based practice (EBP) regarding the information items that should be reported when describing an educational intervention for EBP. METHODS: A four round online Delphi survey was conducted from October 2012 to March 2013. The Delphi panel comprised international researchers, educators and journal editors in EBP. Commencing with an open-ended question, participants were invited to volunteer information considered important when reporting educational interventions for EBP. Over three subsequent rounds participants were invited to rate the importance of each of the Delphi items using an 11 point Likert rating scale (low 0 to 4, moderate 5 to 6, high 7 to 8 and very high >8). Consensus agreement was set a priori as at least 80 per cent participant agreement. Consensus agreement was initially calculated within the four categories of importance (low to very high), prior to these four categories being merged into two (<7 and ≥7). Descriptive statistics for each item were computed including the mean Likert scores, standard deviation (SD), range and median participant scores. Mean absolute deviation from the median (MAD-M) was also calculated as a measure of participant disagreement. RESULTS: Thirty-six experts agreed to participate and 27 (79%) participants completed all four rounds. A total of 76 information items were generated across the four survey rounds. Thirty-nine items (51%) were specific to describing the intervention (as opposed to other elements of study design) and consensus agreement was achieved for two of these items (5%). When the four rating categories were merged into two (<7 and ≥7), 18 intervention items achieved consensus agreement. CONCLUSION: This Delphi survey has identified 39 items for describing an educational intervention for EBP. These Delphi intervention items will provide the groundwork for the subsequent consensus discussion to determine the final inclusion of items in the GREET, the first reporting guideline for educational interventions in EBP

Citizen participation and awareness raising in coastal protected areas. A case study from Italy

In this chapter, part of the research carried out within the SECOA project (www.projectsecoa.eu) is presented. Attention is devoted to methods and tools used for supporting the participatory process in a case of environmental conflict related to the definition of boundaries of a coastal protected area: the Costa Teatina National Park, in Abruzzo, central Italy. The Costa Teatina National Park was established by the National Law 93/2001. Its territory includes eight southern Abruzzo municipalities and covers a stretch of coastline of approximately 60 km. It is a coastal protected area, which incorporates land but not sea, characterized by the presence of important cultural and natural assets. The Italian Ministry of Environment (1998) defines the area as “winding and varied, with the alternation of sandy and gravel beaches, cliffs, river mouths, areas rich in indigenous vegetation and cultivated lands (mainly olives), dunes and forest trees”. The park boundaries were not defined by the law that set it up, and their determination has been postponed to a later stage of territorial negotiation that has not ended yet (Montanari and Staniscia, 2013). The definition of the park boundaries, indeed, has resulted in an intense debate between citizens and interest groups who believe that environmental protection does not conflict with economic growth and those who believe the opposite. That is why the process is still in act and a solution is far from being reached. In this chapter, the methodology and the tools used to involve the general public in active participation in decision making and to support institutional players in conflict mitigation will be presented. Those tools have also proven to be effective in the dissemination of information and transfer of knowledge. Results obtained through the use of each instrument will not be presented here since this falls outside the purpose of the present essay. The chapter is organized as follows: in the first section the importance of the theme of citizen participation in decision making will be highlighted; the focus will be on participation in the processes of ICZM, relevant to the management of coastal protected areas. In the second section a review of the most commonly used methods in social research is presented; advantages and disadvantages of each of them will be highlighted. In particular, the history and the evolution of the Delphi method and its derivatives are discussed; focus will be on the dissemination value of the logic underlying such iterative methods. In the third section the tools used in the case of the Costa Teatina National Park will be presented; strengths and weaknesses will be highlighted and proposals for their improvement will be advanced. Discussion and conclusions follow

Experimental Status of Semileptonic B Decays - Recent Results from LEP and Comparisons with Y(4S) Experiments

Recent analyses of the LEP and Y(4S) data have better outlined the picture of semileptonic B decays. Results on inclusive and exclusive decay branching fractions and on the extraction of the Vub and Vcb elements of the CKM mixing matrix are discussed, together with some of the still open questions and the sources of model systematics.Comment: 10 pages, 8 figures, to appear in the Proc. of the QCD00 Euroconference, Montpellier (France), July 200