Table 8 Strengths and weaknesses of the Delphi method (see also Table 1)
From: Farmers’ futures: an application of the Delphi method in the context of Finnish agriculture
Approaches | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
1. Combining quantitative large panel survey with qualitative interviews | The number of consulted experts increases, meaning the future information base widens Also enables in-depth analysis through targeted interviews | Cost of conducting this kind of combination is quite high Time-consuming to realize and analyze Feedback loop of results between rounds more challenging concerning survey panel |
2. Using laypeople as experts | Possible new insights that might not come up in other expert groups Farmers as real experts in producing food can bring a valuable source of future information Wide consultation with farmers ensures the extensive root level information and future views on agriculture’s future development | The capture of an extensive variety of future views becomes more challenging and calls for an understanding of mixed methods use Knowledge is very subjective, based on people’s own experiences in a limited geographical area There may be a lack of a holistic view of future development in agriculture that could be obtained from other agricultural stakeholders Personal life stories or feelings may prevent different futures being seen |
3. Large survey data do not force a consensus but can hide weak signals | Extensive coverage of future viewpoints Also, when combined with in-depth interviews, alternative future views can be analyzed and understood in detail | The amount of survey data can blur important messages from a single farmer or a small opinion poll of farmers Weak signals or wild cards may not be revealed |
4. Full anonymity was not maintained during the Delphi process (in 2nd interviews, participants knew each other, but not each other’s views) | Ensures that power relations do not show in results Every answer and observation are treated equally, especially in statistical analysis of survey data | In some cases, the reflection from where the future view comes from can be beneficial for informant to evaluate their own viewpoint and arguments for seeing future as they see it |
5. Several clearly defined rounds with varying methods | Ensures the depth of data Analysis and feedback of results for the next round is clearer | If the time between rounds is long, the panelists may be unable to absorb the results from earlier rounds |
6. Using Delphi in alternative scenario construction instead of forecasting | Wide consultation of farmers ensures that the base of information is extensive for scenario construction | The weight of analyzing the most probable future remains weaker The scope of the study may highlight paths that are irrelevant for decision making |
7. Seeking surprising and extreme future views with extensive farmers’ consultation | The mixed methods use (large survey, in-depth interview) ensures that the data base is extensive Enables a rich data analysis from a quantitative and qualitative perspective | The panel of farmers lacks all the relevant knowledge when evaluating the future of agriculture Difficulties rising above the current situation (imagine futures not yet present) |