{"title":"Revisiting the Delphi technique - Research thinking and practice: A discussion paper","authors":"Felicity Hasson, Sinead Keeney, Hugh McKenna","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2025.105119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Delphi technique is a research methodology which has traditionally been used to gain consensus among experts on complex issues characterised by uncertainty. Pioneered by the Rand Corporation in the 1950s for military applications, it has since been widely adopted across various fields, including nursing, health and social sciences and information systems on an array of multifaceted real-world issues. However, since its inception, the Delphi technique has undergone substantial methodological development and its use has now gone beyond its initial rationale.</div><div>In the last two decades there has been a growing body of work illustrating an increasing methodological diversity of the method. While such diversity presents possibilities, it also challenges traditional application and methodological rigour. In an attempt to preserve the integrity of the method, generic and discipline specific guidelines have emerged providing general principles and standards.</div><div>The aim of this paper is to present a much-needed critical reflection on the current application of the Delphi technique and its methodological development and to build on our paper from 2001 (Keeney et al., 2001). While the development of the Delphi method and its evolution are well recognised and reported in the literature, some controversies surrounding the approach remain and it is timely to revisit the method with a critical eye.</div><div>Ultimately, the Delphi technique's flexibility is its significant strength, enabling the exploration of novel lines of inquiry, but it also presents a challenge. Striking the right balance between flexibility and rigour can lead to more meaningful insights and actionable outcomes from a Delphi study. Yet to achieve this, some level of consensus may need to be reached on the Delphi technique itself. In recognition of its 60th birthday, it is an opportune time to re-examine its key aspects and methodological advances and reflect on ‘when is a Delphi not a Delphi?’</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50299,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","volume":"168 ","pages":"Article 105119"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748925001282","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Delphi technique is a research methodology which has traditionally been used to gain consensus among experts on complex issues characterised by uncertainty. Pioneered by the Rand Corporation in the 1950s for military applications, it has since been widely adopted across various fields, including nursing, health and social sciences and information systems on an array of multifaceted real-world issues. However, since its inception, the Delphi technique has undergone substantial methodological development and its use has now gone beyond its initial rationale.
In the last two decades there has been a growing body of work illustrating an increasing methodological diversity of the method. While such diversity presents possibilities, it also challenges traditional application and methodological rigour. In an attempt to preserve the integrity of the method, generic and discipline specific guidelines have emerged providing general principles and standards.
The aim of this paper is to present a much-needed critical reflection on the current application of the Delphi technique and its methodological development and to build on our paper from 2001 (Keeney et al., 2001). While the development of the Delphi method and its evolution are well recognised and reported in the literature, some controversies surrounding the approach remain and it is timely to revisit the method with a critical eye.
Ultimately, the Delphi technique's flexibility is its significant strength, enabling the exploration of novel lines of inquiry, but it also presents a challenge. Striking the right balance between flexibility and rigour can lead to more meaningful insights and actionable outcomes from a Delphi study. Yet to achieve this, some level of consensus may need to be reached on the Delphi technique itself. In recognition of its 60th birthday, it is an opportune time to re-examine its key aspects and methodological advances and reflect on ‘when is a Delphi not a Delphi?’
德尔菲技术是一种研究方法,传统上用于在专家之间就具有不确定性的复杂问题达成共识。20世纪50年代,兰德公司(Rand Corporation)率先将其用于军事应用,此后,它被广泛应用于各个领域,包括护理、健康和社会科学,以及处理一系列多方面现实问题的信息系统。然而,自从德尔菲技术开始以来,它在方法论上经历了实质性的发展,现在它的使用已经超出了它最初的基本原理。在过去的二十年中,有越来越多的工作说明了该方法的方法多样性的增加。虽然这种多样性带来了可能性,但它也挑战了传统的应用和方法的严谨性。为了保持该方法的完整性,出现了提供一般原则和标准的通用和特定学科的指导方针。本文的目的是在我们2001年的论文(Keeney et al., 2001)的基础上,对德尔菲技术的当前应用及其方法学发展提出急需的批判性反思。虽然德尔菲法的发展及其演变在文献中得到了很好的认可和报道,但围绕该方法的一些争议仍然存在,因此以批判的眼光重新审视该方法是及时的。最终,德尔菲技术的灵活性是其显著的优势,使探索新的探究线,但它也提出了一个挑战。在灵活性和严谨性之间取得适当的平衡可以从德尔菲研究中获得更有意义的见解和可操作的结果。然而,要实现这一目标,可能需要就德尔菲技术本身达成某种程度的共识。在其60岁生日之际,这是一个重新审视其关键方面和方法进步并反思“德尔福何时不是德尔福”的好时机。”
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS) is a highly respected journal that has been publishing original peer-reviewed articles since 1963. It provides a forum for original research and scholarship about health care delivery, organisation, management, workforce, policy, and research methods relevant to nursing, midwifery, and other health related professions. The journal aims to support evidence informed policy and practice by publishing research, systematic and other scholarly reviews, critical discussion, and commentary of the highest standard. The IJNS is indexed in major databases including PubMed, Medline, Thomson Reuters - Science Citation Index, Scopus, Thomson Reuters - Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, and the BNI (British Nursing Index).