The Delphi method is sometimes considered to be more of an “art rather than a science” (Linstone & Turoff, 1975, p. 3). Linstone & Turoff (1975) defined the
Delphi method as a composition of a group communication process that allows the group of individuals to deliver their effective thoughts and views in dealing with a complex problem. The Delphi approach is the platform to seek for comparability and also to receive views and consensus concerning certain issues (Baretta, 1996; Green, Jones, Hughes, & Williams, 1999). The Delphi approach provides the opportunity for a group of experts to gain a better understanding of the issues discussed (Watson, 2008).
There are two common processes of the Delphi method: conventional and real- time (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). The Conventional Delphi method is where the moderator designs a questionnaire to send to a larger group of participants. The returned questionnaire will be analysed and a new questionnaire is developed
138
based on the previous results. The participants were given at least one opportunity to re-evaluate their original answers based on results of the previous round.
A real-time Delphi method is also known as a ‘Delphi conference’, where it replaces the moderator with a computerized program. Participants communicate through the Internet to respond to questionnaires via the website. The responses are saved in the database on the server. A Delphi conference uses a real-time communication system and is able to eliminate any delay caused in summarizing the result. The selection and approach of the expert panel is also important to maintain the level of participation of continuing participation (Watson, 2008).
Loo (2002) listed five major characteristics of Delphi methods:
The sample of participants consists of ‘experts’ that are carefully selected to represent a broad spectrum of opinion and views based on the discussion topic.
The identity of the participants is usually kept anonymous.
The moderator of the discussion develops a series of structured discussion questions and feedback reports for the expert panel in ongoing discussion.
It often involves three or four modifications or ‘rounds’ of discussion questions and feedback reports.
139
The output from the discussion will be in the form of Delphi’s research report, the forecast, policy and the options of the discussion topic that include the strengths, weaknesses, recommendations and action plans.
There are several advantages of implementing the Delphi method in the research, such as:
the views and thoughts are based on the individual’s perspective,
the identity of participants are anonymous and independent,
participants are not influenced by group pressure,
interpersonal conflict and communication problems are minimized,
no central location is required, thus minimizing the travelling cost and coordination problems to get everyone in the same place at the same time,
allowing the moderator to generate earlier results through the use of successive rounds in a Delphi (Loo, 2002).
Apart from the Delphi method, expert judgment could also be considered as one of the research methods for qualitative studies. Expert judgment is an informed assessment based on the expert’s experience and knowledge concerning the
certain quantity or quality of interest (Daneshkhah, 2004). The author referred to the term of ‘judgment’ as the process in gathering and forming opinions. Several
140
publications, position and awards. Expert judgment is applicable and appropriate to be applied when (Daneshkhah, 2004):
the data are limited and difficult to obtain, and higher costs will be involved,
unknown data models and data are open for different interpretation and feedback,
data problems are screened and the researcher should bring to the attention of the experts which problems or issues to look at for further discussion with different points of view.
Considering the above characteristics, a modified Delphi approach with expert judgment is applied in Phase One, as it involved a group discussion with experts, who provided their knowledge on the particular topic. In this study, the researcher assumed the role of moderator, assisted by an online discussion forum where participants (an expert panel) were asked to respond to the discussion topics as posted on the online discussion page. The responses and feedback from participants were saved in the database on the server. The differences within a typical ‘real time’ Delphi approach used in face-to-face sessions and the ‘modified’ approach was that traditional Delphi studies often involve multiple
iterations of ongoing discussion and feedback until consensus is achieved. The modified Delphi approach employed in this study applied a separate iteration for each aspect of the framework. Each iteration lasted for a week, allowing
141
participants to respond more than once and to consider the inputs of other participants. This approach allowed participants to develop consensus during the iteration, as well as to refer back to earlier iterations in subsequent weeks.
For this study, nine experts from different areas of expertise were involved in the online discussion. The online forum was conducted over five weeks. Each of the discussion topics that related to the initial conceptual framework were posted in a particular week. Experts were invited to provide their feedback and comments towards the discussion topics. In the final week of discussion, the researcher had gathered all the feedback received from experts and refined the initial conceptual framework. The final result (a revised conceptual framework) was sent to experts for review. Any additional feedback or comments from experts towards a revised version of the initial conceptual framework were welcomed.
The difference between the typical Delphi approach and the modified Delphi approach in this Phase One is that the latter does not necessarily attempt to conduct multiple rounds of data collection.