Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision-making
Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision-making
复制标题
决策中征求意见和判断的技术比较
DOI：
10.1111/2041-210x.12940
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
6.6
通讯作者：
Mukherjee N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mukherjee N
决策是一个复杂的过程，通常包括一系列阶段：识别问题、考虑可能的选择、做出判断，然后结合信息和价值观做出决策。目前的现状严重依赖决策的信息方面，很少或根本不强调影响决策的价值立场。人们越来越认识到在每个阶段采用严格方法的重要性，以便系统地、可重复地使用利益相关者和专家的信息、观点和判断。尽管有几本方法论教科书讨论了大量的社会科学技术，但很难判断任何特定技术是否适合特定的决策问题。 在决策中，三个关键方面是要做出“什么”决策、“谁”做出决策以及“如何”做出决策。本文涵盖的方法重点关注“如何”做出决策。我们比较了六种技术：焦点小组讨论（FGD）、访谈、Q 方法、多标准决策分析（MCDA）、名义小组技术和德尔菲技术，特别是在生物多样性保护的背景下。所有这些技术（MCDA 除外）都有助于理解人类价值观和影响决策的基本观点。基于对涵盖所有六种方法的 423 篇论文的结构化评论，我们比较了这些方法的概念和逻辑特征，并绘制了它们对决策过程不同阶段的适用性。虽然访谈和 FGD 众所周知，但名义组技术和 Q 方法等技术的使用相对较少。在冲突严重的情况下，我们建议使用 Q 方法和 Delphi 技术来引发判断。在冲突较少且迫切需要达成共识的情况下，名义组技术可能更合适。我们针对用户提出了细致入微的方法综合。不同技术的比较可能对项目经理、学者或从业者在项目的规划阶段有用，并有助于做出更明智的方法选择。
Decision‐making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining information and values. The current status quo relies heavily on the informational aspect of decision‐making with little or no emphasis on the value positions that affect decisions.There is increasing realization of the importance of adopting rigorous methods for each stage such that the information, views and judgements of stakeholders and experts are used in a systematic and repeatable manner. Though there are several methodological textbooks which discuss a plethora of social science techniques, it is hard to judge the suitability of any given technique for a given decision problem.In decision‐making, the three critical aspects are “what” decision is to be made, “who” makes the decisions and “how” the decisions are made. The methods covered in this paper focus on “how” decisions can be made. We compare six techniques: Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Interviews, Q methodology, Multi‐criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi technique specifically in the context of biodiversity conservation. All of these techniques (with the exception of MCDA) help in understanding human values and the underlying perspectives which shape decisions.Based on structured reviews of 423 papers covering all six methods, we compare the conceptual and logistical characteristics of the methods, and map their suitability for the different stages of the decision‐making process. While interviews and FGD are well‐known, techniques such the Nominal Group technique and Q methodology are relatively under‐used. In situations where conflict is high, we recommend using the Q methodology and Delphi technique to elicit judgements. Where conflict is low, and a consensus is needed urgently, the Nominal Group technique may be more suitable.We present a nuanced synthesis of methods aimed at users. The comparison of the different techniques might be useful for project managers, academics or practitioners in the planning phases of their projects and help in making better informed methodological choices.