The role of knowledge codification in the emergence of consensus under uncertainty: empirical analysis and policy implications
Introduction
The increasing complexity of the relations between technologies and economic problems combined with social pressure implies that governments are compelled to make choices, especially under radical uncertainty (non-stochastic uncertainty). Most of the time, these choices concern science and technology policy, which originate in increasing environmental, economic and social problems (Grupp and Linstone, 1999). In this context, experts are increasingly requested to bring knowledge and/or scientific legitimacy (Weil, 1998). In order both to bring some responses to socio-economic problems and to reduce the potential responsibility of governmental decisions, the policy-maker encourages the emergence of a consensus among experts.
Foresight approaches are a method which makes it possible to choose and to understand the role, the nature and the impact of science and technology policy portfolio and also to obtain a consensus among experts.1 Nevertheless, radical uncertainty linked with the hypothesis of bounded rationality (Simon, 1982) implies that the actions of social systems cannot be predicted in terms of natural laws, and that future events cannot be determined by extrapolation, but are shaped by communities. In this way, traditional methods of forecasting using probabilistic predictions based on today’s knowledge base seem not to be relevant and, therefore, qualitative analyses is preferred.
The Delphi method appears as the favoured tool of modern foresight in many countries. One important characteristic of this method (in comparison with the other methods using expert groups) is that it is necessary to codify knowledge about the future in order to transmit it among experts. One first basic principle used in Delphi is that experts judgmental predictions should be made independently because of evidence that group pressures can spoil accuracy (Armstrong, 1999). Therefore, by providing the individual group members with the opportunity to express their opinions and judgements privately through the use of anonymous questionnaires, social pressure from dominant or dogmatic individuals should be avoided. A second basic principle of the Delphi method is that it is a method for structuring a group communication problem, which makes it possible to exhibit consensus or dissent about technological, economic or social subjects. In order to reach this consensus, iteration and feedback procedures are used and experts can revise their judgements by means of successive iterations of a given questionnaire with additional information such as the median value of the opinions of their anonymous colleagues. Generally, this method seems to be a better procedure for obtaining accurate judgements than standard interacting groups (Ayton et al., 1999) and moreover, this method provides the possibility to obtain a consensus. The interest of such an investigation is to provide also a ground of observation of mimetic behaviours insofar as two rounds characterise the Delphi inquiry. At the second round, experts can either converge on the general opinion (expressed by the median of the answers concerning the date of realisation of innovation), that emerges from the first round, or stick to and consolidate their initial position that differs from the consensus.
The aim of our article is to empirically analyse the main factors which allow the emergence of consensus. Moreover, we raise the question of the nature of the codified process involved which seems to be too reducing to promote knowledge flows within the community and, therefore, to contribute to learning processes and better choices about the future. Our analysis relies on a prospective investigation based on a Delphi type study carried out by BETA during the year 1994 (BETA, 1995). The object was to collect the opinions of experts of the public and private sectors on the evolutions of technology and its possible rupture in the next 30 years.
In the questionnaire, the experts answer a series of questions for every item belonging to the general theme of their expertise. Each expert has various levels of knowledge following the items, and one of the questions consists precisely in this self-evaluation (some “experts” are more “competent” for a given item). Other questions may concern the importance, the difficulty, the timing, etc. of the subject, if items are about potential innovations. The investigation is divided into 15 fields: materials, electronics, life sciences, elementary particles, marine science, raw materials, energies, environment, agriculture, manufacturing activities, town planning, communication, space, transport and medicine.
The assumption that we formulate is that the (self-declared) knowledge of the experts is the most important explanatory factor in order to understand mimetic behaviour and also the emergence of consensus. More precisely, we make the assumption that experts with a limited knowledge of a given subject are more inclined to concur in the general opinion while adopting a rational mimesis behaviour. To validate this assumption, we propose first a descriptive statistical analysis of the sample and secondly, we test an econometric model in which several explanatory variables (including knowledge) are also analysed. They are variables expressing the nature of the expert such as his/her age (reflecting the experience of the individual), his/her institutional membership (company or public organisation) and his/her membership or not of an R&D department. In order to apprehend the nature of the consensus, we also propose a conceptual analysis clarifying the importance of knowledge in the experts judgement.
In a first part, we present the conceptual framework of our empirical analysis. We present in a second part an interpretation of the results, descriptive statistical results and those derived from the econometric analysis. In the last part, we present some policy implications according to our results.
Section snippets
Conceptual framework
First, we analyse the importance of knowledge in the definition of an expert and the role of the codification process of knowledge in the emergence of consensus. Secondly, we explore factors (contextual and external factors and also individual features) characterising the role of experts and the consequence in terms of emergence (or not) of a consensus according to a mimetic behaviour.
Database and methodology of Delphi
The Delphi database is the outcome of an investigation performed during the years 1994–1995 in France, under the auspices of the Ministry of Higher Education (MHE). This project was led by the opinion poll company SOFRES for the material implementation and by the university laboratory BETA for the exploitation and the interpretation of the data.
The choice of the sample of experts was done in collaboration between the MHE, the SOFRES and BETA. The “Télélab” file of the MHE for the public domain
Empirical analysis
We shall present successively a statistical and an econometric analysis. The first one gives some elements concerning the emergence of consensus and the fact that knowledge appears as a determinant factor. The econometric analysis based on a Logit model allows us to identify the impact of other key factors.
Conclusion and policy recommendations
First, our analysis underlines the role of knowledge in the emergence of a consensus around the median of the dates of realisation of the innovation, which we interpret as the result of a rational mimesis leading to the consensus. Indeed, the expert in situations of radical uncertainty reacts differently to public information according to his degree of self-declared knowledge of the subjects. He will concur more in the general opinion if he thinks he has a limited knowledge of the subjects.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully thank the TIPIK team and in particular Patrick Cohendet and Frieder Meyer-Krahmer for their remarks and suggestions; they are obviously alone liable for mistakes or omissions. The authors also gratefully acknowledge Monique Flasaquier for her corrections.
References (58)
- et al.
Commentaries on the Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis by Rowe and Wright
International Journal of Forecasting
(1999) Participants response to the Delphi method: an attitudinal perspective
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(1984)- et al.
Current foresight activities in central Europe
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(1999) - et al.
Assessing the quality of expert judgement: issues and analysis
Decision Support Systems
(1994) - et al.
An integration of process and decision scheme explanations of group problem solving performance
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1988) - et al.
National technology foresight activities around the globe resurrection and new paradigm
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(1999) - et al.
Taking advice: accepting help, improving judgement, and sharing responsibilities
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1997) Facing uncertainty in the game of bridge: a calibration study
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1987)- et al.
Effects of task experience and group experience on group performances, member ability and recognition of expertise
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1997) - et al.
Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system experiences in Britain, Austria, and New Zealand
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(1999)
Improving the quality of group judgement: social judgement analysis and Delphi technique
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis
International Journal of Forecasting
Contextual influences on judgment based on limited information
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Cueing and cognitive conflict in judge-advisor decision making
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: toward a social contingency-model
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
The role and validity of judgement in forecasting
International Journal of Forecasting
Introduction to paper and commentaries on the delphi technique
International Journal of Forecasting
The economics of rumours
Review of Economics Studies
An experiment in Delphi estimation in marketing decision making
Journal of Marketing Research
Epistemic properties of beliefs hierarchies
Journal of Mathematical Economics
Expertise and air time as basis of actual and perceived influence in problem solving group
Journal of Applied Psychology
Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment
Journal of Personality and Social psychology
Opening up foresight processes, economie, economie and société
Série Dynamique Technologique et Organisation
An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts
Management Science
An availability bias in professional judgment
Journal of Behavioral Decision making
Cited by (33)
Exploring the link between free and open source software and the collaborative economy: A Delphi-based scenario for the year 2025
2021, Technological Forecasting and Social ChangeOvercoming multi-stakeholder fragmented narratives in land use, woodland and forestry policy: The role scenario planning and ‘dissociative jolts’
2021, Technological Forecasting and Social ChangeCitation Excerpt :In this regard, there are recent calls for new approaches and innovative interfaces to develop policy (Volkery and Riberio, 2009; Soderberg, 2016). There have also been calls to include multiple perspectives and greater stakeholder participation in the policy development process (Munier and Ronde, 2001; Couclelis, 2005; Renn, 2006; Wyborn, 2015; Riley, 2016). Broad challenges to achieving effective multi-stakeholder involvement in policy development include differing stakeholder priorities, the rhetoric of policy perceived as disconnected from practice, differing views of uncertainty and confusion across stakeholder narratives and language (Yang and Callahan, 2007; Jaegersberg and Ure, 2011; Delgado-Ceballos et al., 2012).
Conceptual definition of technology emergence: A long journey from philosophy of science to science policy
2019, Technology in SocietyIntegrated quality and supply chain management business diagnostics for organizational sustainability improvement
2019, Sustainable Production and ConsumptionCitation Excerpt :Delphi studies are particularly encouraged for future empirical research, which is an appropriate method for verification and improvement of novel theory and concepts (Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2013; McMillan et al., 2016), that has been successfully adopted to date in various disciplines such as systems management (Brancheau et al., 1996), international business (Griffith et al., 2008) and innovation management (Munier and Rondé, 2001), in particular where there are no other comparable sources in the area of novel development (Linstone and Turoff, 1975).
The future of omnichannel retail: A four-stage Delphi study
2018, Technological Forecasting and Social ChangeScenario development in transport studies: Methodological considerations and reflections on delphi studies
2018, FuturesCitation Excerpt :Studies of complex problems including by experts from different locations with different expertise can result in disagreements and opposing views on the problems (Linstone & Turoff, 2011; Steinert, 2009; Turoff, Bañuls, Plotnick, Hiltz, & de la Huerga, 2016; Turoff, 1975a). Munier and Ronde (2001) point out that experts tend to be influenced less than others and thus stick to their predictions. Hence, consensus may be difficult to reach within a group of experts.