A Delphi Experiment 



■ Various aspects of the scientific-tech- 

 nological enterprise and external conditions that 

 influence its capabilities and performance are 

 not amenable to purely quantitative treatment. 

 Some of these were explored through a public 

 opinion survey, the results of v^^hich are 

 summarized in the following section of this 

 report. Others involve considerations of a pre- 

 dominately scientific or technical nature. Several 

 of the latter aspects and conditions were investi- 

 gated on an experimental basis, using a Delphi 

 technique to solicit and synthesize the judg- 

 ments and opinions of a cross section of the 

 scientific and technological community. The 

 study was carried out over the period of July- 

 August 1972. 



The topics explored in this experimental effort 

 were: 



Panel 1 — The future role of science and tech- 

 nology in areas of high public concern; 



Panel 2— Impacts of recent R&D funding 

 changes on science and technology; 



Panel 3 — Technologial innovation including 

 current impediments and measures for 

 enhancement; 



Panel 4 — Basic research including criteria for 

 support and means for improving its 

 effectiveness; 



Panel 5 — Allocation of financial resources 

 among fields of scientific research; and 



Panel o — Future directions for graduate educa- 

 tion in science and engineering. 



Participants in the Delphi exercise, who are 

 listed in Appendix B, were selected for their 

 extensive experience and knowledge in science 

 and technology and the interaction of the two 

 with society. Panels, ranging in size from 10 to 

 42, were composed of participants encompassing 

 the disciplines, experience, and institutions rele- 

 vant to the specific topics. Panelists represented 

 a broad spectrum of disciplines (physical, life, 

 and social sciences and engineering); experience 

 (management, research, teaching); and institu- 

 tions (colleges and universities, foundations, 

 government, and industry). 



The Delphi technique used in this experiment 

 solicited the judgments of the participants 



through a relatively structured set of questions 

 organized into two rounds. In responding to the 

 first round of questions each participant was 

 invited to suggest additional aspects and ques- 

 tions either to attain greater detail or to expand 

 the scope of the topic. The second round incor- 

 porated these suggestions, provided feedback to 

 each participant of both his first-round 

 responses and those of the panel as a whole, and 

 extended the questions. Participants in the 

 second round responded again to the first-round 

 questions — altering their initial responses if de- 

 sired, in light of the group responses and sugges- 

 tions — as well as to the questions added between 

 rounds one and two. The second-round 

 responses to panels reported hereafter are 

 aggregates of the individual responses, with 

 each participant contributing equally to the 

 collective judgment. 



The Delphi methodology used in this 

 experiment had both merits and shortcomings 

 for the purposes of this effort. On the positive 

 side, it proved to be a relatively efficient means 

 for obtaining the collective judgment of a large 

 number of respcindents, under conditions which 

 encouraged the expression of individual view- 

 points free from the pressures of face-to-face 

 encounters. As used here, however, the tech- 

 nique had some serious weaknesses: the size of 

 some of the panels may have been too small to 

 represent the variety of viewpoints associated 

 with some topics; and the controlled and limited 

 nature of the inquiry may have resulted in 

 misinterpretation of certain questions, as well as 

 difficulties in responding to them. Posing 

 questions about inherently complex and subtle 

 issues in the most appropriate way was often the 

 most difficult, and least successful, aspect of the 

 experiment. 



Finally, it should be noted that panelists 

 responded to three different kinds of questions: 

 questions soliciting cause or effect interprdntions: 

 questions soliciting preiiictiom; and questions 

 soliciting reiommendations about possible future 

 policies. Although expert judgment is involved 

 in each case, interpretations and predictions 

 differ from recommendations in that the latter 

 involve normative considerations to a greater 

 extent. Furthermore, in the absence of com- 

 parable previous studies the results should be 



84 



