Expert Consensus Methods In The Humanities: An Exploration of their Potential [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
Background Despite the significant role of consensus and dissensus in knowledge production, formal approaches to consensus are notably less common in the humanities compared to their frequent application in natural, social, and life sciences. This article therefore explores the potential of expert c...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
F1000 Research Ltd
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | F1000Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://f1000research.com/articles/13-710/v2 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832591173864128512 |
|---|---|
| author | Lex Bouter Tamarinde Haven Lidwine B. Mokkink Rik Peels Charlotte C.S. Rulkens |
| author_facet | Lex Bouter Tamarinde Haven Lidwine B. Mokkink Rik Peels Charlotte C.S. Rulkens |
| author_sort | Lex Bouter |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background Despite the significant role of consensus and dissensus in knowledge production, formal approaches to consensus are notably less common in the humanities compared to their frequent application in natural, social, and life sciences. This article therefore explores the potential of expert consensus methods in humanities-related research. Methods In order to do so, an interdisciplinary team of both sciences researchers experienced in consensus methods and researchers familiar with the domain of the humanities and epistemology, conducted a literary review and exchanged their expertise in multiple brainstorm sessions. Results This resulted in the identification of six key elements of expert consensus methods. It also provided for an overview of different types of expert consensus methods that regularly used in the natural, social, and life sciences: Delphi studies, nominal groups, consensus conferences, and Glaser’s state of the art method and illustrative examples from both sciences and humanities-related studies. An overview of possible purposes for applying these methods is provided to identify the research contexts in which these methods have proven their value, which can be extrapolated to humanities related issues for which these methods seem promising. Conclusions The comparisons and categorisation show that, when focusing on the purposes, there seem to be humanities-related issues that may lend themselves better to structured expert consensus methods than their subject matter and research methods might suggest. When deliberately applied in context chosen by researchers with expertise in a specific humanities domain, expert consensus methods can accelerate epistemic process, enhance transparency, increase replicability, stimulate diversity, and encourage fair processes in humanities research and the application of its findings. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-85f3c6ad7bed49e49863bde21b6f2bf7 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2046-1402 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | F1000 Research Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | F1000Research |
| spelling | doaj-art-85f3c6ad7bed49e49863bde21b6f2bf72025-01-23T01:00:02ZengF1000 Research LtdF1000Research2046-14022024-12-0113174565Expert Consensus Methods In The Humanities: An Exploration of their Potential [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]Lex Bouter0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2659-5482Tamarinde Haven1Lidwine B. Mokkink2Rik Peels3Charlotte C.S. Rulkens4https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4617-9507Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The NetherlandsDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, North Brabant, The NetherlandsDepartment of Methodology, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsFaculty of Religion and Theology and Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The NetherlandsDepartment of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The NetherlandsBackground Despite the significant role of consensus and dissensus in knowledge production, formal approaches to consensus are notably less common in the humanities compared to their frequent application in natural, social, and life sciences. This article therefore explores the potential of expert consensus methods in humanities-related research. Methods In order to do so, an interdisciplinary team of both sciences researchers experienced in consensus methods and researchers familiar with the domain of the humanities and epistemology, conducted a literary review and exchanged their expertise in multiple brainstorm sessions. Results This resulted in the identification of six key elements of expert consensus methods. It also provided for an overview of different types of expert consensus methods that regularly used in the natural, social, and life sciences: Delphi studies, nominal groups, consensus conferences, and Glaser’s state of the art method and illustrative examples from both sciences and humanities-related studies. An overview of possible purposes for applying these methods is provided to identify the research contexts in which these methods have proven their value, which can be extrapolated to humanities related issues for which these methods seem promising. Conclusions The comparisons and categorisation show that, when focusing on the purposes, there seem to be humanities-related issues that may lend themselves better to structured expert consensus methods than their subject matter and research methods might suggest. When deliberately applied in context chosen by researchers with expertise in a specific humanities domain, expert consensus methods can accelerate epistemic process, enhance transparency, increase replicability, stimulate diversity, and encourage fair processes in humanities research and the application of its findings.https://f1000research.com/articles/13-710/v2Consensus Consensus methods Humanities Methodology Expertise Epistemologyeng |
| spellingShingle | Lex Bouter Tamarinde Haven Lidwine B. Mokkink Rik Peels Charlotte C.S. Rulkens Expert Consensus Methods In The Humanities: An Exploration of their Potential [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] F1000Research Consensus Consensus methods Humanities Methodology Expertise Epistemology eng |
| title | Expert Consensus Methods In The Humanities: An Exploration of their Potential [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] |
| title_full | Expert Consensus Methods In The Humanities: An Exploration of their Potential [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] |
| title_fullStr | Expert Consensus Methods In The Humanities: An Exploration of their Potential [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] |
| title_full_unstemmed | Expert Consensus Methods In The Humanities: An Exploration of their Potential [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] |
| title_short | Expert Consensus Methods In The Humanities: An Exploration of their Potential [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] |
| title_sort | expert consensus methods in the humanities an exploration of their potential version 2 peer review 2 approved 1 approved with reservations |
| topic | Consensus Consensus methods Humanities Methodology Expertise Epistemology eng |
| url | https://f1000research.com/articles/13-710/v2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lexbouter expertconsensusmethodsinthehumanitiesanexplorationoftheirpotentialversion2peerreview2approved1approvedwithreservations AT tamarindehaven expertconsensusmethodsinthehumanitiesanexplorationoftheirpotentialversion2peerreview2approved1approvedwithreservations AT lidwinebmokkink expertconsensusmethodsinthehumanitiesanexplorationoftheirpotentialversion2peerreview2approved1approvedwithreservations AT rikpeels expertconsensusmethodsinthehumanitiesanexplorationoftheirpotentialversion2peerreview2approved1approvedwithreservations AT charlottecsrulkens expertconsensusmethodsinthehumanitiesanexplorationoftheirpotentialversion2peerreview2approved1approvedwithreservations |