Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the Pedagogic Delphi, a modification of the Policy Delphi. The paper begins with brief descriptions of the conventional Delphi technique and two early modifications, the Real-time Delphi and Policy Delphi. Next, applications and uses of Delphi techniques in a variety of areas are examined. The paper concludes with an explanation of the Pedagogic Delphi and a description of its pilot application in an Introductory Global Studies course.

The Conventional Delphi Technique

The Delphi technique was developed at the Rand Corporation following World War II as a method of forecasting social and technological events (Kaplan et al., 1949). Instead of attempting to achieve estimates through face-to-face discussion, the Delphi process replaced committee meetings and confrontation with "a carefully designed program of sequential individual interrogations (best conducted by questionnaires) interspersed with information and opinion feedback derived by computed consensus from the earlier parts of the program" (Helmer & Rescher, 1960, p. 33).

Linstone and Turoff (1975, p. 5) denote this method as the Conventional Delphi. In common practice, a Conventional Delphi is conducted by a small monitor team that designs a questionnaire and mails it to a larger geographically-isolated group. The team compiles the results and constructs a second questionnaire based on the results. It is mailed to the larger group, which usually has at least one opportunity to re-evaluate its original answers based on feedback of the group response.

As observed by Delbecq et al. (1975, pp. 34-35), because Delphi participants are isolated and anonymous, several characteristics of the Delphi process facilitate decision-making:

(1) The isolated generation of ideas in writing produces a high quality of ideas. (2) The process of writing responses to the questions forces respondents to think through the complexity of the problem, and to submit specific, high-quality ideas. (3) Search behavior is proactive since respondents cannot react to the ideas of others. (4) The anonymity and isolation of respondents provides freedom from conformity pressures. (5) Simple pooling of independent ideas and judgments facilitates equality of participants. (6) The Delphi process tends to conclude with a moderate perceived sense of closure and accomplishment. (7) The technique is valuable for obtaining judgments from experts geographically isolated.

Obviously, it takes time to conduct a mail survey in which questionnaires and responses are sent back and forth. Moore (1987, p.56) lists ten stages in conducting mail surveys:

(1) Decide to administer the questionnaire. (2) Select a respondent group. (3) Design the questionnaire. (4) Give advance notice to respondents. (5) Pilot test the questionnaire. (6) Produce the questionnaire. (7) Distribute the questionnaire. (8) Send a reminder. (9) Receive completed questionnaires. (10) Analyze completed questionnaires.

In the case of a Delphi mail survey, some steps must be repeated several times, depending on the number of rounds. Delbecq et al. (1975, p. 87) estimated that the minimal time to complete a three-round Conventional Delphi is about 45 days, but McNally (1974) found it could take as long as eight months.

To reduce the delay between questionnaires, the Real-time Delphi was developed. Sometimes called a "Delphi Conference," this form uses the technology of computer conferencing to speed up the rate of interaction (Price, 1975, p. 505).

Whether Conventional or Real-time, Delphi's characteristics of anonymity, controlled feedback, and statistical indices of group responses are designed to reduce undesirable aspects of group interaction (Dalkey, 1967), such as "specious persuasion, the unwillingness to abandon publicly expressed opinions, and the bandwagon effect of majority opinion" (Helmer & Rescher, 1960, p. 33).

Types of Delphi Studies

Modifications to the original Delphi technique evolved in studies during the 1960s and 1970s.

Strauss and Zigler (1975) describe three types of Delphi that had evolved by the mid-1970s: (1) numeric, in which a range of numeric estimates are made; (2) policy, in which alternatives to a policy problem are defined; and (3) historic, in which the issues which fostered a past decision are explained.

Designed specifically to deal with policies and planning, a major variation in the Delphi technique was introduced by Turoff in 1969 and called the Policy Delphi (Turoff 1975, p 84):

Delphi as it originally was introduced and practiced tended to deal with technical topics and seek a consensus among homogeneous groups of experts. The Policy Delphi, on the other hand, seeks to generate the strongest possible opposing views on the potential resolutions of a major policy issue. In the author's view, a policy issue is one for which there are no experts, only informed advocates and referees.

In the Policy Delphi, achieving consensus on an issue is not as important as generating pros and cons, supporting evidence, and options on the issues (p. 86).

Areas of Delphi Applications

Although initially developed to forecast social and technological events, in practice, Delphi had much wider areas of application. According to Olaf Helmer, one of the developers of the technique, "It is applicable whenever policies and plans have to be based on informed judgment, and thus to some extent to any decision-making process" (Helmer, 1966, p. 1).

By 1975 variations of the Delphi technique had been applied at Rand to problems ranging from corporate planning to national goal setting (Harman & Press, 1975, p. 23). Sackman (1976, p. 2) reported that by 1975 more than one thousand Delphi studies had appeared in the literature. A few examples of the wide variety of applications during the 1970s were Delphi studies to predict the future of educational satellites (Robinson & Morgan, 1974); solar energy (Cesta & Decker, 1978); commercial banking (Giroux & Rose, 1979); and the British breakfast cereals industry (Wheale, 1978).

Uses of the Delphi Technique

Over time, as both the types of Delphi approaches and the areas for applying the Delphi grew more numerous, so did its uses.

Linstone and Turoff (1975, p. 4) list 10 uses for the Delphi technique: (1) gathering current and historical data not accurately known or available; (2) examining the significance of historical events; (3) evaluating possible budget allocations; (4) exploring urban and regional planning options; (5) planning university campus and curriculum development; (6) putting together the structure of a model; (7) delineating the pros and cons associated with potential policy options; (8) developing causal relationships in complex economic or social phenomena; (9) distinguishing and clarifying real and perceived human motivations; and (10) exposing priorities of personal values and social goals.

Delbecq et al. (1975, pp. 11-12) list five uses of Delphi in planning: (1) to determine a range of possible program alternatives; (2) to explore underlying assumptions leading to different judgments; (3) to seek information that may generate a consensus; (4) to correlate judgments on topics spanning many disciplines; and (5) to educate participants about diverse and interrelated aspects of topics.

Moore (1987, p. 50) adds the following uses of Delphi to this list: (1) to identify goals and objectives; (2) to establish priorities; and (3) to reveal group values.

Addressing educators, Judd (1970) lists five major uses of the Delphi techniques in higher education: (1) cost-effectiveness; (2) cost-benefit analysis; (3) curriculum and campus planning; (4) college, university-wide educational goals and objectives; and (5) generalized educational goals and objectives for the future.

During the 1980s, uses of the Delphi technique continued to be widespread. For example, in the five-year period from 1985 to 1989, eighty doctoral research studies employed variations of the Delphi technique. Most (54) were in education areas, lead by administration (12) and curriculum and instruction (11). Among eighteen other areas studied using variations of the Delphi technique were civil engineering (Glover, 1985); geology (Adams, 1986); geopolitics (Jenkins, 1985); library science (Friedrich, 1985); modern language (Kozuh, 1986); industrial psychology (Tannenbaum, 1986); and public administration (Simanjuntak, 1985).

Educators may have a particular interest in Lewis' (1984) review of twenty-six Delphi studies used in decision-making in higher education. Lewis found that curriculum and instruction were the main areas in which Delphi results were used, and that most of the studies (18) were designed to solve problems rather than make forecasts. Lewis concluded that a Delphi study most likely will have a strong impact if the following three conditions exist: (1) a solution to a recognized problem is actively being sought; (2) the persons who will be affected and whose cooperation is needed are involved with the Delphi study; and (3) the persons who conduct the Delphi are able to act upon the results.

Delphi Studies on Global Issues

Three Delphi studies are of particular interest here because, like the pilot application reported below, the area of their investigation involves global issues.

Cooper (1977) used a modified Policy Delphi with 33 communication scholars to determine the contributions that communication resources could make in solving problems that threaten the well-being of society. The priority societal problems identified by the participants were the following: (1) potential for mass destruction; (2) nuclear weapons -- controlled by governments, but with potential access by groups and individuals; (3) water pollution; (4) malnutrition and famine; (5) alternatives to fossil fuel; (6) growth armaments worldwide; (7) unemployment; (8) inflation; and (9) air pollution (Cooper, 1977, p. 50). Cooper also used cross-impact analysis to determine the degree of interdependence between societal problems and to identify communication resources that have solution potential.

Kurth-Schai (1984) collected and analyzed children's personal, global, and spiritual images of the future. Five separate Delphi studies were conducted with a total of 154 children, ages 11 and 12. They generated complex, creative, and reality-oriented images of the future of the environment, war and peace, science and technology, education, government, economics, family life, childhood, religion, and human relations. Kurth-Schai found the Delphi technique adapted to use with children was efficient and effective for the researcher and enjoyable, educational, and inspiring for the children.

Grauer (1989) used the Delphi technique with 28 experts in the field of school-community relations and international education to identify practical and philosophical goals for fusing international, national, community, and academic educational values. Four groups of perspectives on international education were identified: (1) curriculum and instruction values; (2) local multicultural and political values; (3) national economic security values; and (4) universally shared global values. Grauer concluded that the strongest trend was toward the fourth perspective, which will have a unifying influence on the field of global education.

The Pedagogic Delphi

The Delphi technique can be modified and used in-class with students as pedagogic activity. Denoted the Pedagogic Delphi, this modification of the Conventional Delphi and Policy Delphi is heuristic, permitting students to participate in their own education. It becomes, in Paolo Freire's terms, a dialogic instrument with which students are empowered to teach themselves (Freire, 1973). The teacher's role in the process is described by Hochheimer (1990, p. 177):

The liberatory teacher accepts that what is known, what s/he knows, is a transitory experience, always open to interpretation, refinement, criticism, growth. S/he provides a context within which people learn and teach and inspire each other in a process of mutual emancipation from oppression. S/he allows the students to learn in a milieu within which they can practice the skills of free engagement with the world.

Using the Pedagogic Delphi in the classroom, the teacher provides the context, but does not limit the course agenda, pour out selected facts, then require rote answers to textbook questions. Instead, the teacher guides a process in which students choose issues to examine, find the information they need to develop informed judgments on the issues, and express their viewpoints freely.

There are three major differences between the Pedagogic Delphi and the Conventional Delphi. In the former: (1) the participants are known to each other, although written responses on the surveys are anonymous; (2) there is interaction among participants between survey rounds during other classroom activities; and (3) confrontations are not avoided.

Because the students are neither anonymous nor geographically isolated between rounds, there can be undesirable aspects of group interaction, such as specious persuasion and the bandwagon effect, avoided in the Conventional Delphi (Helmer & Rescher, 1960, p. 33). However, the process of isolated writing in response to questions and comments generated by other students gives them the freedom and equality of the secret ballot and, more important, makes them think critically about the complexity of issues before responding in writing.

The Pedagogic Delphi is similar to the Policy Delphi to the extent that: (1) participants are not experts; (2) strong opposing viewpoints on the issues are invited; and (3) generating pros and cons, supporting evidence, and options on the issues are more important than achieving consensus.

One advantage of all variations of the Delphi technique is that none requires extensive knowledge of statistics to conduct the surveys or interpret the results. Means, modes, interquartile ranges, and consensus percentages are basic measures used in the Delphi. They usually are understood easily by students who have not had statistics classes.

The Pedagogic Delphi is a student-centered, proactive learning activity. It is a touchstone that reveals and tests the underlying evidence for ideas and value judgments students develop during a course of study. Priorities of personal and social values are exposed, as pros and cons of complex issues are delineated and clarified. The process sometimes generates a consensus on group values, and always encourages alternatives and diverse judgments.

To summarize, the Pedagogical Delphi is useful in (1) empowering students to participate in their own education; (2) encouraging active participation in discussions; (3) revealing knowledge of the subject and preconceived value judgments that students bring to a course of study; (4) revealing shifts in those value judgments during the course; (5) revealing priorities, group values, consensus, and disagreement on issues; (6) encouraging students with alternative viewpoints to express themselves freely; (7) encouraging students to engage in problem-solving approaches; (8) organizing broad, interdisciplinary course content; (9) showing interconnections between complex issues; (10) relating current topics under discussion to topics covered previously; (11) encouraging critical thinking and writing skills; (12) orienting students toward future thinking; and (13) providing a sense of closure at the end of the semester.

Procedure

The procedure of the Pedagogic Delphi is similar to the Conventional Delphi, and works best with four rounds of questionnaires and feedback, conducted over the entire semester. During each round students must put their names on each questionnaire so they can be returned in subsequent rounds. Therefore, individuals completing surveys will be known to the teacher; however, responses reported to the class should be anonymous.

The first round begins with an open-ended questionnaire asking students to list a number of important or serious issues, given the context of the course. For example, in a problem-solving approach to intercultural communication issues, students could be instructed to list the five largest obstacles to mutual understanding between people from different cultures. This type of question is designed to lead students eventually to seek solutions to the identified problems. The Pedagogical Delphi also could encourage students to think about the future by phrasing the question so responses must be predictions. For example, the above question could be phrased: What will be the five largest obstacles to mutual understanding between people from different cultures in next decade?

Round One

The first-round questionnaire should be handed out at the first class meeting, before anything else is done, even distributing the course syllabus. Besides shaping the agenda of issues for the course, the first round survey will provide the teacher with base line information about the students. It will reveal how much knowledge of the subject they bring to the course, and what value judgments they already have formed. A good teacher will make adjustments accordingly. The survey also will get students thinking and actively involved in the course content from the very first day of the semester.

As a follow-up to the survey and in preparation for the second class meeting, an assignment should be made that gets students to rethink their lists. It could involve reviewing current journal articles, searching indices, or reading a general introductory chapter in a text.

At the second class meeting a compilation of responses should be handed out to give students prompt feedback. While preserving the anonymity of the written responses, underlying motivations for responses can be inferred, and gaps in the list filled, based on the reading assignments.

The next three rounds of the Pedagogic Delphi should be spaced as evenly as possible throughout the semester. For example, in a 15-week semester, there could be about one month between the rounds, with the fourth round near the end of the semester.

Round Two

The second questionnaire should instruct students to rate each item from the first survey on Likert scales, indicating how important or serious each item is or will be. Students should be given the opportunity to re-word, split, or add items to the list.

A summary of the rankings of items, based on the weighted means of ratings, should be handed back as soon as possible, preferably during the next class meeting. The results should be discussed.

Round Three

The third questionnaire should be similar to the second, but for each item there should be a bracket [ ] around the rating most frequently marked on the second questionnaire. This feedback of modal responses is designed to encourage group consensus, as in the Conventional Delphi.

Quantitative feedback in Delphi studies has included means, modes, interquartile ranges, and other data (Harman & Press, 1975; Basu & Schroeder, 1977). Sackman (1976) asserts that quantitative feedback induces pressure toward consensus artificially (p. 5) and he cautions against using the Conventional Delphi "except as an exercise for informal heuristic purposes" (p. 4). Folk (1976) says the most important question is whether the results of a Delphi influence people's actions. He finds the question difficult to answer. "However, we do know of very many instances in which delphis have proven effective heuristic vehicles for participants and for those who administered them, for exploring otherwise seemingly inaccessible futures" (p. 50). This exploration is more important than quantitative data generated by a Pedagogic Delphi. However, the group consensus position, as represented by the modal response, should not be ignored.

Students should be instructed to compare the bracketed rating to the one they marked on the second survey, which should be returned at this time. Students should re-rate each item. They may shift their rating or keep it the same. However, if they mark a rating outside the brackets, they must write the primary reason under the item. This is meant to generate opposing viewpoints and give voice to minority positions. Young and Hogben (1978) found that the consensus positions of participants who provide and receive written justifications were significantly different from the position obtained when statements were neither sought nor fed back. The comments made on the third questionnaire will be fed back in the fourth round.

A summary of the re-ratings of items, based on the weighted means of ratings, should be handed back as soon as possible, preferably during the next class meeting. The results should be discussed.

Round Four

About one week before the end of the semester, a fourth survey should be given out. As in the previous round, for each item there should be a bracket [ ] around the rating most frequently marked on the third survey. Students should be instructed to compare this rating to the one they marked on the third survey, which should be returned at this time. The comments given for disagreements with the most frequently-marked ratings on the third survey also should be given out. The instructions should inform students that they may shift their ratings or keep them the same, but before re-rating items, they should read the comments.

A summary of the re-rankings of items, based on the weighted means of ratings, and the consensus percentages for all items should be handed back during the last class meeting of the semester. Individuals and the class as a whole will see how their points of view and values may have changed during the semester. The summary and discussion on the final day concludes the Pedagogic Delphi and the course with a sense of closure and accomplishment.

An Application of The Pedagogic Delphi

An example of the application of the Pedagogic Delphi is its use in a college course called Introduction to Global Studies. This course was designed to provide first-year students with introductions to issues in areas such as population, natural resources, food production, development, conflict, security, communication, and human values. As a first-year college course with no prerequisites, Global Studies did not require any previous preparation other than the general knowledge or sophistication gained in high school.

The Pedagogic Delphi was used in one section of Global Studies taught during the 1988 fall semester and one section taught during the 1990 spring semester. Each time the process was the same: Over a 15-week semester each student completed a four-round survey with feedback and discussion between rounds. Names had to be included on each questionnaire so it could be returned in subsequent rounds. Therefore, individuals completing questionnaires were known to the teacher, but responses reported to the class were anonymous. Table 1 shows the instructions given on each of the four questionnaires.

List the five greatest threats to the world in the year 2000.

Rate each of the following items according to its importance as threat to the world in the year 2000. Check only one rating for each item. If there are items of importance not on this list, add them at the end. You may re-word items, split them, or delete them.

For each item below there is a bracket [ ] around the rating most frequently marked in Survey #2. Compare it with your own. What is your opinion now? The same? Changed? Re-rate each item. You may change your rating to the most frequent one by marking inside the brackets [ ]. You also may shift your rating slightly or keep the same one. If you marked a rating outside the brackets in Survey #2 and choose to remain outside now, write the primary reason under the item.

For each item below there are brackets [ ] around the rating most frequently marked in Survey #3. To indicate agreement with that rating, mark inside the brackets even if it was your rating in Survey #3. If you marked outside the brackets in Survey #3, read the attached comments before re-rating the item on this survey.

Global Studies Pedagogic Delphi Procedure

At the first class meeting, before anything else was done, students were asked to complete a questionnaire that included the following open-ended item: List the five greatest threats to the world in the year 2000.

The responses were compiled and handed back during the next class meeting. To prepare for discussion of the responses, students were assigned the chapter "A Threatened Future" (pp. 27-42) in Our Common Future, by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987); and three articles in Global Issues 89/90 (Jackson, 1989): "Global Issues: A Clash of Views" (Global Issues, 1989); "Life on Earth Is Getting Better, Not Worse," (Simon, 1989); and "The Cornucopian Fallacies" (Grant, 1989).

About one month into the semester, a second survey was given out. It requested students to rank each item from the first survey according to how serious of a threat it will be to the world in the year 2000. Students could re-word, split, or add items to the list. A summary of the rankings of items, based on the weighted means of ratings, was handed back and discussed during the next class meeting.

About two months into the semester, a third survey was given out. For each item there was a bracket [ ] around the rating most frequently marked on the second survey. Students were asked to compare this rating to the one they marked on the second survey, which was returned at this time. The instructions informed students that they could shift their ratings or keep them the same. If they marked ratings outside the brackets, they were requested to write the primary reason under the items. A summary of the re-rankings of items, based on the weighted means of ratings, was handed back and discussed during the next class meeting.

About one week before the end of the semester, a fourth survey was given out. For each item there was a bracket [ ] around the rating most frequently marked on the third survey. Students were asked to compare this rating to the one they marked on the third survey, which was returned at this time. The comments given for disagreements with the most frequently-marked ratings on the third survey also were given out. The instructions informed students that they could shift their ratings or keep them the same, but before re-rating items they should read the comments. A summary of the re-rankings of items, based on the weighted means of ratings, and the consensus percentages for all items was handed back and discussed at the last class meeting of the semester.

Round One Results

The First Round began with the request for each student to list the five greatest threats to the world in the year 2000. Students listed 41 different threats in 1988 and 32 in 1990.

In both years, the most frequently-cited groups of threats were the same: (1) environmental threats -- such as pollution, destruction of natural resources, and global warming; (2) nuclear war and its effects; (3) untreatable disease -- such as AIDS; and (4) the effects of food shortages -- such as hunger, famine, and malnutrition.

There were three major differences between responses. First, in 1988 "poverty" was one of the most frequently-cited threats in Round One, but poverty did not appear at all on the 1990 Round One list. Second, "overpopulation" did not appear on the 1988 list, but it was cited a number of times in 1990. In both cases, after readings and discussions, students added these threats to the items on subsequent questionnaires.

The third major difference between the years was the inclusion of Presidential candidates Bush and Dukakis on the 1988 list of threats. This response may indicate that the election was perceived as important internationally, and that students had strong pro and con positions on the candidates as they entered the course. Neither person was placed on the 1990 list of threats, which would surely please them.

Round Two Results

The second questionnaire asked students to rate each item according to how serious a threat to the world they thought it would be in the year 2000. A five-step Likert scale was used. The five ratings were: extremely serious, very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, and not at all serious. When calculating rankings, a numerical scale from four (extremely serious) to zero (not at all serious) was used.

As could be expected, in both years, all of the threats listed frequently on the Round One questionnaire ranked as very serious threats in Round Two. However, the only Round Two item ranked as an extremely serious threat was "hunger," and by only the 1988 class.

Round Three Results

The third questionnaire asked students to re-rate each item, and write the reason if their rating was different from the most frequently-checked rating.

Two major shifts from Round Two to Round Three occurred in 1988. The threats of "population growth" and the "widening gap between rich and poor nations" (neither of which was listed at all on the Round One questionnaire) were ranked in Round Three as extremely serious threats. This shift indicates that the 1988 students apparently entered the course with little knowledge of and no value judgments on these issues, but did acquire them during the course.

"Hunger," "environmental threats," and "nuclear war" were rated as extremely serious threats by the 1988 group. "Environmental threats" and "nuclear accidents" also were rated extremely serious threats by the 1990 group, but "hunger" and "nuclear war" were not ranked as extremely serious threats in 1990.

Round Four Results

The fourth questionnaire asked students to re-rate each item after reading comments made in Round Three if their rating was different from the most frequently-checked rating.

Table 2 shows the final rankings of all items, based on the weighted means of ratings, and the consensus percentages for all items on the 1988 Delphi. Table 3 shows the final rankings and consensus percentages for the 1990 Delphi.

Table 2

1988 Fall semester Pedagogic Delphi on Global Issues
Final Ratings and Consensus Percentages on
Threats to the World in the Year 2000

EXTREMELY SERIOUS THREAT

(10) Depletion of natural resources.................... 3.95/95%
(08) Damage to natural resources....................... 3.90/90%
(07) Nuclear waste..................................... 3.82/86%
(04) Pollution......................................... 3.73/77%
(42) Population growth................................. 3.73/86%
(01) Hunger............................................ 3.68/82%
(03) Famine............................................ 3.68/82%
(02) Malnutrition...................................... 3.64/77%
(25) Nuclear war....................................... 3.50/68%
(43) Widening gap between rich & poor nations.......... 3.50/73%


VERY SERIOUS THREAT

(06) Waste control..................................... 3.48/67%
(17) AIDS.............................................. 3.32/68%
(11) Depletion of ozone layer.......................... 3.32/68%
(05) Acid rain......................................... 3.18/73%
(48) Lack of cooperation among nations................. 3.18/73%
(12) Greenhouse effect................................. 3.14/77%
(37) Lack of ability to communicate honestly and openly 3.14/77%
(47) Unstable development.............................. 3.09/91%
(32) Ignorance......................................... 3.05/77%
(22) Poverty........................................... 3.00/68%
(38) Personal selfishness.............................. 3.00/64%
(24) War............................................... 2.95/62%
(29) Chemical weapons.................................. 2.95/68%
(14) Scarcity of drinking water........................ 2.91/73%
(36) Apathy on issues that are important............... 2.90/71%
(15) Nuclear accidents................................. 2.86/59%
(23) National debt..................................... 2.86/50%
(26) Terrorism......................................... 2.77/77%
(21) Drug abuse........................................ 2.76/71%


SOMEWHAT SERIOUS THREAT

(13) Droughts.......................................... 2.50/64%
(46) Ideologies........................................ 2.48/71%
(30) Technology........................................ 2.30/55%
(33) Illiteracy........................................ 2.23/64%
(45) Trade wars........................................ 2.18/86%
(09) Forest fires...................................... 2.14/68%
(16) Untreatable disease............................... 2.14/64%
(38) Mid-East situation................................ 2.14/73%
(34) Racism............................................ 2.09/73%
(28) Central America................................... 2.05/63%
(35) Freedoms.......................................... 2.05/71%
(18) Cancer............................................ 2.00/73%
(44) Protectionism..................................... 2.00/82%
(19) Heart disease..................................... 1.67/71%


NOT TOO SERIOUS THREAT

(31) Religion.......................................... 1.48/71%


NOT AT ALL SERIOUS THREAT

(40) Bush being elected President...................... 1.09/64%
(41) Dukakis being elected President................... 0.50/82%
(20) Household accidents............................... 0.23/82%
(39) Ronald Reagan..................................... 0.18/91%

****************************************************************


LARGER CONSENSUS PERCENTAGES

(08) Damage to natural resources............................ 90%
(07) Nuclear waste.......................................... 86%
(42) Population growth...................................... 86%
(45) Trade wars............................................. 86%
(01) Hunger................................................. 82%
(03) Famine................................................. 82%
(44) Protectionism.......................................... 82%
(41) Dukakis being elected President........................ 82%
(20) Household accidents.................................... 82%


SMALLER CONSENSUS PERCENTAGES

(15) Nuclear accidents...................................... 59%
(30) Technology............................................. 55%
(23) National debt.......................................... 50%

Table 3

1990 Spring semester Pedagogic Delphi on Global Issues
Final Ratings and Consensus Percentages on
Threats to the World In the Year 2000

EXTREMELY SERIOUS THREAT

(05) Environmental pollution, deterioration, decay,
     threat, destruction, disaster..................... 3.87/87%
(08) Deterioration of ozone layer...................... 3.80/80%
(11) Rainforest destruction............................ 3.79/86%


VERY SERIOUS THREAT

(07) Air pollution..................................... 3.47/53%
(20) Nuclear accident.................................. 3.40/60%
(09) Greenhouse effect................................. 3.33/67%
(14) World hunger, starvation.......................... 3.33/53%
(02) AIDS.............................................. 3.33/47%
(01) Population, overpopulation, explosion............. 3.27/60%
(40) Lack of education................................. 3.20/67%
(06) Trash: toxic, radioactive, regular, huge amounts
     of garbage........................................ 3.13/60%
(12) Animal extinction................................. 3.13/47%
(33) Poverty........................................... 3.13/47%
(15) Food shortage..................................... 3.00/40%
(30) Homelessness...................................... 2.87/67%
(19) Nuclear war, threat, weapons, disaster,
     destruction, winter, waste........................ 2.80/33%
(10) Acid rain......................................... 2.73/40%
(22) Middle East conflicts............................. 2.67/67%
(16) Energy shortage................................... 2.67/47%
(13) Drought........................................... 2.64/57%
(31) Apathy............................................ 2.53/60%

****************************************************************


SOMEWHAT SERIOUS THREAT

(44) Drugs, in general................................. 2.47/40%
(38) Controlling Oil Spills............................ 2.40/53%
(03) Cancer............................................ 2.40/47%
(37) American Farm Crisis.............................. 2.33/53%
(42) "ICE" - new drug in Hawaii........................ 2.33/33%
(27) Terrorism......................................... 2.27/47%
(35) Unemployment...................................... 2.27/47%
(39) Crack............................................. 2.27/47%
(23) Central American conflicts........................ 2.14/50%
(34) Broken families................................... 2.13/53%
(43) Countries buying out others....................... 2.13/40%
(29) Increased murder rates............................ 2.00/36%
(04) Cocaine........................................... 1.93/61%
(26) Nationalism....................................... 1.93/47%
(41) Overconcern for personal monetary gain............ 1.93/33%
(18) Economic destruction, collapse.................... 1.87/60%
(36) Lack of "Made In America"......................... 1.87/27%
(25) Maniac Leaders.................................... 1.73/67%
(21) Confusion of power in Europe...................... 1.67/47%
(28) U.S. bigotry and its consequences................. 1.53/53%
(24) Political propaganda.............................. 1.50/57%


NOT TOO SERIOUS THREAT

(17) Over-reliance on electronic gadgetry.............. 1.00/80%


NOT AT ALL SERIOUS THREAT

(32) Too much deregulation of television............... 0.43/57%

****************************************************************


LARGER CONSENSUS PERCENTAGES

(05) Environmental pollution, deterioration, decay,
     threat, destruction, disaster.......................... 87%
(11) Rainforest destruction................................. 86%
(08) Deterioration of ozone layer........................... 80%
(17) Over-reliance on elec. gadgetry........................ 80%
(09) Greenhouse Effect...................................... 67%
(40) Lack of Education...................................... 67%
(30) Homelessness........................................... 6