5
A. Toppinen et al. / Futures 88 (2017) 1 – 14
topics in different domains. A Delphi study typically entails two or more paper- or web-based survey rounds with feedback given to respondents, or panelists, after each round. (Ribeiro & Quintanilla, 2015; Steinert, 2009) The number of panelists ranges from a few to 50, although the key criterion in selecting the panel is the members ’ expertise and contribution to the topic (Hatcher & Colton, 2007). Iteration, participant and response anonymity, controlled feedback, and statistical group response have been identi fi ed as the key characteristics of a Delphi study. (Blind, Cuhls, & Grupp, 2001; Förster, 2015; Kuusi, 1999; Landeta, 2006; Steinert, 2009; Tapio, 2002; Turoff, 1975). Nevertheless, there are many variants, of which the later ones in particular (e.g., Policy Delphi, Argument Delphi, and Disaggregative Policy Delphi) highlight the importance of fi nding reasons for dissensus rather than striving for consensus among the experts. The key objective of our Delphi study was to elicit expert opinions on the current business conditions of the PPI and the emergent strategies that are likely to facilitate development towards a bio-economy and sustainable value creation. The overall Delphi process depicted in Fig. 1 was conducted in spring 2014 (from March to June). We used the dissensus-based approach, thus our aim was to bring up for discussion all relevant issues and reasons for differences of opinion among the panelists. The time scale we covered extended to 2030, and the questionnaires included closed questions and statements with response alternatives, as well as open-ended questions. The study comprised three rounds of online inquiry. The rounds were iterative so that the responses of the previous rounds formed the basis of the following rounds. In the second and third rounds, the focus was especially on the themes and issues that either provoked a lot of comments and discussion or differing opinions among the panelists in the previous round or needed further clari fi cation. In addition, members of the panel were given feedback after each round informing them of their anonymous colleagues ’ opinions. The panelists, who were carefully selected on the basis their solid expertise, knowledge and experience of the subject matter, represented a total of six European countries and the following three expert groups: (1) representatives of industry associations and other experts, (2) representatives of academia, and (3) industry experts. Thus, our aim was to form a panel of top-experts in the fi eld that would consider the PPI from different perspectives in order to give a comprehensive view of the topic under scrutiny. More than 70% of the experts had over 10 years of experience from the forest sector. Nineteen experts responded to the fi rst-round questionnaire, and the panel size decreased by two in the second and third rounds. The titles of the 19 experts are presented in Appendix A. Among the fi rst expert group (representatives of industry associations and other experts), the representatives hold mainly the titles of a consultant or director of forest/bioeconomy/environment. Representatives of academia (group 2) have degrees in forestry, forest management, corporate environmental management, environmental and innovation management, or in chemistry. The titles of the experts range from a professor to a researcher. The industry experts (group 3) are all involved in sustainability affairs, and their titles are similar to a sustainability or environmental manager. Fig. 2 summarizes the main elements covered in the Delphi study. The issues in Fig. 2 base on the previous literature on industry dynamics and structural change within the forest industry. Thus, our aim was to analyze the transformation of the
[(Fig._1)TD$FIG]
Fig. 1. The Delphi process.
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker