ArticleF1000Research2024
Expert Consensus Methods In The Humanities: An Exploration of their Potential.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.