VIII. Eight Basic Pitfalls: A checklist

A significant new approach inevitably spawns criticism. If it serves a constructive purpose the criticism is healthy indeed; if it inspires literary talent (e.g., Hoos and Adams on Systems Analysis) it can even be entertaining. The most extensive critique of Delphi available at present, the Sackman Report, fails both tests. Ironically this study from the RAND Corporation raises its voice in righteous indignation at the offspring of its own seed: "The future is far too important for the human species to be left to fortune tellers using new versions of old crystal balls. It is time for the oracle to move out and science to move in." Science to Sackman means psychometrically trained social scientists. His traditionbound attitude is not uncommon; it is in the same vein as the illusion that science is "objective", that only Lockean or Leibnizian inquiring systems are legitimate, and that subjective or Bayesian probability is heretical. Orthodoxy faced with new paradigms often responds with sweeping condemnations and unwitting distortions. Poorly executed applications are brought forth to censure the entire method, quotations are taken out of context, the basis for criticism is left vague, significant supportive research and new directions arc ignored, and irrelevant "standards" are applied. A case in point is Sackman's comparison of Delphi with standards for psychological testing developed by the American Psychological Association: procedures designed to evaluate the testing of individuals are assumed to be meant for evaluation of opinion questionnaires. Coates offers the view that Delphi is a method of last resort in dealing with extremely complex problems for which there are no adequate models. As such,