By Quique Eguren.
The Evolution of the Risk Approach in the protection of Human Rights Defenders
In 2003, there was a notable gap: no straightforward and widely applicable tool existed to analyse the protection needs of human rights defenders (HRDs) or civilian populations in conflict or humanitarian contexts. After several research periods, in 2005, I proposed for the first time using a risk-based approach as the foundation for protecting these populations. This proposal was rooted in sociological risk theory, already applied in numerous fields of knowledge.
Since then, the risk approach has been widely adopted globally, utilised by many organisations and national and international institutions, with its utility being undeniable. However, over time, certain limitations have emerged. Among the most evident are the oversimplified, almost mechanical use of the approach without necessary analysis; the proliferation of decontextualised solutions; its application without active involvement of affected individuals in their own risk analyses; and the absence of gender, intersectional, and cultural considerations.
Recognising these shortcomings, in 2021, during my work with Protection International, we decided to develop minimum standards for applying risk analysis to HRD protection. This effort was carried out with the support of Meredith Veit and the entire Research, Policy, and Training Unit (PRTU) of Protection International. The methodological tool chosen for this development was the Delphi method.
The outcomes of this work materialised in the Principles of Risk Analysis and Protection Plans, available in several languages through the FOCUS Observatory of Public Policies for the Protection of HRDs [here, in several languages]. I highly recommend consulting them as they offer a robust and practical guide.
However, the purpose of this document is not to analyse these principles in detail but to share how we developed them using the Delphi method. This approach enabled us to build knowledge and theory based on the experiences and contributions of experts worldwide in the field of risk analysis and, by extension, in constructing protection plans derived from these analyses.
What Is the Delphi Method?
The Delphi method is a structured approach designed to achieve consensus among a group of experts on a specific topic, particularly in areas where uncertainty or a lack of consolidated information exists. Originating in the 1950s, it has since evolved into a widely utilised method across various disciplines, such as strategic planning, consensus-building, forecasting trends, and resolving complex problems.
The Delphi process involves collecting expert opinions through several rounds of anonymous questionnaires. After each round, the responses are analysed and summarised before being sent back to the experts, highlighting the level of consensus on each topic. This feedback allows participants to reflect on their own responses and those of others, adjusting their opinions if necessary. The primary goal is to reduce opinion dispersion and reach a consensus or at least a convergence of ideas on key aspects of the study.
One distinctive feature of the Delphi method is the anonymity of participants, which encourages free expression of opinions and prevents influences such as prestige or dominance from affecting the group. Additionally, its iterative structure allows experts to reconsider their responses based on the information provided by the group in previous rounds, thereby refining collective ideas.
The success of a Delphi study depends on the careful selection of experts, who must have relevant knowledge and diverse experience in the subject matter. Additionally, it is crucial to design clear and well-structured questionnaires to facilitate meaningful and useful responses.
Among its advantages, the Delphi method integrates diverse perspectives, facilitates consensus on complex issues, and is flexible enough to adapt to different contexts. However, it also has limitations, such as potential biases in expert selection, the possibility of participants not revising initial positions (if necessary), and the time required to complete multiple rounds.
In summary, the Delphi method is a powerful tool for exploring and clarifying complex problems through collective knowledge building, especially in contexts of uncertainty or where anticipatory insights are needed.
Why Did We Choose the Delphi Method for This Study?
- Given that risk analysis is a complex subject, it requires the expertise of individuals who understand the various social, human rights, and political issues involved. For this reason, the Delphi method is highly appropriate for addressing these questions.
- A group study provides better answers to the research questions than those from one or a few individual experts. This is because different ways of applying risk analysis have evolved, and the exchange facilitated by this method allows for deeper exploration of the topic (as reflected in Calibrum’s motto: “Because none of us is as smart as all of us”).
- The Delphi method does not require participants to meet in person, which can be impractical for international studies with very limited budgets (further highlighting the method’s efficiency). Likewise, a Delphi study does not require a large number of experts.
- A Delphi study is flexible in design and allows for follow-up interviews. This enables the collection of richer data, leading to a deeper understanding of the fundamental issues in the research.
- The method serves the dual purpose of soliciting expert opinions and prioritising the various aspects according to their importance.
Selecting Experts for the Consultation
Choosing the right experts is one of the most critical steps in a Delphi study. This is not about creating a statistical sample to represent a population but rather identifying a diverse group of individuals with deep and relevant knowledge of the subject. It is therefore essential to follow a rigorous procedure to ensure that the selected experts contribute a rich and well-founded perspective.
In our case, we compiled a broad list, considering factors such as gender, age, location of activity (with a particular focus on countries in the Global South), roles (human rights defenders, representatives of national and international institutions), and connections with grassroots organisations, among others. This approach sought to ensure a diversity of perspectives and contexts.
Out of the invitations sent, approximately 75% were accepted. This resulted in a final group of 65 experts from various sectors, including human rights organisations, United Nations agencies, regional organisations, donors, state protection mechanisms, and academia. Geographically, the group included participants from the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, East Africa, and Southeast Asia. This level of diversity ensured that the results were robust and applicable across a wide variety of contexts.
Tools and Communication
To facilitate the process, we used the Calibrum software, specifically designed for Delphi studies. Although not indispensable—simpler tools such as survey software can also be used—this platform allowed us to efficiently manage responses, conduct real-time analyses, and provide structured feedback to participants.
The primary method of communication was email, through which questionnaires organised by thematic categories were sent. Each participant received key statements to evaluate, indicating their level of agreement or disagreement and offering suggestions for improvement. This approach ensured that all voices were heard equitably.
Process Development
The study was conducted over three rounds of consultations within a total period of five weeks. In each round, we analysed and refined the statements based on the comments and ratings received. Overall, we achieved high levels of consensus, although some statements required significant reformulation, and others needed to be added or removed to better reflect participants’ concerns and perspectives. This process not only improved the clarity and relevance of the statements but also helped identify areas requiring further research or discussion.
The final result was a refined set of statements that reflect significant consensus among the experts. These statements served as the foundation for the Principles and Standards of Risk Analysis and Protection Plans, providing a solid and adaptable guide for various contexts.
In summary, the careful selection of experts and the rigorous design of the process were key elements in the successful development of this Delphi study. This approach ensures that the results are not only representative of diverse perspectives but also practical and applicable to real-world situations.
Theory Building and Knowledge Systematisation Using the Delphi Method
The Delphi method is not only a tool for achieving consensus but also a valuable resource for theory building and the systematisation of practical knowledge. Below, we explore how it can contribute in this context:
- Initial Theory Development: The Delphi method is highly effective in the early stages of theory development as it helps researchers identify variables of interest and generate key propositions. For instance, in our study, we not only identified the critical factors in risk analysis and protection plans but also assessed their relative importance according to expert input. This process facilitates the selection of a well-organised set of relevant variables.
- Exploration of Generalisability: By collecting information from a wide range of experiences, the Delphi method significantly broadens the empirical observations upon which initial statements are based. This strengthens the theoretical foundation and increases the applicability of findings across diverse contexts and scenarios.
- Refinement Through Justification: A crucial aspect of the process involves asking experts to justify their reasoning. This enables the introduction of nuances, the identification of important details, and the evaluation of consistency in ideas based on the resulting collective opinions.
- Contribution to Construct Validity: Construct validity relies on clear and consistent definitions of the concepts studied. Delphi studies invite participants to validate and clarify their initial responses, ensuring a shared understanding of key terms and concepts. Furthermore, aligning these definitions with common usage among participants strengthens their future applicability.
Although theory building has not been the primary focus of many Delphi studies, we firmly believe that a carefully designed study can be a valuable tool for developing theories and fostering agreements on complex topics. Our study, focused on risk analysis and protection plans, demonstrates the versatility of the method for exploring problems and drawing conclusions grounded in broad consensus.
Conclusion
The Delphi method is an indispensable tool for mid-range theory building in fields such as the protection of human rights defenders. We encourage more researchers and professionals to explore its potential for systematising knowledge and advancing the understanding of critical topics.
To learn more about the Delphi method, there are numerous references available online. For example, there are resources in Spanish [here] and in English [here].
The software used in our study was Calibrum (I have no affiliation with this company; it worked very well, but there are other alternatives available online).
If you are considering conducting a Delphi study, feel free to contact me, with no obligation, for a consultation on possibilities.
