II.C. Reality Construction as a Product of Delphi Interaction

The mind is but a barren soil; a soil which is soon exhausted, and will produce no crop, or only one, unless it be continually fertilized and enriched with foreign matter. Reality is a name we give our collections of tacit assumptions about what is. We bring along these realities to give meaning to our interactions. Each of us maintains several of these realities-at least one for every significant set of others in our lives. We have domestic realities, parental-family realities, professional realities, sexual realities, organizational realities, stylistic realities.... Since this article is about Delphi design, the important thing is not how many different realities we each have, but that one important product of each Delphi panel is the reality that is defined through its interaction. Realities can be described as presumed agreements which give meaning to our thoughts and make reasonable our actions in each setting. Most of these agreements about reality are implicit, and are merely confirmed and elaborated by our acts and conversations. Sometimes our interactions subtly modify these realities. Occasionally, a group's reality is actively renegotiated o r even constructed de novo for a new situation. Delphi inquiries might produce any of these results. The purpose of this essay is to suggest ways of managing Delphi interactions in order to create intentionally a reality that will prompt the appropriate kinds of active interventions. I believe with others that there is nothing more practical than good theory. Much of what is related in this article is theory, but theory in search of application, by the reader, out of his understanding, to produce results in his specific contexts. I have used a number of examples to illustrate how realities are asserted, modified, reconceptualized during a Delphi interaction. Each example will require detailed consideration. This is painful if the reader is interested merely in an overview. Therefore, I have tried to write the discursive text so that it makes sense even if the reader skip the examples. Each example is a freeze-dried caricature of a set of rich interactions. To reconstitute, the reader must supply the cerebral juices and attention, such connective interpretation being necessary to make static diagrams into what might pass for interaction.