Research Priorities in Performance Technology. A Delphi Study

Huglin et al. (2008) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

human performance technology

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

North America - Canada; North America - USA

Why was it conducted at all?

The call for research in human performance technology is clearly evident: To develop as a field, HPT must identify key research (both science and technology related) questions that would, if answered, inform practice significantly. What is less clear is precisely what research questions should be addressed. It is hoped that the participatory approach taken by this study will provide a framework for future research in the HPT field.

What was the objective?

to answer the question what specific research questions should be addressed to build the theory base of the field of human performance technology

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 7 research questions

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?


How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: Delphi round 1: participants were asked to submit five research questions that they deemed to be important in building the research base of the HPT field, 100 research questions submitted. Step 2: data processing: thematic analysis: 10 categories generated. Step 3: Delphi round 2: participants were asked to rate the importance of each of the 100 questions and to rank each of the 10 categories. Step 4: Delphi round 3: participants were asked to re-rate each question and re-rank each category based on group mean ratings and rankings of round 2

Which stakeholders took part?

HPT field leaders. 20 participants: 7 primarily business/consulting, 5 primarily education, 6 both education/consulting, 2 military.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Experts were identified.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.