Olszowski Rafał, Pięta Piotr, Baran Sebastian, Chmielowski Marcin
Faculty of Humanities, AGH University of Science and Technology, Gramatyka 8a, 30-071 Kraków, Poland.
Center for Collective Intelligence, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 245 First Street, E94, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Entropy (Basel). 2021 Oct 24;23(11):1391. doi: 10.3390/e23111391.
The domain of policymaking, which used to be limited to small groups of specialists, is now increasingly opening up to the participation of wide collectives, which are not only influencing government decisions, but also enhancing citizen engagement and transparency, improving service delivery and gathering the distributed wisdom of diverse participants. Although collective intelligence has become a more common approach to policymaking, the studies on this subject have not been conducted in a systematic way. Nevertheless, we hypothesized that methods and strategies specific to different types of studies in this field could be identified and analyzed. Based on a systematic literature review, as well as qualitative and statistical analyses, we identified 15 methods and revealed the dependencies between them. The review indicated the most popular approaches, and the underrepresented ones that can inspire future research.
决策领域过去仅限于一小群专家，现在正越来越多地向广泛的群体开放参与，这些群体不仅影响政府决策，还增强公民参与度和透明度，改善服务提供，并汇集不同参与者的分布式智慧。尽管集体智慧已成为决策制定中一种更为常见的方法，但关于这一主题的研究尚未系统开展。然而，我们假设可以识别和分析该领域不同类型研究特有的方法和策略。基于系统的文献综述以及定性和统计分析，我们确定了15种方法并揭示了它们之间的依存关系。该综述指出了最流行的方法以及那些可能启发未来研究但研究较少的方法。
