Page 28 - World Heritage and Tourism Innovation

Hiyab Gebretsadik Weldearegay Critics on Heritage Laws and Tourism Politics in Ethiopia

others and revise their own opinions in real-time. Ar- to comment on the ideas they significantly agree or
ticles deemed outliers and not accepted by a majority disagree. Multiple iterations penalised outlier re-
but had subjectively substantive reasoning on why and sponses by ventilating them until the establishment of
how they disagreed or significantly disagreed again a consensus plateau. The consensus level was exposed
circulated for discussion. We reiterated this process against 20% as the cut-off point to reach a satisfactory
to penalise outliers until we established a declarable consensus plateau, and the agreement was that there
consensus plateau. We measured the Consensus Level should be a maximum coefficient of variation of 12%
for all identified salient issues of specific objectives, in all specific objectives. So, we sent back justifications
ensuring agreement with a maximum 8% coefficient that passed this cut-off to panellists, declaring that the
of variation. Delphi’s method requires a penalised at- panellists reached the Consensus Plateau and closed
trition coefficient of variation of up to 20% as the cut- this justifying Phase. The Attrition Rate stood at 4%,
off point to reach a satisfactory consensus plateau. So, with a 96% response rate.
issues that passed this cut-off point were consolidated
and sent back to panellists, declaring that Consensus Last Phase: Termination
Plateau was born and the identification phase was In the Termination Delphi Phase, we brought togeth-
closed. Abstention was monitored and was at 5%. er the first consensus Plateau result document and
the second consensus Plateau result document to be
Third Delphi Phase: Justification adjourned by the panel. We measured the response
The third Delphi Phase was the Justification Phase. In rate at this particular Phase, which was 100%, with
the Delphi method, analysis and synthesis coincide 63 panel members remaining until the end of the
with data collection and panellists, given the academ- Delphi process. The process occurred through a lais-
ic and professional Authority they should have on the sez-faire communication structure, allowing the ex-
topic of inquiry, which are partly analysers and syn- perts to provide any late feedback about the consensus
thesisers. The justification phase does play this role. Plateaus reached earlier and to revise their opinions
So, this third Delphi started through specific (Brain) through subjectively good rounds of iterations. Final-
storming in justifying the lists of salient issues. The ly, we endorsed the two Consensus Plateaus with a
typical (Brain) storming followed by a collection of 5% coefficient of variation. The final summary report
justifications for why the problems under each spe- of the adjourned Delphi result was produced and re-
cific objective were salient. Panellists have received turned to all the participants who had handed in the
reasons, and responses converted into defuzzification. questionnaire from the first round.
Finally, we produced an intermediate summary of this
round and monitored the attrition rate, resulting in 67 Results and Discussions
panellists. We did not close this justifying process at Result and Discussion on Specific Objective 1
this Phase or reach the conclusion plateau. We struc- As mentioned elsewhere, the first specific objective
tured the next rounds based on the responses to the of this research was to analyse the substantive spirit
previous stages. and essence of the FDRE constitution on mandate ju-
risdiction about heritage matters between the Federal
Fourth Delphi Phase: Consensus Measuring Phase on and State. The panels of experts in the Delphi process
Justification have found that governments predominantly respond
In this Phase, the intermediate summaries of justifi- to the national question by giving powers to States in
cations collected during the third Delphi for all spe- six critical articles. However, one article has elements
cific objectives were sent back to each panel member of Unitarianism bias. The panels of experts of the Del-
and subjected to the consensus test; this was an in- phi concluded this by providing the following justifi-
quiry to put their agreement or disagreement levels cations: one, the fact that all sovereignty resides in the
in a 5-Point Likert Scale with space allowing experts nations, nationalities, and peoples of Ethiopia (Article

24 | Proceedings of the 7th UNESCO UNITWIN Conference