202
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Comparing industry and academia priorities in bioenergy education: a Delphi study

, &
Pages 956-969 | Received 05 Jun 2017, Accepted 02 Nov 2017, Published online: 30 Nov 2017
 

ABSTRACT

Bioenergy is a rapidly growing subsector of the emerging bioeconomy, with the potential to create a substantial number of jobs. However, training programmes for these positions are limited, and there is currently a lack of research-based guidance for the creation of new programmes. This study employed a modified, two-round Delphi technique to generate a bioenergy education framework, utilising the expertise of professionals in the field. Participants were presented with a list of bioenergy concepts and rated the importance of including each topic in a college-level bioenergy curriculum, using a five-point scale. Suggestions for additional items were requested. After receiving feedback about the panel's mean ratings from Round One, experts were again asked to rate each item. A comparison between rankings from participants in academia and industry showed that, overall, their priorities are well aligned. The resulting framework provides structure for developing standardised bioenergy workforce education programmes and appropriate evaluation instruments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Most statistical tests require independence between observations, but by design, the Delphi method does not have independent observations. At the first round, the participants’ responses can be considered independent, as they (presumably) are not influencing each other. However, at the next round, participants see the mean rating and standard deviation for each theme before rating each theme again. There is even a greater possibility of statistical dependence since they are asked to justify their rating if it deviates too far from the mean.

Additional information

Funding

This project is part of the Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northwest consortium and was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative [grant number 2011-68005-30407] from the United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The funding source had no involvement in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; nor in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.