Proefschrift

99 4 VALUE DELIBERATION 36% has seen war or has been in a conflict zone. The sample size (n=12) is not uncommon in qualitative studies. Studies have found extreme variations in sample size in qualitative research studies across all research designs (Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, & Fontenot, 2013). The sample size of a qualitative study can be determined by its information power. Information power depends on the aim of the study, sample specificity, use of established theory, quality of dialogue and analysis strategy. Information power indicates that the more information the sample holds, relevant for the actual study, the lower number of participants is needed (Malterud, Siersma, & Guassora, 2016). In our study, the panel consists of experts in the field of Autonomous Weapon System deployment. The aim of the study is narrow, the experts have high specific knowledge on the topic, the theoretical background is sufficient, the quality of the dialogue was strong and the analysis was done on a specific case (one scenario regarding the deployment of an Autonomous Weapon System). The information power of our sample is high and therefore the sample size is sufficient. We use the results to explore the effect of value deliberation on the acceptability of options for Autonomous Weapon System deployment to provide us with deeper insight into this real-world problem (Tenny, Brannan, Brannan, & Sharts-Hopko, 2022). 4.7 RESULTS The nature of the data is qualitative so no statistical techniques are applied to analyse the results. The results are descriptive and are processed by using the RankingCalculator from the Value Deliberation Toolbox (https://www.delftdesignforvalues.nl/ valuedeliberation-toolbox/). The data was processed after the online session so the participants could not reflect on it during the session. The results in Figure 15 show the ranking of the alternatives in round 1 (ranking 1 in Figure 15) and round 2 (ranking 2 in Figure 15). Ranking 1 is step 3 in the value deliberation process (Figure 14) and ranking 2 is step 6. The alternative with the lowest score is the most acceptable alternative and the alternative with the highest score is the least acceptable. The order from most to least acceptable alternatives in round 1 is: A, B, E, C, D, F. In round 2 the order is: A, B, E, D, C, F. Based on the value deliberation between ranking 1 and 2 a change in the order of the acceptability of alternatives is noticeable. The acceptability of the alternative C and D is flipped in round 2 compared to round 1. Although a minor change, it is interesting because the participants were asked at the end of the value deliberation if they changed their ranking order. Some participants indicated to have consciously changed the order, but most participants replied that they did not, or did not intended to, leaving the option open that the value discussion could have influenced their ordering. One participant mentioned that the value discussion changed the way she read the options. Based on

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw