Peer Debriefing: Who, What, When, Why, How

Abstract

Abstract The research methods literature recommends peer debriefing as a to enhance the credibility of qualitative research. However, few details about how to plan, implement, and report this are provided. This article delineates specific issues to consider: whom to select, what to do, when to meet, how to conduct, and how to report the process. Students may use these guidelines to assist in designing, executing and evaluating qualitative research studies. Incorporating these considerations may result in more effective implementation of peer debriefing methods and more credible reports of qualitative research. ********** The purpose of this article is to discuss peer debriefing in qualitative research--why it is important, who should do it, how to conduct it, and how to report it. Research methods texts advocate peer debriefing as a to enhance the credibility or validity of qualitative research (Creswell, 1998; Ely, Anzul, Friedman, Garner, & Steinmetz, 1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 1996; Merriam, 1998). Despite widespread recommendation of this technique, the methodological literature provides few specific details about how to implement and evaluate this process. This article provides a set of decision-making considerations for researchers who are designing and conducting peer debriefing methods. While this paper is directed primarily to doctoral students conducting qualitative research studies, this article may also be of interest to faculty who teach research methods and to experienced researchers. Why? In peer debriefing, researchers meet with one or more impartial colleagues in order to critically review the implementation and evolution of their research methods. The role of the peer debriefer is to facilitate the researcher's consideration of methodological activities and provide feedback concerning the accuracy and completeness of the researcher's data collection and data analysis procedures. Works by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Spall (1998) are useful sources for novice researchers contemplating peer debriefing. Lincoln and Guba provided influential discussion of criteria to evaluate the trustworthiness of qualitative research and proposed a comprehensive list of techniques, including peer debriefing, to address these standards. Spall reported research on operational models used for peer debriefing by dissertation students. Her findings indicated the importance of trust in choosing debriefers, the commitment of all parties to cultivate a high-quality product, and the developmental nature of the process. While Spall articulated research findings rather than methodological advice, her article nonetheless contains detailed information that stimulates additional ideas for implementation. The ultimate purpose of peer debriefing, contend Lincoln and Guba (1985), is to enhance the credibility, or truth value, of a qualitative study, by providing an external check on the inquiry process (p. 301). Peer debriefring is particularly advisable because of a distinctive characteristic of qualitative research--the researcher-as-instrument. Individual researchers are the primary means for data collection and analysis. Each investigator brings a different combination of subjective knowledge, skills, and values to the research endeavor. As a result, researchers must come to know their unique characteristics as research tools and to understand how their subjectivity affects the conduct and results of their research. Researcher subjectivity is often equated with bias and seen as something to be avoided. In contrast, Peshkin (1988) asserts that subjectivity be seen as virtuous, for it is the basis of researchers' making a distinctive contribution, one that results from the unique configuration of their personal qualities joined to the data they have collected (p. 18). Peer debriefers can be especially helpful to assist students to become aware of what they bring to the research, whether virtues or pitfalls. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 77 citations exist upstream.