Peer Debriefing in Qualitative Research: Emerging Operational Models
Abstract
Using a qualitative research methodology detailed by Lincoln and Guba, peer debriefing sessions were examined by interviewing education graduate students who completed dissertations and who participated in peer debriefing. The following patterns emerged: (a) Trust was the foundation for selection of the debriefer and the debriefing interaction, (b) the focus for the debriefer and researcher was on methodology, and (c) research skills were continuously developed. Analysis of the data also showed that debriefers worked in pairs or in small groups. Some debriefing groups met for the total time from proposal to dissertation defense, and others began at different stages of the research process. As a result, some groups relied on memory or journal notes for the review of collected data. Implications are included.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The study used peer debriefing and member checking to enhance credibility.
“To facilitate credibility (ie, to foster truth in our findings) [28], we used peer debriefing [29] and member checking (verifying emerging codes and categories in interviews with new participants) and assessed our final themes for structural corroboration (to confirm that the findings did not contradict each other).”
From Factors influencing clinician trust in predictive clinical decision support systems for in-hospital deterioration: qualitative descriptive study (2022) · cites this paper as [29]
The qualitative analysis used inductive coding, affinity diagramming, and a peer debriefing process in which a second researcher analyzed two transcripts and discrepancies were resolved to reach a final code book.
“For qualitative analysis, we applied inductive coding [14] to identify themes in participants' open-ended responses. As part of this process, we used affinity diagramming [35] to organize insights and develop inductive codes from transcript data. One researcher conducted an initial round of coding, followed by a peer debriefing process [75] in which another researcher used the code book to analyze”
From From Screen Reading to "Scene Reading" in SceneVR: Touch-Based Interaction Techniques for Use in Virtual Reality by Blind and Low-Vision Users (2025) · cites this paper as [75]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rose, J., & Johnson, C. W. (2020) · Journal of Leisure Research · doi:10.1080/00222216.2020.1722042 · Cited by 419 · see citing works
Schwartz, J. M., George, M., Rossetti, S. C., Dykes, P. C., Minshall, S. R., Lucas, E., & Cato, K. D. (2022) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/33960 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
“To facilitate credibility (ie, to foster truth in our findings) [28], we used peer debriefing [29] and member checking (verifying emerging codes and categories in interviews with new participants) and assessed our final themes for structural corroboration (to confirm that the findings did not contradict each other).”
MethodPerceptions of leadership, self-confidence and leadership programs among teenage girls in Israel
Perets, S., Davidovich, N., & Lewin, E. (2023) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2023.2195742 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Sultana, R., Husain, N., Allen, O., & Taylor, P. (2026) · Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services · doi:10.1177/10443894241272176 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Kneitmix, M. J., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2025) · Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663547.3746364 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“One researcher conducted an initial round of coding, followed by a peer debriefing process [75] in which another researcher used the code book to analyze two transcripts.”
- Authors
- Spall, S.
- Affiliations
- Stephen F. Austin State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Spall, Sharon
- Venue
- Qualitative Inquiry
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 280-292
- ISSN
- 1077-8004 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7565
- OpenAlex
- W2008768047
- Cited by
- 490
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 4.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Inquiry (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Keywords
- peer debriefing, qualitative research methodology, doctoral research, graduate students, research skills development, research process
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
