Peer debriefing
competing roles and identities during the process of the research
how I am positioned within the research context
Positionality as researcher and the role in co-creating findings from interview data.
Subjectivity in shaping the research process.
As a novice researcher
ROBERTS PAPER:
One of the central tenets of good research pracice within interpretive social sciences involves 'accesspting the inevitable role of the research in the research process (Henwood and Pidgeon, 1992, p.106) and acknowledging that all knowledge produced within the esearch encounter is the fruit of collaboration betwwen the researcher and the researched (p.118).
My role as a digital accessibility expert will inevitably influence the research and my interpretation.
Josselson (2013) describes the interview situation as an intersubjective dance between the interviewer and interviewee where the people in the interview situation are observing one another and forming pictures of each other (p.33).
ROBERTS PAPER:
Points of difference and similarity that can build rapport can also promote emotional reactions that may steer the conversation in a certain direction which may miss important opportunities to explore certsin topics.
Beyond the interview itself, interpretation is equally laden with potential emotions and bias, exposing a tension between revealing or concealing different elements of the research or findings.
Our emotional response to findings and what we choose to reveal and conceal inevitably gives form to how we put across participants experiences, and in turn how participants may feel about how their experience was distorted or misunderstood (p.121).
ROBERS PAPER:
While interviews are the fruit of collaboration between researcher and the researched it is important to note that such a collaboration is rarely done on equal terms. Telling other's tales involves interpretation on the part of the researcher and what we ultimately produce as our version of their tales (p.123)
Janesick, V.J., 2007. Peer debriefing. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology.
Many have suggested that using peer debriefing can enhance the trustworthiness and the credibility of a research project (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Spall, 1998; Janesick, 2011).
peer acts as a sort of critical detective or auditor.
Peer debriefing is yet another important technique employed by qualitative researchers to ensure the collection of valid information.
Impartial peer.
Peer debriefing is a process of engaging in critical dialogue with a colleague or a peer who is familiar with the research topic, but not directly involved in the study. The purpose of peer debriefing is to expose and challenge the researcher's perspectives, interpretations, and conclusions, and to provide constructive feedback and alternative viewpoints.
Peer debriefing can help researchers to identify and reduce their blind spots, to clarify their assumptions and rationales, and to improve the quality and rigor of their analysis.
PAPER:
Spall
Peer Debriefing in Qualitative Research: Emerging Operational Models
Peshkin (1988, p.17) notes, "Subjectivity operates during the entire research process".
Peer debriefing is where a researcher and an impartial peer, who is not related to the study, can plan to conduct extensive discussions about the progress of the research and the emerging findings, this can be right from the preliminary data collection all the way through to conducting the analysis (Guba and Lincoln, 1989; Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
Many have suggested that using this type of peer debriefing can decrease bias and researcher subjectivity by providing 'an external check on the inquiry process' (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; p. 301) and help to enhance the accuracy, trustworthiness and the credibility of a research project (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Spall, 1998; Janesick, 2011).
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. M. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. London: Falmer Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and ease study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity-one's own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17-22.
Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 280-292.
Comments
Post a Comment