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

Spillett, M. A. (2003). Peer Debriefing: Who, What, When, Why, How: Who, What, When, Why, How. Academic Exchange Quarterly.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2003

Link

http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Domain-specific

• Peer Debriefing
  • In dissertation contexts the supervisor often performs a hybrid role — a peer-debriefing function — while also carrying evaluation obligations that can compromise the uninvolved-outsider stance the procedure requires; the methodological literature treats these as distinct commitments that should not be conflated

    This sourceMethods article advising doctoral researchers on selecting impartial peer debriefers and on how to conduct and report peer debriefing.

    Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source

    “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.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:b3859ff16c9b · see in the full table