A Second Look at Debriefing Practices: Madness in Our Method?

Sharpe, Donald; Faye, Cathy

doi:10.1080/10508420903035455

Cited by 18 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over time, debriefing evolved to address a range of ethical, methodological, and educational functions (Tesch, 1977) and became an institutionalized procedure by the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) and the American Psychological Association (APA). However, despite being a mandated ethical standard, researchers have historically paid little attention to debriefing practices, particularly for educational purposes (Löftström, 2012;Sharpe & Faye, 2009;Tesch, 1977). researchers throughout the public sector (McDonald, 2009).…”

Section: The History Of Debriefingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First developed in 1998, although heavily revised for the second edition in 2010, the chief mandate of this policy is to ensure that research involving humans is conducted ethically and includes guidelines for debriefing practices (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 2010). However, despite clear guidelines on debriefing in psychological research, debate continues on the need for more consistent, thorough debriefing practices (see Benham, 2008aBenham, , 2008bGross & Flemming, 1982;Herrera, 1997;Miller, Gluck, & Wendler, 2008;Ortmann, & Hertwig, 2002;Sharpe, Adair, & Roese, 1992;Sharpe & Faye, 2009;Wallach & Wallach, 2001).…”

Section: The History Of Debriefingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond ethical obligation to research dissemination: Conceptualizing debriefing as a form of knowledge transfer.

McShane¹,

Davey²,

Rouse³

et al. 2015

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The process of debriefing has been part of psychology for many decades, although it owes its origins to other fields. Debriefing is often tied to research involving deception, however it is part of a much larger set of obligations that psychologists adhere to as professionals operating in an ethical manner. There is some emerging evidence that debriefing participants in research contexts is not taking place frequently or even to the degree that is necessary to impart knowledge. We argue that debriefing can be conceptualized as a form of knowledge transfer, and accordingly can draw on successful strategies from knowledge transfer and exchange and knowledge translation (KT) as these fields are involved in disseminating research knowledge to create awareness, educate, and even teach skills to participants. As well, we contend that psychologists are well poised to develop effective debriefing practices given a research tradition in messaging and innovative community collaborative research. Finally, we provide insights and suggestions for engaging in effective debriefing and future research directions.The process of debriefing has been part of psychology for many decades, although it owes its origins to other fields. Debriefing is often tied to research involving deception, however, it is part of a much larger set of obligations that psychologists adhere to as professionals operating in an ethical manner. Regrettably, there is evidence to indicate that debriefing participants in a research context is not taking place frequently or even to the degree that is necessary to impart knowledge. The field of knowledge transfer (KT) is dedicated to disseminating research knowledge to create awareness, educate, and effect change in daily practice. We propose that KT theory and practice can be used to conceptualize research debriefing and could provide psychologists with a framework to plan research dissemination to participants in a more effective and purposeful manner. We also draw on research from social psychology and emerging insights from community-engaged participatory research, technology, and the arts which might provide further direction and strategies in the debriefing process. Our aim is to demonstrate that KT theory and practice can provide a useful framework, when coupled with psychological research to more effectively disseminate research findings to participants.

show abstract

Section: The History Of Debriefingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The History Of Debriefingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond ethical obligation to research dissemination: Conceptualizing debriefing as a form of knowledge transfer.

McShane¹,

Davey²,

Rouse³

et al. 2015

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some commentators have argued that it is unethical for a study to inflict insight on participants about negative traits they possess that they may not want to know about (Baumrind, 1979;Sharpe & Faye, 2009). Several canonical studies in the social and behavioral sciences have been criticized for their potential to impose unwanted self-discovery on participants.…”

Section: Concern About Participant Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The vast majority of deceptive studies do not mention debriefing (Sharpe & Faye, 2009;Skitka & Sargis, 2006;Toy et al, 1989), and when they do, they often say nothing more detailed than "participants were debriefed" (Sharpe & Faye, 2009, p. 435). This leaves much to be desired.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forgoing Debriefing in Deceptive Research: Is It Ever Ethical?

Sommers

Miller

2013

Ethics & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Greater use of qualitative methodologies has brought researchers closer to their participants in terms of physical proximity and intimacy, increasing the salience of ethical considerations linked to deception (Sojka & Spangenberg, 1994). Adding to these concerns, there is growing evidence that when deception is used by researchers, remedial measures are often ineffective or nonexistent (Brody, Gluck, & Aragon, 2000;Kimmel, 2001Kimmel, , 2004Miller et al, 2008;Sharpe & Faye, 2009; Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:53 03 October 2014 2001), and many researchers and ethical review board members appear to be ill-trained to deal with ethical dilemmas pertaining to deception (Peckman, 2007).…”

Section: Deception In Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%