a researcher uses debriefing when he responses

Debriefing Process Guidance

In the course of designing a research project, researchers may find it useful to include a debriefing of the study for participants at the close of the project. The debriefing process is a requirement for studies that employ deception (#1 below), however it could also be used as an educational tool (#2 below). What follows are: a) guidelines for preparing a Kuali Protocol submission that incorporates deception and/or requires a debriefing process, and b) specific issues that should be addressed in the debriefing form.

1. Use of Debriefing for Deception Studies

Researchers may find that the use of deception, or incomplete disclosure, is a necessary tool for their study. However, the use of such techniques raises special issues that the IRB will review closely. Deception occurs when participants are deliberately given false information about some aspect of the research. Incomplete disclosure occurs when participants are not given information about the real purpose or the nature of the research.

Preparing Your Kuali Protocol Submission for Deception Studies.

A. justifying the use of deception.

An investigator proposing to use deception or incomplete disclosure should justify its use in their IRB protocol submission. Studies utilizing deception should not be submitted for Exempt Review, rather, depending on the nature of the deception the study will be reviewed under either Expedited or Full Board Review processes. Please address the following when preparing your IRB protocol submission:

In the Study Procedures Section, justify the use of deception and explain why deception is necessary to achieve the goals of the study. Researchers may also provide prior evidence and data that such research methods and use of deception on the proposed subject population does not negatively affect subjects’ attitudes about the research.
In the Procedures Section, explain the process to debrief participants. Explain when participants will be debriefed, who will debrief them, and how they will be debriefed (online studies may require a different debriefing process than in-lab studies – for more information read the Debriefing Requirements below and/or see our website for guidance of online research ).
In the Risk Section, explain if use of deception is likely to cause the participant psychological discomfort (i.e., stress, loss of self-esteem, embarrassment) while the deception is taking place. Explain how this risk will be minimized during the experiment and after the experiment is complete (i.e. full debriefing).
When participants are not given complete information about the study in the informed consent document, it is no longer considered an “informed” consent. In this instance the “informed” consent should merely be labeled a consent document. The IRB must waive certain required elements of the informed consent process (i.e. an explanation of the purpose of the research, a description of the procedures involved, etc.) in such instances. See below for additional information.
Provide a copy of the debriefing statement(s) that will be given to participants and if applicable, the script that will be used by the researchers to orally explain the study (see below for guidance regarding the debriefing).

B. Debriefing Requirements and Process

The debriefing is an essential part of the consent process and is mandatory when the research study involves deception. The debriefing provides participants with a full explanation of the hypothesis being tested, procedures to deceive participants and the reason(s) why it was necessary to deceive them. It should also include other relevant background information pertaining to the study.

After participants have been debriefed immediately following completion of the study the IRB expects that participants will be given a debriefing statement to take with them. For online studies the debriefing process should occur as soon as a participant has completed the research activity. As an added measure, it may be necessary to send an email out to all participants after the study is completed to ensure that all participants (those that completed and those that may have stopped mid-way) receive a debriefing form. The debriefing statement must be reviewed and approved by the IRB.

The process to debrief participants must be explained in your IRB submission. Your submission must indicate who will debrief participants. The IRB expects that this person is a member of the research team who has knowledge about the research and the deception.

The Debriefing Form should include the following:

Study title
Researcher’s name and contact information, if applicable, for follow-up questions.
Thank participants for taking the time to participate in the study
Explain what was being studied (i.e., purpose, hypothesis, aim). Use lay terms and avoid use of jargon.
Explain how participants were deceived
Explain why deception was necessary in order to carry out the research
Explain how the results of the deception will be evaluated
If the study involves use of audio or videotaping an individual participant, give the participant an opportunity to withdraw his/her consent for use of the tapes and, potentially, withdraw from the study all together, after the true purpose of the study is revealed. The IRB suggests that participants be given at least 48 hours to make this decision and provide contact information for whom participants should contact regarding their withdrawal from the study. This option must be given to participants even if they were video or audiotaped during a focus group or during an experiment involving other participants. If a participant decides to withdraw, the PI must use video editing tools to make an individual who withdraws unidentifiable. If tools are not available, the PI cannot use the video or audiotape.
Provide participants an opportunity to withdraw their consent to participate or to withdraw their data from the study.
If applicable explain anticipated or observed results so far
Offer to provide them with the study results
Provide references/website for further reading on the topic
Provide a list of resources participants can seek if they become distressed after the study. For a referral list of counseling resources to cite, please see our guidance page.

The IRB has provided a deception research debriefing form template for researchers to use. Please note that the UMass Psychology Department may have their own guidelines and specifications regarding debriefing forms used by researchers in the department. For further information on psychology department specific guidelines please see their website .

2. Use of Debriefing as an Educational Tool

Finally, the IRB suggests that the debriefing also be used as an educational tool, even when the study does not involve the use of deception. Participants should be given a simple, clear and informative explanation of the rationale for the design of the study and the methods used. It should also ask for and answer participant’s questions. The IRB has provided a generic debriefing form template for researchers to use as an educational tool Source material for this policy guidance was provided by the University of Connecticut IRB. The UMass IRB gratefully acknowledges this support.

Last modified:

Compliance, Human Subjects/IRB
Research Compliance

Research Guidance

Online Survey Platforms Guidance
Online Survey/Survey Research Guidance

Research Form

Counseling Resources Guidance
Debriefing Form - Deception
Debriefing Form - General

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Supplements
BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8634-9283 Shannon A McMahon 1 , 2 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8569-5507 Peter J Winch 2
1 Institute of Global Health , Heidelberg University , Heidelberg , Germany
2 Department of International Health , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , Baltimore , Maryland , USA
Correspondence to Dr Shannon A McMahon; mcmahon{at}uni-heidelberg.de

Conversations regarding qualitative research and qualitative data analysis in global public health programming often emphasize the product of data collection (audio recordings, transcripts, codebooks and codes), while paying relatively less attention to the process of data collection. In qualitative research, however, the data collector’s skills determine the quality of the data, so understanding data collectors’ strengths and weaknesses as data are being collected allows researchers to enhance both the ability of data collectors and the utility of the data. This paper defines and discusses a process for systematic debriefings. Debriefings entail thorough, goal-oriented discussion of data immediately after it is collected. Debriefings take different forms and fulfill slightly different purposes as data collection progresses. Drawing from examples in our health systems research in Tanzania and Sierra Leone, we elucidate how debriefings have allowed us to: enhance the skills of data collectors; gain immediate insights into the content of data; correct course amid unforeseen changes and challenges in the local context; strengthen the quality and trustworthiness of data in real time; and quickly share emerging data with stakeholders in programmatic, policy and academic spheres. We hope this article provides guidance and stimulates discussion on approaches to qualitative data collection and mechanisms to further outline and refine debriefings in qualitative research.

health services research
public health
qualitative study

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000837

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Summary box

The quality of data in qualitative global health research is stronger when researchers engage local interviewers in a systematic debriefing process.

Understanding interviewers’ strengths and weaknesses in real time allows researchers to enhance interviewer skills and thus data quality.

Through systematic debriefing, researchers can identify and address gaps in the data; capture nuances and other non-verbal information; enhance intellectual partnership within teams; triangulate data; and build theory.

Drawing from our research experiences in Tanzania and Sierra Leone, this paper outlines the process and value of debriefings.

Introduction

A major goal of qualitative research, as applied in global public health, is to give voice to those whose lives are affected by health policies and programs, but whose ability to be heard by those in power and to effectively change health systems and structures is limited. The archetypal means through which such data are collected is the interview, a one-on-one encounter where a researcher and a respondent ‘are talking and asking questions of one another’ usually with the help of an interview guide. 1–3 During the 1–2 hours that a typical interview lasts, a researcher must juggle competing demands: maintaining the interest and openness of the respondent, listening for responses that merit further probing, capturing unspoken cues and gestures, all while simultaneously ensuring that the data collected are relevant to the health issue of interest. 1 4

In the academic ideal, qualitative research is undertaken by those who possess sociocultural understanding of the study context, and are formally trained in qualitative theory, methods and analysis. In global public health research this ideal is often not feasible. Instead, research teams commonly engage locally based qualitative data collection teams who possess essential knowledge in terms of context and language, but who lack formal qualitative training. These teams are routinely trained by an external research lead, an individual who possesses a graduate-level education in public health and qualitative research, but whose contextual or linguistic knowledge is insufficient.

In the ‘local team with outside technical support’ model of qualitative research—henceforth referred to as applied qualitative research or AQR—technical support takes different forms across five overarching phases in the research. See table 1 for a breakdown of tasks for the data collection team and research lead, respectively, during the preparation and execution of data collection, transcription and translation of files, data analysis and study write-up.

View inline

Organization of qualitative research and qualitative data collection teams

This practice paper focuses on the data collection phase of the table with an emphasis on debriefings, the process where a research lead interviews data collectors soon after a data collection activity. We view debriefings as a necessary element in qualitative research, particularly as the field comes to embrace styles beyond the conventional academic ideal (one person enacting the research process from conception to publication). Furthermore, while we observe a general consensus regarding the rationale and process for undertaking many points in the five-step table ( table 1 ), we see that debriefings receive relatively little attention in the literature and in trainings on qualitative research for public health. When debriefings are mentioned in publications, including our own, 5 6 there is minimal insight into what the debriefing entailed, how it was conducted or how debriefings fundamentally informed the data collection or analysis process. Finally, given that in AQR, much of the data are collected by individuals who have limited training in qualitative research or are more familiar with quantitative survey administration, we urge researchers to more thoughtfully consider discussions on process (ensuring that the data are collected in an iterative i fashion, 7 that the data set is responding to the research question and that the skills of data collectors are strengthened in real time) rather than on outputs (transcription and coding). We now outline what debriefings are, how their purpose shifts in the process of data collection and how debriefings have amplified trustworthiness in our own research. 8 9

What are debriefings?

Debriefings are a discrete moment in the qualitative data collection process where a research manager sits with a data collector (or data collection team) to discuss the tenor, flow and resulting findings from a recently undertaken data collection activity. Ideally conducted after the close of a day’s data collection, debriefings are an essential supplement to qualitative methods such as focus groups, interviews or observations. ii , 10 During debriefings, the research lead takes copious notes. These notes then serve as one component of the full qualitative data set, and methods used to analyze transcripts and observational memos are also applied to debriefing notes.

Debriefings spark immediate reflection on emerging findings; they force data collectors to think through the data that have emerged and to better position findings relative to data collected by fellow data collectors either that same day or to date. Debriefings allow research teams to identify gaps in the data collected and to redirect course—whether refining a line of inquiry, reconceptualizing a research question, opting when or whether to seek out alternative perspectives (such as negative or disconfirming cases), or adding or eliminating a respondent group or research method. Debriefings are the best protection against an unfortunate scenario where, long after the close of data collection, transcripts reveal that the research team did not pursue essential lines of inquiry, or worse, that the data collected will not be able to respond to research aims. For examples of debriefing templates, see online supplementary appendices 1 and 2 .

How should debriefings be done?

Debriefings serve a different purpose as the process of data collection unfolds.

At the outset of data collection, debriefings are one-on-one (the lead researcher interviews the interviewer) and largely procedural in content. In our studies, these early debriefings have been used to learn from the interviewer what could be done to improve the process of data collection. We ask the interviewer questions such as: Is it feasible to find and interview respondents in a private setting (or is the community trailing after the interviewer-respondent pair to listen in on the interview)? Did recording devices work (let’s have a quick listen and upload the recording)? Are the consent forms understandable and did you have them signed or fingerprinted (let’s put them in this waterproof folder)? Are the instruments too short or too long? Do we have concerns about respondents growing tired or bored in an interview and if so, what do you think we should do about this informant fatigue? The earliest debriefings also allow the research lead to gauge the interviewers’ strengths and weaknesses as both interviewers and qualitative researchers. Did the interviewer appear interested, observant and engaged in the data collection activity? Did they probe on valuable lines of inquiry? Did they feel capable of shifting the interview back on track if it digressed in a manner that was not informing the research question? Did they capture non-verbal cues? What would they like from the research lead in terms of troubleshooting through a difficult process? Early debriefings are a means to ensure that the messages conveyed during trainings whether procedural (getting consent) or scientific (probing) are gelling among the data collection team, and to refine or reinforce these messages if they are not.

Interview tips,* a refresher

Adhere to ethical principles

Ask for consent.

Ensure privacy throughout the interview or focus group discussion.

Convey in your actions and your questions that you respect the respondent’s autonomy.

Remove any mystery about the recorder/recording device

Put the recorder within reach of the respondent.

Tell the respondent they can turn it off at will and show them how to do this.

Assure the respondent that only researchers will listen to the recording.

Use all senses to capture details

Recognize pauses long and short.

Capture what is spoken and unspoken (gestures, glances, fidgeting, fear, smiles, sincerity, pride).

Note the smells, sights, the ‘texture’ of the interview.

Keep a conversation comfortable

Start simple.

Ask uncomplicated, unintrusive questions.

Be prepared and open to responding to questions about who you are and why you are there.

Avoid double-barrelled questions.

Know when to pause.

Give time for responses.

Refer back to comments or phrases made by the respondent in the course of the interview.

Follow the golden rules of great interviews

Avoid the temptation to interrupt the respondent.

Use open-ended questions and probes.

Don’t attach your interpretation to a response.

Ask "remarkable questions in an unremarkable tone".*

Do not judge—not with your voice, body or face.

Avoid scientific jargon

Words and phrases like ‘plural health systems’, ‘structural violence’ and ‘stigma’ "sap the power and beauty of plain language".*

Be reflexive, be conscious of your role in this endeavor

Memo how you, as the human being you are, shaped this interview.

End every interview with this question: ‘Is there anything I should have asked you that I did not ask you?’

If the respondent offers some suggestions—ask those questions!

*Informed by Harrington’s 4 ‘Intimate Journalism: The Art and Craft of Reporting Everyday Life’.

As data collection progresses, the nature of the debriefing usually shifts. Procedural questions become less necessary as processes have become routinized. There is also less one-on-one engagement between the research lead and individual interviewers in favor of a debriefing session, which resembles a focus group (with the research lead serving as both a moderator and notetaker). During the debriefing session, each interviewer provides a 2–4 min summary of their interviews or focus groups, with a special interest in describing key points or new findings from their interview. Conversations regarding triangulation (comparing and contrasting findings across data collectors or data collection methods) and topic saturation (the point when similar ideas and insights are heard again and again) typically begin to emerge in this phase as interviewers are encouraged to jump in when they could contextualize, confirm or dispute a piece of information based on their own interview. For both the research lead—and the data collection teams—this is among the most enjoyable and enlightening periods of the research process. Group debriefings prompt new ways of looking at an issue, help the interviewers gauge whether a follow-up interview is necessary, force research teams to think through how to reframe old questions or create new questions for subsequent interviews, and serve as reminders to the team that an interview is a short window into a person’s life during which contextualization of experiences occurs. The debriefing often sparks vibrant conversations among data collection teams about social desirability bias, thoughts on power, autonomy and decision-making within households and communities, and the role of the interviewer and research teams generally in terms of advocacy, human rights and social responsibility. Along with conversations on triangulation, the research team typically begins to discuss reflexivity, questioning how their social standing, personal experiences and inherent biases affect the nature of the interviews.

In the final phase of the debriefing process, the research lead is almost wholly removed from the process. The team nominates one of the data collectors to serve as moderator and another data collector to serve as a notetaker. The language of the group debriefing often switches from English (or other official language in the country) in favor of the local language (or the preferred language of the data collection team and the language of the interviews). During this phase, the research lead begins to build theories, devise an outline of preliminary findings and draw up a list of key local phrasings (emic terms) that may be valuable when presenting the research to stakeholders. In our studies, at this phase of data collection, we begin to develop a slide deck that will be later presented to principal investigators and others on the conclusion of data collection.

The final debriefing occurs on the day after the conclusion of data collection. During this session, the research lead presents the slides of preliminary findings to data collectors. Slides are edited based on feedback, and data collectors are invited to practice and then present portions of the presentation to an audience of academic, ministerial or programmatic peers.

Debriefings in Tanzania

In Tanzania, debriefings informed a fundamental shift in how the research team conceptualized the research question, ‘How do women and their spouses/support networks make decisions regarding where to seek care throughout the maternal care continuum?’ 12 Conducted in 2011, our team initially sought to test a hypothesis that care seeking for childbirth was largely determined by factors such as cost, risk, distance and intrahousehold negotiation. Following debriefings after the earliest interviews, it became apparent that the main issues driving women and their communities away from facilities centered on issues of disrespectful maternity care by providers toward patients. Thinking that these earliest interviews represented an outlier, the data collection continued to rely on the initial data collection instrument, which did not emphasize patient–provider relationships and made no mention of disrespectful or abusive care. As data collection progressed, however, themes related to disrespect continued to emerge. The research lead presented the findings to the study’s principal investigators, who confirmed that this line of inquiry warranted pursuit. The research lead then began a literature review to identify studies that emphasized disrespectful care, and—together with the study team—modified the tools. Had the data collectors not been in regular contact with one another and the research lead, they may have disregarded or downplayed findings related to disrespect, they may have been unsure how to probe about disrespect and abuse, or they may have felt hesitant to undertake a line of inquiry that was not outlined in the tool (and may spark politically contentious debates). Along with allowing the research team to recognize and then triangulate findings related to abuse, debriefings also allowed for immediate comparisons of how male-female pairs describe their role throughout care seeking for childbirth. This immediate comparison (and the incongruences that emerged when comparing accounts across husband-wife pairs) not only generated animated discussions within the team, but also identified another new line of probing (related to births before arrival), and guided decisions regarding whether and when to conduct follow-up interviews. 13

Debriefings in Sierra Leone

In Sierra Leone, debriefings strengthened our study by enhancing the research team’s reflexivity, ability to build rapport and approach to sampling. Data were collected in 2010 with the aim of examining how families understood and manage childhood illnesses. 14 In the course of the earliest debriefings, it became apparent that both researchers and respondents were weary of the data collection endeavor. Data collectors said they were shaken following discussions about child illness and child death with respondents who represented the poorest of the poor. Debriefings presented an opportunity for the team to talk through their anxiety and devise coping strategies collectively. Data collectors also described challenges of building trust with respondents, given strained relations in the wake of the country’s civil war. Several respondents were frightened by the audio recorder, concerned that their voice may be shared with a much wider audience (or used to inflict harm on them or their families). Many community members were also bothered by the presence of outsiders (the data collection team) in their communities; expressing incredulity that outsiders would travel long distances to ask about child health. The data collection team used debriefings to reconsider how to best present the team and explain the purpose of the research to community leaders (in a manner that would ensure all involved that this was a peaceful endeavor, that there was no ill will or underhanded intention of the data collection team toward the community). In terms of qualitative methods specifically, debriefings served as an opportunity to reiterate messages conveyed in the data collector training. Many members of the study team had more experience with quantitative rather than qualitative data collection, so there was a tendency at the outset of data collection to use interview guides as surveys—asking questions in exactly the manner they were written with no probing. Debriefings allowed the research lead to reiterate the open nature of interviewing, and provided a forum for data collectors with more qualitative experience to demonstrate how probing is best done. Finally, debriefings allowed the team to identify respondent types whose insights could inform the research question, but who were not initially a focal group for the study (first wives, mammy queens (female leaders), spiritual healers and traditional birth attendants). 15 These individuals were not initially identified as key informants, but their essential role in deciding whether and when to take a child to a health facility emerged in the earliest interviews and compelled the team to change course in favor of including these individuals.

Systematic debriefings are a necessary complement to more conventional qualitative approaches. Debriefings make it possible to enhance the adaptable, thoughtful and empathetic-yet-questioning nature of qualitative research among data collection teams (thereby improving both the quality of data collected and the capacity of those collecting the data), to correct course in the event of unknowable changes, insights or challenges in a given context, and to quickly share emerging data with stakeholders in programmatic, policy and academic spheres. We have outlined herein a series of steps to conduct debriefings and demonstrated how we have used debriefings in studies across two contexts. We hope this article sparks interest and debate in the literature in terms of how debriefings could be used to improve the quality of qualitative data.

Supplemental material

Acknowledgments.

We are thankful to the qualitative data collection teams we have worked with and debriefed with through the years. In Tanzania: Zeswida Ahmedi, Santiel Mmbaga, Zaina Sheweji, Amrad Charles, Emmanuel Massawe, Maurus Mpunga, Rozalia Mtaturo. In Sierra Leone: Robert Sam-Kpakra, Agnes Farma, Abdul Karim Coteh, Emmanuel Abdulai, Alie Timbo, Mohamed Lamin Sowe, Aminata Alhaji Kamara, Daniella Kopio, Kadie Kandeh, Jestina Lavahun, Jeremiah Sam Kpakra, Lamin Bangura, Isatu Kargbo. We thank Dr. Kerry Scott for her review of this article and for contributing her own debriefing template as an appendix. We thank Prof. Walt Harrington for sharing his wisdom on the art and craft of interviewing. Finally, we acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the funding programme Open Access Publishing, by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts and by Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.

Harrington W
Bakshi SS ,
McMahon S ,
George A , et al
McMahon SA ,
Kennedy CE ,
Winch PJ , et al
Campanelli PC ,
Martin EA ,
Lincoln YS ,
George AS ,
Chebet JJ , et al
Rao SR , et al
Yumkella F , et al

↵ i An iterative approach refers to the process of adapting and updating data collection tools (but possibly also methods and sampling) in light of information gleaned from data collected earlier.

↵ ii Beyond qualitative research, debriefings have also been described as a way to examine response error in quantitative surveys, 7 and as a way to interrogate differing assumptions of quantitative and qualitative researchers in a mixed methods study. 10

Handling editor Seye Abimbola

Contributors The two authors contributed equally to the manuscript.

Funding The National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health supported coauthor SAM (Award F31MH095653) throughout her PhD work. The Olympia-Morata-Programm supports her current position as an Assistant Professor at Heidelberg University.

Disclaimer The funders had no role in the decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The content is the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of any funder.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data sharing statement No additional data are available.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

The Importance of Debriefing in Psychological Research

a researcher uses debriefing when he responses

Debriefing in psychological research plays a crucial role in ensuring ethical practices, participant understanding, and data quality. But what exactly is debriefing, and why is it so important? In this article, we will explore the components of a debriefing session, how it is conducted, and the best practices for ensuring a successful debriefing experience. Whether it’s individual, group, or online debriefing, understanding the ins and outs of this process is essential for any researcher in the field of psychology.

Debriefing is a crucial aspect of psychological research that involves providing participants with information and addressing any concerns or misunderstandings they may have about the study.
It is important for ethical reasons, to ensure participant understanding, and to maintain data quality.
A debriefing session should include explaining the study, clarifying any misunderstandings, disclosing any deception used, and allowing for participant feedback.
1 What is Debriefing in Psychological Research?
2.1 Ethical Considerations
2.2 Participant Understanding
2.3 Data Quality
3.1 Explanation of the Study
3.2 Clarification of Misunderstandings
3.3 Deception Disclosure
3.4 Participant Feedback
4.1 Individual Debriefing
4.2 Group Debriefing
4.3 Online Debriefing
5.1 Plan Ahead
5.2 Be Sensitive and Respectful
5.3 Use Plain Language
5.4 Provide Resources for Further Support
6.1 What is the purpose of debriefing in psychological research?
6.2 Why is debriefing important in psychological research?
6.3 When should debriefing take place in psychological research?
6.4 Who is responsible for conducting the debriefing in psychological research?
6.5 What information should be included in a debriefing session?
6.6 Is debriefing required in all psychological research studies?

What is Debriefing in Psychological Research?

Debriefing in psychological research refers to the process of providing participants with additional information after a study to clarify the purpose, methods, and outcomes of the research.

This post-study interaction plays a crucial role in ensuring that participants have a comprehensive understanding of their involvement. It allows them to gain insight into any aspects of the research that may have been unclear during the study itself. Debriefing not only serves to enhance the transparency of the study process but also helps in upholding ethical standards by preventing the potential harm caused by deception. By disclosing any deception used in the study, debriefing maintains the trust between researchers and participants, crucial for future research collaborations.

Why is Debriefing Important in Psychological Research?

Debriefing holds significant importance in psychological research as it serves to protect participants, uphold ethical standards, and enhance the credibility and validity of study findings.

By engaging in debriefing sessions, researchers can effectively address any potential misinformation that participants may have encountered during the study, thus minimizing the risk of lasting effects on their well-being. The debriefing process allows researchers to gain insights into participants’ memory of the study protocol and interventions, ensuring the accuracy of data collected. This transparent dialogue fosters trust between researchers and participants, ultimately contributing to the overall integrity of the research outcomes.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations play a paramount role in the debriefing process of psychological research, aligning with the guidelines set forth by organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA) to protect participants’ rights and well-being.

One of the fundamental ethical principles in debriefing involves seeking participants’ voluntary participation, ensuring that individuals engage in the research willingly and without any form of coercion. This principle underscores the importance of respecting participants’ autonomy and decision-making abilities.

Another crucial aspect is obtaining informed consent from participants, wherein they are fully briefed about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and their rights before agreeing to take part. This transparency fosters trust between researchers and participants and upholds ethical standards in research practices.

Participant Understanding

Ensuring participant understanding through debriefing is crucial in addressing any misconceptions, clarifying study procedures, and correcting false information that may have been presented during the research process.

Debriefing serves as a vital tool in the research process, as it allows researchers to not only enhance participants’ comprehension of the study but also helps in mitigating the risks associated with deception and false memories.

By providing participants with postwarnings and offering a transparent account of the study’s objectives and methods, debriefing fosters a sense of trust between researchers and participants.

Through debriefing sessions, researchers can identify any ethical concerns that may have arisen during the study and address them promptly, ensuring the integrity and credibility of the research.

Data Quality

Debriefing contributes to ensuring the quality and validity of data collected in psychological research by minimizing the impact of deception, enhancing participant honesty, and evaluating the effectiveness of study interventions.

Debriefing plays a crucial role in reducing biases that may skew research findings. By providing participants with an opportunity to reflect on their experiences and clarify any misunderstandings, debriefing helps in obtaining more accurate data.

Debriefing sessions offer researchers insights into the participants’ perspectives and thought processes, thereby improving the overall quality of information gathered. Through the application of SCOboria social-cognitive dissonance model, debriefing also aids in identifying inconsistencies in participant responses, leading to a deeper understanding of underlying motivations and behaviors.

What are the Components of a Debriefing Session?

A debriefing session typically comprises several key components, including explaining the study objectives, clarifying any misunderstandings, disclosing instances of deception, and obtaining participant feedback.

Explaining the study objectives during the debriefing session serves the crucial role of informing participants of the research goals, methods, and expected outcomes. This not only provides transparency but also ensures that participants are aware of how their involvement contributed to the study.

Clarifications offered in the debriefing session aim to address any confusions or misconceptions that participants may have encountered during the study. By providing clear explanations, researchers can enhance participants’ understanding and prevent the dissemination of inaccurate information.

Disclosing instances of deception is a critical component of ethical research practices. It involves informing participants about any misleading information or manipulation that might have occurred during the study, ensuring their right to informed consent and upholding the integrity of the research.

Obtaining participant feedback at the end of the debriefing session allows researchers to assess the overall experience, address any concerns raised, and gather valuable insights for future studies. Feedback collection is essential for improving research methodologies, participant experiences, and the ethical conduct of psychological research.

Explanation of the Study

Providing a clear and detailed explanation of the study during debriefing is essential to address any potential misinformation, ensure participant comprehension, and maintain research integrity.

Debriefing sessions offer researchers an invaluable opportunity to revisit the study with participants, rectify any misunderstandings or false information that may have arisen during the research process. Clarifying research procedures not only helps in enhancing the validity of the findings but also ensures that the participants have a comprehensive understanding of the study’s objectives and their role in it. This personalized interaction aids in mitigating any memory biases that can affect the recall of various aspects of the study, ultimately improving the overall effect of the research outcomes.

Clarification of Misunderstandings

Clarifying any misunderstandings that participants may have encountered during the research process is a critical aspect of debriefing, ensuring that accurate information is conveyed and understood effectively.

Addressing misunderstandings in debriefing plays a pivotal role in enhancing communication between researchers and participants. By fostering an open dialogue to clear up any confusion that may have arisen, postwarnings and feedback can be better understood and utilized, leading to increased effectiveness of the overall research process. Resolving conflicts that stem from misunderstandings can promote a more positive and productive research environment, allowing for smoother collaboration between all parties involved. By tackling these misconceptions head-on, trust between researchers and participants is strengthened, creating a foundation of transparency that enhances memory retention of the research experience.

Deception Disclosure

Disclosing instances of deception used in the study is a crucial ethical obligation during debriefing sessions, aiming to maintain participant trust, minimize potential harm, and uphold research integrity.

Ensuring transparency in debriefing not only fosters trust but also protects the participants from undue distress. Ethical guidelines dictate that researchers must reveal any deceptive practices employed, explain their purpose, and address any concerns raised by the participants.

Participant well-being is of paramount importance, and disclosure allows individuals to comprehend the study’s full scope and make informed decisions regarding their involvement.

Participant Feedback

Gathering participant feedback in debriefing sessions provides valuable insights into the participant experience, helps evaluate the study’s impact, and offers opportunities for further information exchange.

During debriefing sessions, the feedback collected acts as a mirror reflecting the effect of the research methods on the participants, shedding light on their perceptions and reactions. Utilizing this feedback enhances the quality of research practices by addressing any discrepancies or areas for improvement that might have gone unnoticed. Incorporating participant perspectives fosters a culture of transparency and authenticity, reducing the risk of misinformation or false information dissemination. This open communication channel not only benefits the current study but also contributes to enhancing future research endeavors through continuous feedback loops.

How is Debriefing Conducted in Psychological Research?

Debriefing in psychological research can be conducted through various methods, including individual sessions, group debriefings, and online debriefing platforms, each tailored to the study’s requirements and participant preferences.

When considering individual debriefing sessions, researchers can provide personalized attention to participants, allowing for in-depth discussions and addressing specific concerns. This method often enhances rapport between the researcher and the participant, fostering a deeper understanding of the study’s impact on the individual.

On the contrary, group debriefings offer the advantage of promoting peer interaction and shared insights among participants, enabling them to collectively reflect on their experiences and findings.

Individual Debriefing

Individual debriefing sessions offer personalized interactions between researchers and participants, allowing for tailored postwarnings, detailed explanations, and focused discussions on the study outcomes.

Through these one-on-one sessions, participants have the opportunity to delve deeply into their experiences and insights, fostering a sense of trust and confidentiality. This individualized approach not only ensures that each participant’s perspective is thoroughly explored, but also allows researchers to address any unique concerns or questions that may arise. By following the SCOboria social-cognitive dissonance model, debriefing sessions can provide a comprehensive framework for understanding participants’ responses and behaviors, leading to richer data interpretation and analysis.

Group Debriefing

Group debriefing sessions facilitate collective discussions among participants, encourage peer interactions, and promote a shared understanding of the study’s key findings and implications.

During these sessions, individuals have the opportunity to engage in in-depth conversations where different viewpoints and interpretations come to light, enhancing the overall depth of understanding within the group. The dynamic exchange of ideas and perspectives creates a lively setting that fosters critical thinking and analytical skills development. The social dynamics at play during these sessions help build a sense of camaraderie and support among participants, leading to a collaborative learning environment where everyone contributes to the exploration of information and ethics.

Online Debriefing

Online debriefing platforms offer convenient and accessible avenues for participants to engage with study information, reflect on their experiences, and provide feedback in a digital environment that may impact memory retention.

One major advantage of using online debriefing methods is the ease of access they provide. Participants can conveniently access and engage with debriefing materials from the comfort of their own homes or any location with internet connectivity. This enhances participant comfort by eliminating the need to travel to a physical location for debriefing sessions, making it more convenient for busy individuals. The digital format allows for flexibility in timing, enabling participants to review the information at a time that suits them best.

What are the Best Practices for Conducting a Debriefing Session?

Effective debriefing sessions in psychological research require meticulous planning, sensitivity towards participants’ experiences, clear communication using plain language, and provision of resources for further support.

Debriefing sessions should be carefully structured, considering the emotional impact on participants and offering postwarnings to safeguard against distress. The facilitator’s empathy plays a crucial role in creating a safe space for open dialogue and reflection. Ensuring transparency and honesty throughout the debriefing process is vital in combating the spread of false information or misinterpretations. Providing follow-up resources, such as contact details for counseling services, can aid participants in processing the experience and addressing any lingering concerns.

Advance planning is crucial for debriefing sessions in psychological research, ensuring that the process is structured, comprehensive, and tailored to address the study’s objectives effectively.

During debriefing sessions, it is essential to have a well-defined strategy in place to guide the process seamlessly. Structured approaches help in organizing the information gathered, analyzing it efficiently, and drawing meaningful insights. Goal alignment is another key aspect that ensures that the debriefing session remains focused on the objectives of the study, enabling researchers to extract valuable data and reflections from the participants. Efficient communication during debriefing enhances the quality of information exchange, leading to more profound understanding and insights for all involved parties.

Be Sensitive and Respectful

Maintaining sensitivity and respect towards participants during debriefing sessions is essential to foster trust, uphold ethical standards, and ensure a supportive environment for discussing research experiences.

Building rapport with participants through empathetic communication aids in establishing a foundation of trust that is fundamental to ethical debriefing practices. By acknowledging the valuable contributions of participants, researchers demonstrate respect for their time, perspectives, and willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. This mutual respect paves the way for an open and honest exchange of information within a safe space where individuals feel heard and valued. Upholding these principles not only enhances the quality of research outcomes but also prioritizes the well-being and dignity of all involved.

Use Plain Language

Employing clear and straightforward language in debriefing sessions aids participant comprehension, minimizes confusion, and enhances memory retention of key study information and outcomes.

Using plain language in debriefing communications is crucial not only for ensuring that participants grasp the study details effectively but also for reducing the risk of creating false memories due to misinterpretations. By communicating in a clear and simple manner, researchers can significantly improve the accuracy and reliability of the information retained by participants. This approach promotes transparency, trust, and ethical conduct in research, fostering a more conducive environment for meaningful data collection and analysis.

Provide Resources for Further Support

Offering resources for further support post-debriefing is essential in ensuring participants have access to additional information, guidance, and assistance to address any lingering questions or concerns arising from the study.

These resources play a critical role in facilitating the understanding of the research process and outcomes, especially in the context of psychological research. By providing avenues for participants to delve deeper into the implications of the study, researchers contribute to enhancing the overall impact and effectiveness of their work.

Post-debriefing resources help mitigate the potential effects of cognitive dissonance that participants may experience, aligning with the SCOboria social-cognitive dissonance model. Participants can utilize these resources to gain clarity, seek reassurance, and even access professional support when needed, fostering a sense of ongoing support and connection beyond the study’s conclusion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of debriefing in psychological research.

Debriefing in psychological research serves to inform participants about the true nature and purpose of the study, as well as to address any potential ethical concerns.

Why is debriefing important in psychological research?

Debriefing allows participants to fully understand the procedures and findings of the study, promotes transparency, and helps to build trust between researchers and participants.

When should debriefing take place in psychological research?

Debriefing should take place as soon as possible after the study is completed, and before participants leave the research setting. This ensures that the information is fresh in their minds and allows for immediate clarification of any questions or concerns.

Who is responsible for conducting the debriefing in psychological research?

The researcher or someone trained and authorized by the researcher is responsible for conducting the debriefing. This ensures that the information is accurately and appropriately conveyed to participants.

What information should be included in a debriefing session?

A debriefing session should include an explanation of the true purpose of the study, a summary of the results, and an opportunity for participants to ask questions or provide feedback. It should also include information on how the data will be used and how to contact the researcher with any further concerns.

Is debriefing required in all psychological research studies?

Yes, debriefing is considered an essential part of ethical research and is required in all psychological studies. Even if the study involves minimal risk, debriefing still allows for the opportunity to address any potential concerns or misunderstandings from participants.

Dr. Henry Foster is a neuropsychologist with a focus on cognitive disorders and brain rehabilitation. His clinical work involves assessing and treating individuals with brain injuries and neurodegenerative diseases. Through his writing, Dr. Foster shares insights into the brain’s ability to heal and adapt, offering hope and practical advice for patients and families navigating the challenges of cognitive impairments.

The Psychological Phenomenon of Loss Aversion: Insights and Implications

The article was last updated by Alicia Rhodes on February 8, 2024. Have you ever found yourself making decisions based on avoiding losses rather than…

Understanding the Concept of Statistical Significance in Psychology

The article was last updated by Vanessa Patel on February 8, 2024. Statistical significance is a crucial concept in psychology research, determining whether the results…

Exploring the Salary Potential for Psychology Majors: A Comprehensive Guide

The article was last updated by Ethan Clarke on February 1, 2024. Are you considering a career in psychology but unsure about the salary potential?…

Signal Detection Theory in Psychology: Explanation and Applications

The article was last updated by Sofia Alvarez on February 8, 2024. Signal Detection Theory is a fundamental concept in psychology that aims to understand…

The Role of Psychology in Social Science

The article was last updated by Samantha Choi on February 8, 2024. Have you ever wondered about the intricate relationship between psychology and social science?…

Key Features that Distinguish Psychology as a Field

The article was last updated by Emily (Editor) on February 21, 2024. Psychology is a fascinating field that delves into the study of human behavior…

Debriefing in Psychology: Sample Studies & Protocol

debriefing in psychology definition rationale and things to provide

Debriefing refers to the procedure for revealing the true purpose of a psychological study to a research participant at the conclusion of a research session.

In order to examine authentic behavior, it is sometimes necessary to tell participants that the study is about one subject, when in fact it is about something else. This is called deception.

If researchers explained the true purpose of a study, then some participants will act in a way that undermines the study’s validity. For example, participants may engage in impression management strategies to make themselves appear in a favorable light.

Thus, the need for deception.

Ethics of Debriefing

Elements of deception must be approved before researchers begin data collection.

This is accomplished through a university Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is responsible for overseeing all research involving human participants.

The researchers fill out extensive forms, thoroughly explain the rationale for deception and the debriefing protocol, and supply a copy of the Debriefing Form.

The American Psychological Association states that psychologists should explain:

“…the nature, results, and conclusions of the research … [and] take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions that participants may have” (p. 1070).

If the IRB approves the study, data collection can commence. If the study is not approved, researchers may alter their procedures and resubmit.

The Debriefing Protocol and Form

Every debriefing includes a set procedure that must be approved by the IRB. There are many required components, plus a Debriefing Form, which may or may not have to be signed by each participant, depending on the university.

The standard components of the form include:

Thanking the participant for their time and involvement.
Recapping the tasks and stated purpose of the study.
Clarification of the study’s use of deception and revealing its true purpose.
Stating that the participant can withdraw their data, without penalty.
A request asking the participant’s permission to use their data.
Provide contact information for university counselling services.
Provide contact information of the researcher.
Explain that they may receive a full copy of the research paper when completed.
Provide contact information for the university’s Institutional Review Board.
Provide two references of similar research.

Click here for the debriefing template at Pepperdine University, or here for a sample debriefing statement.

About The Institutional Review Board (IRB)

The IRB is an independent entity established to protect the rights of human research participants. Any organization in the United States that receives federal funding must have an IRB that is registered with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and complies with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protection of Human Subjects regulations, 45 CFR part 46 .

The IRB is comprised of research peers at the university where the research will be conducted.

Researchers submit their application for approval to the IRB before commencing data collection.

The IRB has the authority to:

Approve, disapprove, or terminate a study
Require researchers modify procedures
Require additional information be provided to participants on the Informed Consent Form ( basic elements and sample )

Typically, the IRB will meet once a month to review applications and discuss relevant issues. Members will have already received copies of submitted applications prior to the meeting. If approved, official notification will be delivered to the principal investigator.

If there are any substantial changes in the research protocol, the IRB must be informed and an amended application may be required.

Infamous Studies Demonstrating the Need for Quality Debriefing

1. the milgram shock study.

In 1961, Dr. Stanley Milgram of Yale university conducted one of the most influential, and controversial, experiments in psychology.

Milgram’s studied deceived participants by telling them the study was about punishment and learning. The true purpose was to investigate the power of authority.

During the study, real participants were instructed to administer increasingly high levels of shock to another participant (actually an actor). As the actor began to object and expressed severe pain, the researcher insisted they continue administering shock.

Video recordings of the participants clearly showed they were under severe duress.

The study was heavily criticized for both the use of deception and psychological duress endured by participants.

According to Harris (1988), Milgram:

“…explained that he had arranged a ‘friendly reconciliation’ between each subject and the accomplice…convincingly explained the importance of research on obedience…used both an interview and follow-up questionnaire to verify subjects’ positive opinion of the research” (pp. 196-197).

Milgram’s study became a key impetus to the formalization of ethical standards in psychological research .

2. Bystander Intervention

In the 1960’s, there were no formalized procedures regarding the use of deception or debriefing. Researchers were entrusted to engage in ethical behavior in the name of professionalism .

The mindset regarding deception and debriefing is illustrated in the famous study by Darley and Latané (1968) on “ the bystander effect .”

The study examined how the number of people witnessing a person in distress would influence their attempt to intervene.

Of course, if researchers explained this purpose at the beginning of the study, the results would hardly be valid.

Here is the deception:

“It was explained to him that he was to take part in a discussion about personal problems associated with college life and that the discussion would be held over the intercom system, rather than face-to-face, in order to avoid embarrassment by preserving the anonymity of the subjects” (p. 378).

At the end of each session, debriefing occurred:

“As soon as the subject reported the emergency, or after 6 minutes had elapsed, the experimental assistant disclosed the true nature of the experiment, and dealt with any emotions aroused in the subject” (p. 379).

The debriefing procedure was quite minimal: no forms to respond to, no permissions requested, no contact information provided.

Debriefing Effects

Research on misinformation often requires deception. Debriefing usually involves a detailed explanation regarding the dangers of misinformation. Does that help? Do participants then become less susceptible to misinformation?

Greenspan and Loftus (2022) had participants watch a video that depicted a crime. Leading questions were used to suggest that the victim’s jacket was gray, even though it was red.

The leading questions had their usual effect. A majority of participants recalled the jacket as gray.

Then, two types of debriefings were administered.

In the control condition, participants were thanked and reminded about Session 2. In the misinformation condition, the role of misinformation in the study was revealed and participants were reminded about Session 2.

The results of Session 2 showed:

“…that a misinformation effect can persist after debriefing. Five days after debriefing, the majority of participants who endorsed the misinformation at Session 1 continued to do so postdebriefing” (p. 706).

So, even though debriefing informed participants about the leading questions in the study, the misinformation effect persisted.

Debriefing Examples

At the end of the experimental session, the experimenter thanked the participants for their time, clarified the use of deception and rationale, and distributed the Debriefing Forms.
After being told the study was about memory and commercials, at the end of the study, participants were told that the study was actually about the effects of physically attractive actors on consumer attitudes.
Since the participant seemed to be in a slightly depressed mood after receiving negative feedback in the low-self-esteem condition, the experimenter highlighted the contact information for the university’s counselling center on the Debriefing Form.
Participants were initially told the study was about IQ tests. After the study, participants were told the study was really about the effects of different aromas on cognitive performance, which explains the presence of an essential oils diffuser in the room.
At the end of the data-collection session, one participant indicated they did not want their data to be used. So, the experimenter immediately deleted their survey responses from the computer.
After participants completed a job simulation, the experimenter collecting the data explained that the real purpose of the study was to examine the types of functional statements made during group decision-making.
One participant did not appreciate being “lied to” during the study. The experimenter did their best to explain the rationale for deception and then highlighted the IRB’s contact information on the Debriefing Form.
The experimenter explained to participants that the study was about mate selection. So, they would be rating photos of faces in terms of physical attractiveness. However, the study was actually designed to correlate facial markers of testosterone and perceived leadership ability.
During debriefing, the experimenter answered all questions the participant had about the study and asked for permission to use their data.
After collecting observational data during home visits, the researchers explained to parents that the study wasn’t actually about how children play. The study was really about types of parental discipline and children’s socio-emotional development.

Debriefing occurs at the end of each participant’s involvement in a study. There are numerous key components of the debriefing session, including clarifying any elements of deception and allowing participants to have their data deleted.

The purpose of debriefing is to ensure that participants are treated fairly, with dignity, and ensure they experience no enduring ill effects. The APA (2002) states that if researchers are “aware that research procedures have harmed a participant, they take reasonable steps to minimize the harm” (p. 1070).

There was a time in psychological research when debriefing was not required. However, historical events and the famous Milgram study sparked discussion and eventually a formal protocol was established.

Today, all studies must be pre-approved by an IRB before data is collected.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060

Arslan, R. (2018). A Review on Ethical Issues and Rules in Psychological Assessment. Journal of Family, Counseling and Education, 3, 17-29. https://doi.org/10.32568/jfce.310629

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383.

Greenspan, R. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2022). What happens after debriefing? The effectiveness and benefits of postexperimental debriefing. Memory & Cognition, 50(4), 696-709.

Harris, B. (1988). Key words: A history of debriefing in social psychology. In J. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 188-212). New York: Oxford University Press.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18(1), 57–76.

The British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Human Research Ethics. www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf

Dave Cornell (PhD)

Dr. Cornell has worked in education for more than 20 years. His work has involved designing teacher certification for Trinity College in London and in-service training for state governments in the United States. He has trained kindergarten teachers in 8 countries and helped businessmen and women open baby centers and kindergartens in 3 countries.

Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Positive Punishment Examples
Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Debriefing: A Practical Guide

First Online: 01 October 2023

Cite this chapter

David Crookall ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8024-0754 3

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

204 Accesses

Debriefing is the most important part of a simulation. That is why this is a key chapter in this book. The chapter contains several sections, each one offering insights, guidance and stories for debriefers. The central sections of this chapter look at various aspects of debriefing, such as what it is and when, why and how we should conduct it. Each section looks at debriefing, not so much from a theoretical stance, but more from a practical, down-to-earth perspective. The appendix contains a number of ready-to-use examples of materials to use for debriefing and also suggestions of courses or curriculums that use larger simulation and thus that must employ and deploy debriefing in a judiciously managed fashion. Having developed and conducted debriefs and trained trainers in debriefing for many years, I have written this chapter from a personal angle, sometimes offering short vignettes or stories of my own experience.

Dedication This chapter is dedicated to a dear friend, the late Dr. Ajarn Songsri Soranastaporn. Ajarn Songsri was the initiator (with me) and Secretary General of ThaiSim, the Thailand Simulation and Gaming Association. For over 10 years, she and her colleagues organized the International ThaiSim Conferences (including an ISAGA conference), probably the most wonderful and memorable simulation/gaming meetings anywhere in the world. She helped with the journal S&G , was a major force in Thailand for educational simulation and applied linguistics and was dearly loved by all her colleagues and students. In true Buddhist tradition, she gave so much and asked for so little. We might feel closer to Ajarn Songsri and understand her passing better by reading Upasen and Thanasilp ( 2020 ).

Simulation without including adequate debriefing is ineffective and even unethical . (Willy Kriz, 2008 ) The debriefing is where the ‘magic’ happens . (Dick Duke, 2011 )

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Essentials of Debriefing in Simulation-Based Education

Debrief it all: a tool for inclusion of Safety-II

Debriefing Using a Structured and Supported Approach

Bibliography.

Not all the references below have been cited in the chapter. Some additional references have been inserted below to help you pursue this area further. It is also likely that some references that should have been mentioned are missing. For the missing ones please send me a link to an open access source, and failing that, to send me the missing document (pdf preferred).

Google Scholar

Aarkrog, V. (2019). ‘The mannequin is more lifelike’: The significance of fidelity for students’ learning in simulation-based training in the social- and healthcare programmes. Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.19921

Abulebda, K., Auerbach, M., & Limaiem, F. (2021). Debriefing techniques utilized in medical simulation. In StatPearls . StatPearls Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546660/

Airbus. (n.d.). Airbus Training Center Europe celebrates the certification of a new A350 Full Flight Simulator | Airbus Aircraft . Retrieved 4 December 2021, from https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2021-10-airbus-training-center-europe-celebrates-the-certification-of-a-new-a350-full

Alexander, R. (2018a). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33 (5), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140

Alexander, R. (2018b). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk . Dialogos.

Alexander, R. J. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion . Routledge.

Alklind Taylor, A.-S., Backlund, P., Rambusch, J., Linderoth, J., Forskningscentrum für Informationsteknologi, & Interaction Lab. (2014). Facilitation matters: A framework for instructor-led serious gaming. University of Skovde.

Angelini, M. L. (2021). Learning through simulations: Ideas for educational practitioners. SpringerBriefs in Education. In SpringerBriefs in Education . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65540-2

Angelini, M. L. (2022). Simulation in teacher education . Springer.

Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (1997). In conversation: Transforming experience into learning. Simulation & Gaming, 28 (1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878197281002

Article Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1995). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prenctice Hall.

Bandura, A. (2012). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . Freeman.

Baudelaire, C. (1857). Les Fleurs du mal . Poulet-Malassis et De Broise; Éditions Gallimard.

Becu, N. (2020). Les courants d’influence et la pratique de la simulation participative: Contours, design et contributions aux changements sociétaux et organisationnels dans les territoires . La Rochelle Université.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . Penguin.

Blair, B., Müller, M., Palerme, C., Blair, R., Crookall, D., Knol-Kauffman, M., & Lamers, M. (2022). Coproducing sea ice predictions with stakeholders using simulation. Weather, Climate, and Society, 14 (2), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0048.1

Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals . David McKay.

Bodein, I., Forestier, M., Le Borgne, C., Lefebvre, J.-M., Pinçon, C., Garat, A., Standaert, A., & Décaudin, B. (2023). Formation des étudiants en pharmacie d’officine et en médecine générale à la communication interprofessionnelle: Évaluation d’un programme de simulation. Annales Pharmaceutiques Françaises, 81 (2), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharma.2022.06.008

Bommel, P. (2020). Participatory modelling and interactive simulation to support the management of the commons . University of Montpellier. http://agents.cirad.fr/pjjimg/[email protected]/HDR_dissertation_EN.pdf

Bredemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of simulation games: A synthesis of findings. Simulation & Games, 12 (3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687818101200304

Brett-Fleegler, M., Rudolph, J., Eppich, W., Monuteaux, M., Fleegler, E., Cheng, A., & Simon, R. (2012). Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare: Development and psychometric properties. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 7 (5), 288–294. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182620228

Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education . Harvard University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10313833

Buljac-Samardzic, M., Doekhie, K. D., & van Wijngaarden, J. D. H. (2020). Interventions to improve team effectiveness within health care: A systematic review of the past decade. Human Resources for Health, 18 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-019-0411-3

Buxton, M., Phillippi, J. C., & Collins, M. R. (2015). Simulation: A new approach to teaching ethics. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 60 (1), 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12185

Caluwé, L., de Hofstede, G. J., & Peters, V. (2008). Why do games work?: In search of the active substance . Kluwer.

Cannon, H. M., Friesen, D. P., Lawrence, S. J., & Feinstein, A. H. (2009). The simplicity paradox: Another look at complexity in design of simulations and experiential exercises. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Learning, 36 , 243–250.

Cattaneo, A. A. P., & Motta, E. (2021). “I Reflect, Therefore I Am… a Good Professional”. On the relationship between reflection-on-action, reflection-in-action and professional performance in vocational education. Vocations and Learning, 14 (2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09259-9

Center for Medical Simulation. (2022). Le guide d’évaluation du débriefing pour la simulation en santé . https://harvardmedsim.org/debriefing-assessment-for-simulation-in-healthcare-dash-french/

Cheng, A., Palaganas, J., Eppich, W., Rudolph, J., Robinson, T., & Grant, V. (2015). Co-debriefing for simulation-based education: A primer for facilitators. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 10 (2), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000077

Cheng, A., Morse, K. J., Rudolph, J., Arab, A. A., Runnacles, J., & Eppich, W. (2016). Learner-centered debriefing for health care simulation education: Lessons for faculty development. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 11 (1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000136

Cheng, A., Grant, V., Huffman, J., Burgess, G., Szyld, D., Robinson, T., & Eppich, W. (2017). Coaching the debriefer: Peer coaching to improve debriefing quality in simulation programs. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 12 (5), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000232

Chomsky, N., & Macedo, D. P. (2000). Chomsky on miseducation . Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Chomsky, N., & Otero, C. P. (2003). Chomsky on democracy & education . Routledge Falmer.

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7

Christopher, E. M., & Smith, L. E. (1987). Leadership training through gaming . Kogan Page.

Clapper, T. C. (2010). Beyond Knowles: What those conducting simulation need to know about adult learning theory. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 6 (1), e7–e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2009.07.003

Clapper, T. C. (2011). Interference in learning: What curriculum developers need to know. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 7 (3), e77–e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2010.08.001

Clapper, T. C. (2014). Situational interest and instructional design: A guide for simulation facilitators. Simulation & Gaming, 45 (2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878113518482

Clapper, T. C. (2015). Cooperative-based learning and the zone of proximal development. Simulation & Gaming, 46 (2), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115569044

Clark, M. C., & Rossiter, M. (2008). Narrative learning in adulthood. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008 (119), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.306

Coggins, A., Hong, S. S., Baliga, K., & Halamek, L. P. (2022). Immediate faculty feedback using debriefing timing data and conversational diagrams. Advances in Simulation, 7 (1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00203-6

Collomp, R. (n.d.). La simulation et Pharmacie clinique .

Collomp, R., Collomp, T., Decaudin, B., Genay, S., Muller, K., & Orloff, M. (2020). Atelier Simulation et Pharmacie Clinique . 29.

Crookall, D. (1990). Task-based teacher training: CO-MADE (COperative MAterials DEvelopment). Papers in Applied Linguistics, 2 (1), 83–106.

Crookall, D. (1991). Experiential teacher education: A case study in TESOL. Simulaztion/Games for Learning , 21 (1).

Crookall, D. (2010a). Le débriefing, clé du processus d’apprentissage dans les pédagogies ludiques. Actualité De La Formation Permanente, 224–225 , 21–24.

Crookall, D. (2010b). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41 (6), 898–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110390784

Crookall, D. (2014). Engaging (in) gameplay and (in) debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 45 (4–5), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114559879

Crookall, D., & Saunders, D. (Eds.). (1989). Communication and simulation: From two fields to one theme . Multilingual Matters. Available from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361515008_Communication_and_Simulation_From_Two_Fields_to_One_Theme

Crookall, D., & Oxford, R. L. (Eds.). (1990). Simulation, gaming, and language learning . Newbury House Publishers.

Crookall, D., & Arai, K. (Eds.). (1992). Global interdependence . Springer Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-68189-2

Crookall, D., & Promduangsri, P. (2018). Learning from geoscience games through debriefing. Geophysical Research Abstracts , 20 , EGU2018-4991. https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2018/EGU2018-4991.pdf

Crookall, D., Oxford, R., & Saunders, D. (1987). Towards a Reconceptualization of simulation: From representation to reality. Simulation/Games for Learning , 17 , 147–171. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284024653_Towards_a_Reconceptualization_of_Simulation_From_Representation_to_Reality

Crookall, D., Steinwachs, B., et al. (2004). Editorial: Thank you, Barbara. Simulation & Gaming , 35 (3), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878104267078

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Applications of flow in human development and education . Springer.

Book Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2016). Flow and the foundations of positive psychology . Springer.

de Caluwe, L., Hofstede, G. J., & Peters, V. (2008). Why do games work? In search of the active substance .

de Wijse-van Heeswijk, M. (2021). Ethics and the simulation facilitator: Taking your professional role seriously. Simulation & Gaming, 52 (3), 312–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211015707

de Wijse-van Heeswijk, M., & Leigh, E. (2022). Ethics and simulation games in a cultural context: Why should we bother? And what can we learn? In T. Kikkawa, W. C. Kriz, & J. Sugiura (Eds.), Gaming as a cultural commons: Risks, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 149–167). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0348-9_9

Deason, E. E., Efron, Y., Howell, R. W., Kaufman, S., Lee, J., & Press, S. (2013). Debriefing the debrief. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2251940

Decaudin, B., & Crookall, D. (2015). Experiential learning in pharmacotherapy implementation: Focus on debriefing .

Decker, S., Alinier, G., Crawford, S. B., Gordon, R. M., Jenkins, D., & Wilson, C. (2021). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice™: The debriefing process. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58 , 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.011

Decker, S., Fey, M., Sideras, S., Caballero, S., Rockstraw, L. (Rocky), Boese, T., Franklin, A. E., Gloe, D., Lioce, L., Sando, C. R., Meakim, C., & Borum, J. C. (2013). Standards of best practice: Simulation standard VI: The debriefing process. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 9 (6), S26–S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2013.04.008

Dennehy, R. F., Sims, R. R., & Collins, H. E. (1998). Debriefing experiential learning exercises: A theoretical and practical guide for success. Journal of Management Education, 22 (1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299802200102

Dewey, J. (1916 & 1997). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education . Macmillan & Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education . Free Press.

Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J.-P., & Rampnoux, O. (2011). Origins of serious games. In M. Ma, A. Oikonomou, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Serious games and edutainment applications (pp. 25–43). Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2161-9_3

Dragonas, T., Gergen, K. J., McNamee, S., & Tseliou, E. (2015). Education as social construction: Contributions to theory, research and practice . The Taos Institute.

Dreifuerst, K. (2015). Getting started with debriefing for meaningful learning. Undefined . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Getting-Started-With-Debriefing-for-Meaningful-Dreifuerst/3037be1db778f8f0de5c13b8aa33e3253892f615

Druckman, D. (2011a). Remembering Harold Guetzkow. Simulation & Gaming, 42 (3), 290–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110393881

Druckman, D. (2011b). The influence of Harold Guetzkow: Scholarship and values. Simulation & Gaming, 42 (3), 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110393913

Dufrene, C., & Young, A. (2014). Successful debriefing—Best methods to achieve positive learning outcomes: A literature review. Nurse Education Today, 34 (3), 372–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.06.026

Duke, R. D. (1974). Gaming: The future’s language . Sage.

Duke, R. D. (2011). Origin and evolution of policy simulation: A personal journey. Simulation & Gaming, 42 (3), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110367570

Duke, R. D., & Kriz, W. C. (Eds.). (2014). Back to the future of gaming . W. Bertelsmann Verlag. http://site.ebrary.com/id/11058796

Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach . Reston Pub. Co.

Dunning–Kruger effect. (2023). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect . Accessed 1 August, 2023.

Earp, J., Persico, D., Dagnino, F. M., Passarelli, M., Manganello, F., & Pozzi, F. (2018). Ethical issues in gaming: A literature review .

Endacott, R., Gale, T., O’Connor, A., & Dix, S. (2019). Frameworks and quality measures used for debriefing in team-based simulation: A systematic review. BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning, 5 (2), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2017-000297

Étienne, M. (Ed.). (2014). Companion modelling . Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8557-0

Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2 (2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L. B. Resnick (dir.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert, R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing words: Theory and practice of dialogic learning. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. https://archive.org/details/sharingwordstheo0000flec

Francis, D. (1989). Game identities and activities: Some ethnomethodological observations. In D. Crookall & D. Saunders (Eds.), Communication and simulation: From two fields to one theme . Multilingual Matters.

Freire, P., & Freire, A. M. A. (2021). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed . Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350190238

Freire, P., Ramos, M. B., Macedo, D. P., & Shor, I. (2020). Pedagogy of the oppressed .

Games for change. (2021). Games for change . Games For Change. https://www.gamesforchange.org/who-we-are/about-us/

García-Carbonell, A., Watts, F., & Montero, B. (2004). Learning communities in simulation and gaming. In W. C. Kriz & T. Eberle (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Transforming knowledge into action through gaming and simulation: ISAGA, SAGSAGA Conference Munich 2004 (pp. 254–262). SAGSAGA.

García-Carbonell, A., Andreu-Andrés, M. Á., & Watts, F. (2014). Simulation and gaming as the future’s language of language learning and acquisition of professional competences. In W. C. Kriz & R. D. Duke (Eds.), Back to the future of gaming (p. 23).

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences . BasicBooks.

Gardner, R. (2013). Introduction to debriefing. Seminars in Perinatology, 37 (3), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2013.02.008

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33 (4), 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607

Gaw, B. A. (1979). Processing questions: An aid to completing the learning cycle. In J. E. Jones, J. W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1979 annual handbook for group facilitator (pp. 147–153). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

Giles, H. (Ed.). (n.d.). Journal of Language and Social Psychology . https://journals.sagepub.com/description/JLS

Goldsworthy, S., Goodhand, K., Baron, S., Button, D., Hunter, S., McNeill, L., Budden, F., McIntosh, A., Kay, C., & Fasken, L. (2022). Co-debriefing virtual simulations: An international perspective. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 63 , 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.10.007

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence . Bantam Books.

Goodman, F. L. (1995). Practice in theory. Simulation & Gaming , 26 (2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878195262005

Greenblat, C. S., & Duke, R. D. (1981). Principles and practices of gaming-simulation . Sage Publications.

Guetzkow, H. (1995). Recollections about the inter-nation simulation (INS) and some derivatives in global modeling. Simulation & Gaming, 26 (4), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878195264007

Guetzkow, H. S., & Valadez, J. J. (Eds.). (1981). Simulated international processes: Theories and research in global modeling . Sage Publications.

Gum, L., Greenhill, J., & Dix, K. (2011). Sim TRACT TM : A reflective conceptual framework for simulation debriefing. Journal of Transformative Education, 9 (1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344611428470

Hall, J. (2011). Reality is broken, book review. The Independent on Sunday . https://www.textualhealing.co.uk/2011/01/30/reality-is-broken/

Hallinger, P., Wang, R., Chatpinyakoop, C., Nguyen, V.-T., & Nguyen, U.-P. (2020). A bibliometric review of research on simulations and serious games used in educating for sustainability, 1997–2019. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256 , 120358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120358

Harviainen, J. T. (2014). Critical challenges to gamifying education: A review of central concepts. In Proceedings of the Game On! Conference (Vol. 9).

Harviainen, J. T., Lainema, T., & Saarinen, E. (2014). Player-reported Impediments to Game-based Learning. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association , 1 (2), Article 2. http://todigra.org/index.php/todigra/article/view/14

Hassenforder, E., Dray, A., & Daré, W. (2020). Manuel d’observation des jeux sérieux . ComMod; CIRAD. https://doi.org/10.19182/agritrop/00113

Hiemstra, R., & Brockett, R. (2020). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory, research and practice . Routledge.

Hill, J. L., & Lance, C. G. (2002). Debriefing stress. Simulation & Gaming , 33 (4), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238613

Hofstede, G. J., de Caluwé, L., & Peters, V. (2010). Why simulation games work—In search of the active substance: A synthesis. Simulation & Gaming, 41 (6), 824–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110375596

Holec, H. (1981a). Autonomie dans l’apprentissage et apprentissage de l’autonomie . Didier Erudition.

Holec, H. (1981b). Autonomy and foreign language learning . Pergamon.

Holec, H. (1988). Autonomy and self-directed learning: Present fields of application . Council for Cultural Co-operation.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). The manual of learning styles (2nd ed). Peter Honey.

Hunsaker, P. L. (1978). Debriefing: The key to effective experiential learning. Exploring Experiential Learning: Simulations and Experiential Exercises, 5 , 2.

Illeris, K. (2018). Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists … in their own words . Routledge.

INACSL Standards Committee. (2016). INACSL standards of best practice: SimulationSM debriefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 12 , S21–S25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.09.008

Jacobs, G. M., & Kimura, H. (2013). Cooperative learning and teaching . TESOL Press.

Jacobs, G. M., & Crookes, G. (2022). Becoming community-engaged educators: Engaging students within and beyond the classroom walls . Springer.

Johnson, A. P. (2022). The human dimension in education: Essential learning theories and their impact on teaching and learning . Rowman & Littlefield.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning . Prentice-Hall.

Jones, K. (1998). Interactive learning events: A guide for facilitators. Kogan Page.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work: Seven languages for transformation (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Kikkawa, T., Sugiura, J., & Kriz, W. C. (2018). The effects of debriefing on the performance and attitude of Japanese university students. In H. K. Lukosch, G. Bekebrede, & R. Kortmann (Eds.), Simulation gaming. Applications for sustainable cities and smart infrastructures (Vol. 10825, pp. 173–180). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91902-7_17

Kikkawa, T., Kriz, W. C., & Sugiura, J. (2021). Differences between facilitator-guided and self-guided debriefing on the attitudes of university students. In M. Wardaszko, S. Meijer, H. Lukosch, H. Kanegae, W. C. Kriz, & M. Grzybowska-Brzezińska (Eds.), Simulation gaming through times and disciplines (pp. 14–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72132-9_2

Kim, Y. Y. (2000). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation . Sage.

Kirylo, J. D. (Ed.). (2013). A critical pedagogy of resistance . Sense Publishers.

Klabbers, J. H. G. (2009). The magic circle: Principles of gaming & simulation. Sense . https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087903107

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2d ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way: Meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40 (3), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108325713

Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2013). Kolb learning style inventory . HayGroup.

Kortmann, R., & Peters, V. (2021). Becoming the unseen helmsman—Game facilitator competencies for novice, experienced, and non-game facilitators. Simulation & Gaming, 52 (3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211020792

Kourgiantakis, T., Sewell, K. M., Hu, R., Logan, J., & Bogo, M. (2020). Simulation in social work education: A scoping review. Research on Social Work Practice, 30 (4), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731519885015

Kriz, W. C. (2003). Creating effective learning environments and learning organizations through gaming simulation design. Simulation & Gaming, 34 (4), 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878103258201

Kriz, W. C. (2008). A systemic-constructivist approach to the facilitation and debriefing of simulations and games. Simulation & Gaming, 41 (5), 663–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108319867

Kriz, W. (Ed.). (2014). The shift from teaching to learning: Individual, collective and organizational learning through gaming simulation .

Kriz, W. C., & Duke, R. D. (2014). Back to the future of gaming . WBV.

Krogh, K., Bearman, M., & Nestel, D. (2015). Expert practice of video-assisted debriefing: An Australian qualitative study. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11 (3), 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.01.003

Krogh, K., Bearman, M., & Nestel, D. (2016). “Thinking on your feet”—A qualitative study of debriefing practice. Advances in Simulation, 1 (1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-016-0011-4

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (2002). Unskilled and unaware—but why? A reply to Krueger and Mueller. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (2), 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.189

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation .

Le Page, C., Dray, A., Perez, P., & Garcia, C. (2014). Can communication save the commons? Lessons from repeated role-playing game sessions . ETH-Zurich.

Le Page, C., Dray, A., Perez, P., & Garcia, C. (2016). Exploring how knowledge and communication influence natural resources management with ReHab. Simulation & Gaming, 47 (2), 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878116632900

Lean, J., & Moizer, J. (n.d.). Using oral debriefing to assess student learning in a business simulation game (Vol. 9).

Lederman, L. C. (1984). Debriefing: A critical reexamination of the postexperience analytic process with implications for its effective use. Simulation & Games, 15 (4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037550084154002

Lederman, L. C. (1992a). Debriefing: Toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23 (2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232003

Lederman, L. C. (1992b). Guest editorial: After the game is over. Simulation & Gaming, 23 (2), 143–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232002

Leigh, E., & Spindler, L. (2004). Simulations and games as chaordic learning contexts. Simulation & Gaming, 35 (1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878103252886

Leigh, E., Likhacheva, E., Tipton, E., Heeswijk, M. de W., & Zürn, B. (2021). Why facilitation? Simulation & Gaming , 52 (3), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211016914

Leigh, E., & Levesque, L. (in press). Effective facilitation of simulations and computer simulations . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lennon, J. L. (2006). Debriefings of web-based malaria games. Simulation & Gaming, 37 (3), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878106291661

Lennon, J. L., & Coombs, D. W. (2005). The good-bye to dengue game: Debriefing study. Simulation & Gaming, 36 (4), 499–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878105279194

Lovell-Hawker, D. (2004). Debriefing aid workers: A comprehensive manual . Oxford University.

Luctkar-Flude, M., Tyerman, J., Verkuyl, M., Goldsworthy, S., Harder, N., Wilson-Keates, B., Kruizinga, J., & Gumapac, N. (2021). Effectiveness of debriefing methods for virtual simulation: A systematic review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 57 , 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.04.009

Lyons, R., Lazzara, E. H., Benishek, L. E., Zajac, S., Gregory, M., Sonesh, S. C., & Salas, E. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team debriefings in medical simulation: More best practices. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 41 (3), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(15)41016-5

Maley, A. (2015). Six ways of looking at context. Journal of NELTA, 20 (1–2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v20i1-2.19770

Malinen, A. (2000). Towards the essence of adult experiential learning: A reading of the theories of Knowles, Kolb, Mezirow . University of Jyväskylä.

Massoth, C., Röder, H., Ohlenburg, H., Hessler, M., Zarbock, A., Pöpping, D. M., & Wenk, M. (2019). High-fidelity is not superior to low-fidelity simulation but leads to overconfidence in medical students. BMC Medical Education, 19 (1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1464-7

Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Major, L. (2019). The routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education . Taylor & Francis.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning . Jossey-Bass.

Myers, I. B. (2014). The Myers-Briggs type indicator . Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nakamura, M. (2022). Code of conduct for facilitators and the ethics of debriefing. In T. Kikkawa, W. C. Kriz, & J. Sugiura (Eds.), Gaming as a cultural commons: Risks, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 127–147). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0348-9_8

Nakamura, M. (2023). Moderate tension enables an open discussion: Text analysis of written comments in debriefings. Paper presented at the 2023 ISAGA Conference , La Rochelle.

Naweed, A., Wardaszko, M., Leigh, E., & Meijer, S. (Eds.). (2018). Intersections in Simulation and Gaming: 21st Annual Simulation Technology and Training Conference, SimTecT 2016, and 47th International Simulation and Gaming Association Conference, ISAGA 2016 . Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78795-4

Nicholson, S. (2012). Completing the experience: Debriefing in experiential educational games (Vol. 5).

Nyström, S., Dahlberg, J., Edelbring, S., Hult, H., & Abrandt Dahlgren, M. (2016). Debriefing practices in interprofessional simulation with students: A sociomaterial perspective. BMC Medical Education, 16 (1), 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0666-5

Oriot, D., & Alinier, G. (2018). Pocket book for simulation debriefing in healthcare . Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59882-6

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know . Newbury House Publisher.

Paquay, M., Simon, R., Ancion, A., Graas, G., & Ghuysen, A. (2023). A success story of clinical debriefings: Lessons learned to promote impact and sustainability. Frontiers in Public Health, 11 , 1188594. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1188594

Park, C., Murphy, T., & the Code of Ethics Working Group. (2018). Healthcare simulationist code of ethics . Society for Simulation in Healthcare. http://www.ssih.org/Code-of-Ethics

Pearson, M., & Smith, D. (1985). Debriefing in experience-based learning. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning . Kogan Page [u.a.].

Pedersen, P. (1995). Simulations: A safe place to take risks in discussing cultural differences. Simulation & Gaming, 26 (2), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878195262007

Peters, V., Vissers, G., & Heijne, G. (1998). The validity of games. Simulation & Gaming, 29 (1), 20–30.

Peters, V. A. M., & Vissers, G. A. N. (2004). A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 35 (1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878103253719

Petranek, C. (1994). A maturation in experiential learning: Principles of simulation and gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 25 (4), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878194254008

Petranek, C. F. (2000). Written debriefing: The next vital step in learning with simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 31 (1), 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687810003100111

Phillion, J., He, M. F., & Connelly, F. M. (Eds.). (2005). Narrative and experience in multicultural education . Sage Publications.

Phillips, D. C. (Ed.). (2014). Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy . SAGE Reference.

Politècnica, U., & de València, E. (2014). Universitat Politècnica de València. Ingeniería Del Agua, 18 (1), ix. https://doi.org/10.4995/ia.2014.3293

Postman, N., & Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching as a subversive activity . Penguin.

Powers, R. B. (1992). The new commons game. In D. Crookall & K. Arai (Eds.), Global interdependence . Springer Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-68189-2

Powers, R. B. (2014). How I became addicted to simulations and games. Simulation & Gaming, 45 (1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878113501834

Pritchard, A. (2018). Ways of learning: Learning theories for the classroom . Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

Pulsford, D. (1993). The reluctant participant in experiential learning. Nurse Education Today, 13 (2), 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0260-6917(93)90031-V

Ranchhod, A., Gurău, C., Loukis, E., & Trivedi, R. (2014). Evaluating the educational effectiveness of simulation games: A value generation model. Information Sciences, 264 , 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.09.008

Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23 (3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192233001

Reed, S. J., Andrews, C. M., & Ravert, P. (2013). Debriefing simulations: Comparison of debriefing with video and debriefing alone. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 9 (12), e585–e591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2013.05.007

Reyes, D. L., Tannenbaum, S., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development: The power of debriefing . https://www.shrm.org/executive/resources/people-strategy-journal/Spring2018/Pages/debriefing.aspx

Rossiter, M., & Clark, M. C. (2007). Narrative and the practice of adult education . Krieger Pub. Co.

Rooney‐Varga, J. N., Hensel, M., McCarthy, C., McNeal, K., Norfles, N., Rath, K., Schnell, A. H., & Sterman, J. D. (2021). Building consensus for ambitious climate action through the world climate simulation. Earth’s Future, 9 (12), e2021EF002283. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002283

Rooney-Varga, J. N., Kapmeier, F., Sterman, J. D., Jones, A. P., Putko, M., & Rath, K. (2020). The climate action simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 51 (2), 114–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119890643

Rooney-Varga, J. N., Sterman, J. D., Fracassi, E., Franck, T., Kapmeier, F., Kurker, V., Johnston, E., Jones, A. P., & Rath, K. (2018). Combining role-play with interactive simulation to motivate informed climate action: Evidence from the World Climate simulation. PLOS ONE, 13 (8), e0202877. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202877

Roungas, B., de Wijse, M., Meijer, S., & Verbraeck, A. (2018). Pitfalls for debriefing games and simulations: Theory and practice. In A. Naweed, M. Wardaszko, E. Leigh, & S. Meijer (Eds.), Intersections in simulation and gaming (pp. 101–115). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78795-4_8

Roungas, B., Meijer, S., & Verbraeck, A. (2021). The tacit knowledge in games: From validation to debriefing. In M. Wardaszko, S. Meijer, H. Lukosch, H. Kanegae, W. C. Kriz, & M. Grzybowska-Brzezińska (Eds.), Simulation gaming through times and disciplines (pp. 74–83). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72132-9_7

Ruben, B. D., & Lederman, L. C. (1982). Instructional simulation gaming: Validity, reliability, and utility. Simulation & Games, 13 (2), 233–244.

Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Dufresne, R. L., & Raemer, D. B. (2006). Thereʼs no such thing as “Nonjudgmental” debriefing: A theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare , 1 (1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/01266021-200600110-00006

Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Rivard, P., Dufresne, R. L., & Raemer, D. B. (2007). Debriefing with good judgment: Combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesthesiology Clinics, 25 (2), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anclin.2007.03.007

Runnacles, J., Thomas, L., Sevdalis, N., Kneebone, R., & Arora, S. (2014). Development of a tool to improve performance debriefing and learning: The paediatric objective structured assessment of debriefing (OSAD) tool. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 90 (1069), 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-131676

Salas, E., Klein, C., King, H., Salisbury, M., Augenstein, J. S., Birnbach, D. J., Robinson, D. W., & Upshaw, C. (2008). Debriefing medical teams: 12 evidence-based best practices and tips. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 34 (9), 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(08)34066-5

Saunders, D. (1985). Reluctant participants in role play situations: Stage fright or bewilderment? Simulation/Games for Learning , 15 (1, March), 3–15.

Sawyer, T., Eppich, W., Brett-Fleegler, M., Grant, V., & Cheng, A. (2016). More than one way to debrief: A critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing methods. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 11 (3), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000148

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . Basic Books.

Schön, D. A. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions . Jossey-Bass.

Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective .

Schwägele, S., Zürn, B., Lukosch, H. K., & Freese, M. (2021). Design of an impulse-debriefing-spiral for simulation game facilitation. Simulation & Gaming, 52 (3), 364–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211006752

Schwartz. (2002). Assumptions underlying experiential exercises .

Schwartz, M. (2012). Best practices in experiential learning . Ryerson University.

Secheresse, T., Mampe-Armstrong, H., Usseglio, P., Jorioz, C., Bonnet-Gonnet, J.-F., & Dumas, J. (2016). Le débriefing postsimulation en santé. Que nous apprend-il et comment? Réanimation, 25 (S2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13546-015-1154-3

Secheresse, T., Pansu, P., & Lima, L. (2021). Quel est le type de débriefing post-simulation le plus efficace pour des apprenants expérimentés ? Une étude prospective randomisée. Pédagogie Médicale, 22 (4), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2021023

Sellberg, C., & Wiig, A. C. (2020). Telling stories from the sea: Facilitating professional learning in maritime post-simulation debriefings. Vocations and Learning, 13 (3), 527–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09250-4

Sharrock, W. W., & Watson, D. R. (1985). ‘Reality construction’ in L2 simulations. System, 13 (3), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(85)90033-8

Simon, R., Raemer, D. B., & Rudolph, J. W. (2010). Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare (DASH)© Rater’s handbook. Center for medical simulation . https://harvardmedsim.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/DASH.handbook.2010.Final.Rev.2.pdf

Sjöblom, B. (2006). To do what we usually do: An ethnomethodological investigation of intensive care simulations . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277851938_To_do_what_we_usually_do_An_ethnomethodological_investigation_of_intensive_care_simulations

Skidmore, D. D., & Murakami, K. (2016). Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning . Multilingual Matters.

Smith, J. Z. (2022). Myth . Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/myth

Steinwachs, B. (1992). How to facilitate a debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23 (2), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232006

Sterman, J., Franck, T., Fiddaman, T., Jones, A., McCauley, S., Rice, P., Sawin, E., Siegel, L., & Rooney-Varga, J. N. (2015). WORLD CLIMATE: A role-play simulation of climate negotiations. Simulation & Gaming, 46 (3–4), 348–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878113514935

Stewart, L. P. (1992). Ethical issues in postexperimental and postexperiential debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23 (2), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232007

Strachan, D. (2007). Making questions work: A guide to what and how to ask for facilitators, consultants, managers, coaches, and educators . Jossey-Bass.

Teach, R. D. (1990). Profits: The false prophet in business gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 21 (1), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878190211002

Teach, R. (2018). Why is learning so difficult to measure when “playing” simulations? Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 45 , 9.

Team Development: The Power of Debriefing . (2019, October 3). SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/executive/resources/people-strategy-journal/spring2018/pages/debriefing.aspx

Thatcher, D. C. (1990). Promoting learning through games and simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 21 (3), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878190213005

Thatcher, D. C., & Robinson, M. J. (1990a). Me—The slow learner and some of its implications. Simulation & Gaming, 21 (3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878190213009

Thatcher, D. C., & Robinson, M. J. (1990b). Me—The slow learner: Reflections eight years on from its original design. Simulation & Gaming, 21 (3), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878190213008

Thiagarajan, S. (1992). Using games for debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23 (2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232004

Thiagrajan, S. (1995). Diversity simulation games (pp. 6—7) . HRD Press.

Tipton, E., Leigh, E., Kriz, W., & Crookall, D. (2016). The real learning begins when the game stops. In T. Kaneda, Y. Toyoda, & P. Rizzi (Eds.), Simulation and gaming in the network society (p. 473). Springer.

Ulrich, M. (1997). Links between experiential learning and simulation & gaming. In J. Geurts, C. Joldersma, E. Roelofs (Eds.), Gaming/simulation for policy development and organizational change (pp. 269–275).

Upasen, R., & Thanasilp, S. (2020). Death acceptance from a Thai Buddhist perspective: A qualitative study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 49 , 101833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2020.101833

van Dalen, A. S. H. M., van Haperen, M., Swinkels, J. A., Grantcharov, T. P., & Schijven, M. P. (2021). Development of a model for video-assisted postoperative team debriefing. Journal of Surgical Research, 257 , 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.07.065

van Ments, M. (1999). Effective use of role play . Kogan Page. https://www.koganpage.com/product/effective-use-of-role-play-9780749427993

Verkuyl, M., Lapum, J. L., Hughes, M., McCulloch, T., Liu, L., Mastrilli, P., Romaniuk, D., & Betts, L. (2018). Virtual gaming simulation: Exploring self-debriefing, virtual debriefing, and in-person debriefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 20 , 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.04.006

Ward, M. D. (2009 & 2022). Theories, models, and simulations in international relations: Essays and research in honor of Harold Guetzkow . Routledge.

Wardaszko, M. (2018). Interdisciplinary approach to complexity in simulation game design and implementation. Simulation and Gaming, 49 (3), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118777809

Wardaszko, M., Meijer, S., Lukosch, H., Kanegae, H., Kriz, W. C., & Grzybowska-Brzezińska, M. (Eds.). (2021). Simulation Gaming Through Times and Disciplines: 50th International Simulation and Gaming Association Conference, ISAGA 2019, Warsaw, Poland, August 26–30, 2019, Revised Selected Papers (Vol. 11988). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72132-9

Wegerif, R. (2022). Beyond democracy: Education as design for dialogue. In LiberalDemocratic education: A paradigm in crisis (pp. 157–179). Brill mentis.

Wenger, E. (2008). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge University Press.

Whitton, N. (2011). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation & Gaming, 42 (5), 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110378587

Whitton, N., & Moseley, A. (2014). Deconstructing engagement: Rethinking involvement in learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45 (4–5), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114554755

Zhang, X. C., Lee, H., Rodriguez, C., Rudner, J., & Papanagnou, D. (2018). A novel approach to debriefing medical simulations: The six thinking hats. Cureus . https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2543

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Université Internationale de la Mer & Université Côte d’Azur, Nice, France

David Crookall

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Crookall .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Universidad Católica de Valencia ‘San Vicente Mártir’, Valencia, Spain

M. Laura Angelini

The appendices contain a number of ready-to-use materials. Some are instruments that you can use in your own debrief. Others contain elements that may be used during the game and in the debrief, such as the spreadsheet graphs produced during participation. One set of materials includes the syllabus for a whole simulation-based course on teamwork, as well as the spreadsheet graphics and forms used for debriefing. Assessment sheets can be short or long, used at the start or in the middle (usually short) or at the end or some while after (usually longer). In almost all cases, participants should be able to keep their replies to themselves, that is, not required to share them with others or the facilitator. I usually tell participants that their form is for them, that they are under no obligation to share it with (even show to) others, although they can if they wish (they usually do after a short while into the debrief).

Of course, you will have to adapt these instruments to your own particular circumstance and consider all the factors and aspects discussed elsewhere in the chapter. It is particularly important to adapt your debriefing structure and questions to your learning objectives, keeping in mind the participants’ characteristics (familiarity with their subject matter, age, game experience, professional level, etc.). Please feel free to use and adapt these materials, but please do so with the Creative Commons Attribution, NonCommercial, ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). For more details, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ .

1.1 Guide for Observers/Debriefers

As mentioned earlier, in most of the simulations that I run, I ask a small number of people to be observers during participation. I give them each a copy of this guide and spend a few moments with them to make sure that they understand at least the main ideas. I also sometimes give them a simple form to make notes during their observation, or ask them to use blank paper.

At the start of the individual debriefing, participants work in silence and fill out an individual debriefing form (see examples in the Appendix). During this time, observers study the form, go over their observation notes, and sometimes consult with each other to compare notes.

The guide is one that I tend to use, but I usually modify it for each simulation. You will obviously want to make your own, to emphasize the aspects that you consider important. If you are running a debriefer training workshop, one exercise that you can ask trainees to accomplish is to adapt the guide to a specific simulation or specific circumstances, or even to develop a guide from scratch.

Box 15. Guide for observers/debriefers

During the simulation, you will observe. Please use the observation form (given to you by the facilitator) or your own paper. After the simulation, you will help participants to debrief.

Observer : Instructions for the gameplay session:

You cannot participate in any way with your group.

Observe mostly your group. You may also observe other groups briefly.

Stay away from the group; do not go too near or interfere with the participants.

Keep a straight face; do not show any sign of surprise, pleasure, disappointment, etc.

With pen and paper, take notes on visible aspects of behaviour and interactions: Who does what.

Debriefer : Guidelines for the debriefing session—after the gameplay.

Form a circle —round; not oval. If necessary make people move to obtain a tight round circle.

Using a pen , write on the group debriefing form , and summarize the group’s ideas. This is not a simple list from everyone’s individual forms. You should summarize the collective thoughts of the group, which may be similar to or different from their individual answers.

If you have limited time for the discussion, go quickly over the first questions, and spend more time on the later questions. Keep an eye on your watch. Leave enough time to conclude. Each person should have more or less the same time to share.

Start with a word of welcome. Make people feel at ease . Outline the purpose and spirit of debriefing. Then invite people to share their feelings (usually the 1st question). Maintain the spirit of exploring , sharing and learning.

Affirm (encourage, thank) anyone who helps (especially at the start). Help them to overcome inertia.

Ensure that the spirit of sharing and listening is respected.

Give timid people opportunities to express themselves. Ask talkative people to let others talk too.

No personal attacks ; criticism should be formulated positively , that is, people should focus on what can be done better next time).

Remain impartial at all times. Do not let yourself be involved in substance if people’s comments are balanced and constructive. Do not allow comments that are racist or sexist, or plainly negatively prejudiced (for example, disrespectful or intolerant of difference, especially in culture and religion).

Facilitate the discussion: Do lead not too openly once it has acquired its own momentum.

Make sure everyone who wishes to contribute can do so. Remind people to speak respectfully .

Avoid “yes/no” Qs. Use “ why ?” Do not push people to speak against their will.

Do not tell participants what you think that they should have learned. It is for them to say what they learned (or would have liked to learn).

From time to time, summarize the general sense or main points—clarify an issue before moving to another question.

Follow the structure of the group debriefing form. Encourage participants to focus on the item in question. Bring wanderers back to the main discussion.

Notes on the above guide. Most of the instructions should make sense to you, but beginner observers and debriefers may not understand fully or forget some items. For beginners, you may wish to give them a shorter list of items. In any case, it is important to emphasize orally some of the crucial points.

Debriefers are asked to make sure that each group forms a true circle. They often miss this or consider that it is not important. So, for that instruction, I tell the whole class that forming a true circle is important so that all participants may participate equally. On the board, I sometimes draw a circle with four dots more or less equidistant from each other, with a fifth dot clearly outside the circle. I then ask if they think that the outside person is able to participate equally. Even when they clearly see that, you will occasionally get a reluctant participant sitting outside facing at a tangent to the circle, and clearly not wishing to participate. In those rare cases I go up to the group and ask them what they would like to do. I ask the recalcitrant person if they would rather stay out of the group. I also ask the other people in the group. I explain that it is perfectly ok if the person wishes to stay out, but they cannot be half in as that disturbs the work of the others. Depending on relationships, the person will decide to stay out or be convinced by others to become part of the fold. Usually, it is the latter. Once the hesitant person has started to participate, they forget their resistance and take part fully. If the person decides not to participate, I then ask what they would like to do and/or discuss options that I offer (Table 6.9 ). A very useful, and far more complete, guide to observation is Hassenforder et al. ( 2020 ).

1.2 Sequence of Games and Debriefing for a Course on Teamwork

This was a semester course that I taught to master’s level students. The course contained short lectures, films, gameplay classes, debriefing classes and feedback classes. Class grade was based on individual scores from games, group scores from games, end-of-semester group portfolio (score modulated by team members). Below is the sequence of classwork and out-of-class sessions, with games and debriefs feeding into each other, following the pattern in Fig. 6.8 . You will notice that debriefing is done entirely in class at the start, but very soon I ask students to start in class and finish at home, and then to do it entirely at home. Some people may berate me for not tightly controlling what the students are learning; such people forget that it is impossible to determine and control what is learnt, no matter what type of classroom configuration, open and student centred or closed and sitting in neat rows. In addition, I used a spreadsheet calculator, Fig. 6.12 , which I designed to provide numerical and visual feedback, based on the results from each game. You will also find an individual debrief form, Fig 6.13 .

Example of my spreadsheet calculator for teamwork simulation

Below is an example of one of the several forms used during the teamwork course. To save space, I have reduced the gap between questions. When you use this, you will, of course, need to insert sufficient space after each question to allow participants to write a few words and phrases. I typically fill one side of an A4 page, which gives ample space for students to write notes. The size of the space varies from question to question. By the time that participants get to this Towers form, they have already filled in two similar, but shorter, forms, so students work fairly efficiently. You will notice that Question 7 asks them about progress since the last simulation (and debriefing).

Individual debrief form (for towers)

Participants fill out this form after the pause at the end of the simulation. The debrief is in two main movements. First, participants fill out the individual form below in silence. In the second movement, after they come together in small groups, either they or only the debriefer gets a similar group form to take notes about the group discussion.

1.3 Debrief form for a Short Cross-Cultural Game

This is an example of a form that I have used for a short cross-cultural game. The form takes up one A4 size page and contains space both for the silent thinking back and for making notes after the debrief (Fig. 6.14 ).

Debriefing form for a short cross-cultural interaction game

1.4 Debriefing Materials Used for Fishbanks

Probably, the most elaborate form that I have devised is the one that I use for debriefing Fishbanks , a simulation designed by my long-time friend, Dennis Meadows. Over the years, the form has evolved, usually with expanded and additional questions. I have used variations of this form with several groups, such as masters level classes, fishery authorities in Thailand, the Institut d’Etudes Politiques (IEP, Sciences Po) and the Department of Fisheries at the University of Tromsø—The Arctic University of Norway. In each and every case, including the two with professionals in fisheries, the participants managed to kill all the fish.

In the formatting below, I have reduced the space for answers in each question. If you use this or modify it, you will have to expand the spaces. I usually keep debriefing forms to one page, but for this one I use two A4 pages, to give ample space for participants to reply (Fig. 6.15 ).

Individual debriefing form for Fishbanks

Generally, especially for this form, you need to give plenty of time for participants to write their answers. Even though you ask them to be brief, some will fill each space completely. Generally, allowing participants the time to write as much as they wish here pays dividends later during the oral sharing and discussion. Also, below are graphs of participants ‘progress’ through decisions.

The graphs below are produced during gameplay, with each round of decisions. Every three or four rounds, depending on how the situation is developing, I stop the game for a few minutes. I allow fishing companies (each played by about four people) to meet and discuss the situation. I also show them the results of their decisions so far. I was told once that you should not indicate anything to participants about their actions, as it would give things away. My experience is that showing them the graph and even warning them (I sometimes point out several trends, such as the more boats they put out, the more they will deplete stocks, and over time, the deep-sea catch will diminish) has little (if any?) effect on their decision-making, so hell bent are they on quenching their greed and making the most money. If anything, showing them the graphs focuses their minds and pushes them more to make agreements, which they promptly break in the next two or three rounds. In addition, the kind of data that they see in the graphs would, in real life, be available to them. The graphs are, of course, made available to participants for their debriefing (Fig. 6.16 ).

Two graphs used for Fishbanks in a Masters level class

In the 2014 run of Fishbanks (Fig. 6.13 ), it is relatively easy to see, by comparing the graphs, why assets started to decline after round 9. Fishing companies sent almost all their boats to the coastal sea (catch for the coast) in rounds 8 and 9, which killed all the fish there, so no income was obtained in round 10, when the game ended.

In the 2016 Tromsø run (Fig. 6.17 ), the situation evolved in a more complex fashion. Various teams requested breaks for meetings fairly often and they sometimes lasted quite some time.

Graph developed during Fishbanks in Tromsø University Fisheries Dept

They decided about half way through to ease up on the deep-sea catch, and work on a jointly-agreed arrangement for the coast (Tot catch, coast). These agreements were broken several times, hence the wavy red line for coastal catch. In round 10 or 11, participants decided that they would make a concerted effort to save the fish. However, some fishing companies, sensing that they were arriving at the finishing line, decided to use end-game tactics in a last-ditch fling, and threw all their boats at the deep sea, with the result that you can see on the graph. It may well be that if participants had had another dozen rounds in front of them, they might have been able to stabilize their catch, but probably at less than optimal levels.

1.5 Debriefing forms for ICEWISE

A full account of the simulation, Icewise , and its use will be found in (Blair et al., 2022 ). In a word

Our custom-developed computerized simulation game Icewise integrated sea-ice parameters, forecast technology and human factors, as a participatory environment for stakeholder engagement. We explored the value of … sea-ice prediction and linked uncertainty information.

This was a one-off simulation and had not been fully tested before being used for real, that is, with its intended audience. It was, therefore, important also that the debriefing instruments were spot on. Given that the debrief had three main objectives, (1) generate data, (2) provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to discuss and compare options and (3) provide a space in which they could make preliminary decisions, the debrief was clearly as important as the simulation itself. The original form allowed more space for writing. For example, the left-hand column was narrower, which made the space for writing in the right-hand column wider and deeper (Fig. 6.18 ).

Individual debriefing form for IceWise, Salienseas, Tromsø, Norway

After filling out the individual form, participants gathered in small groups to share experiences. They were given the group sharing form, Fig. 6.19 , below, and asked to record notes during the discussion. These notes were then used in a report for the sponsors, along with a record of the decisions made during the simulation. You will notice that the cell borders have wavy lines and that the questions are in italics. This is simply so that participants and facilitators can easily distinguish between individual and group forms. I usually do that for most forms that have an individual and a group version. If it is possible, I also use a different colour paper for individual and group forms.

Group sharing debriefing form for IceWise, Salienseas, Tromsø, Norway

1.6 PROFFIteROLE

PROFFIteROLE (the name of a delicious French pastry) stands for “pratiques officinales et jeu de rôle”, pharmacy practices and role play. It was designed at the Pharmacy Faculty in Lille (see Collomp, n.d.; Collomp et al., 2020 ; Decaudin & Crookall, 2015 ; Bodein et al., 2023 ). I was invited up to help with the debriefing. Together we developed a simulation-debriefing protocol that worked well.

The purpose was for pharmacy students to learn to interact with the public and follow protocols in handing over medication. We had three roles: patient, pharmacist and observer. With three different scenarios, each student in turn played one of the roles. The events took place in a simulation centre (see Fig. 6.20 ), and the pharmacist–patient interaction was filmed.

Simulated pharmacy in Lille

Debriefing was individual and collective. Among the documents provided were an observation guide (filled in by the observer), the patient’s medical history, a doctor’s prescription, an individual debriefing form and a collective debriefing form. As with previous forms in this Appendix, you will need to stretch them so that participants have more space to write. As a general guideline, you can fill a whole A4 page with one form.

Observer guide for PROFFIteROLE

Individual debriefing for PROFFIteROLE

Collective debriefing of PROFFIteROLE—Debriefer’s note-taking form

1.7 Classic, 50-Year Old Book Still Relevant for Simulation and Debriefing

Many years ago, I read the now-famous book Teaching as a subversive activity (Postman & Weingartner, 1969 ). It made an indelible impression on me. In the intervening years, the authors went back on some of their ideas. Despite that, it can be an inspiration to all those in simulation and debriefing.

I always find it a little strange to hear educators talk about ‘delivery’, as if learning was like a product to be delivered and dumped down the throats of people, followed a while later by excruciating hurdles, called tests and exams, which no one in their right mind would contemplate doing by themselves. Imagine going to a conference to hear a speaker and they told you that you would be tested at the end; everyone would double up in laughter, and yet this is precisely what happens millions, nay, billions of times a year in schools around the world. Would it not be better for climate and vaccine deniers to put their skills to good use by demonstrating the futility of school exams and tests?

Very relevant to debriefing are these quotes from the book:

Once you have learned how to ask questions—relevant and appropriate and substantial questions—you have learned how to learn and no one can keep you from learning whatever you want or need to know. Unless … perceived as relevant by the learner, no significant learning will take place. No one will learn anything he doesn’t want to know. The critical content of any learning experience is the method or process through which the learning occurs. Almost any sensible parent knows this, as does any effective top sergeant. It is not what you say to people that counts; it is what you have them do. … What students do in the classroom is what they learn (as Dewey would say), and what they learn to do is the classroom’s message (as McLuhan would say). Now, what is it that students do in the classroom? Well, mostly, they sit and listen to the teacher. Mostly, they are required to believe in authorities, or at least pretend to such belief when they take tests. Mostly, they are required to remember. They are almost never required to make observations, formulate definitions, or perform any intellectual operations that go beyond repeating what someone else says is true. As soon as [tests] are used as judgment-making instruments, the whole process of schooling shifts from education to training intended to produce passing grades on tests. About the only wholesome ground on which mass testing can be justified is that it provides the conditions for about the only creative intellectual activity available to students—cheating. It is quite probable that the most original “problem solving” activity students engage in in school is related to the invention of systems for beating the system. We’d be willing to accept testing if it were intended to produce this kind of creativity.

By the way, the book has a whole chapter (N°11) on games in education and mentions some of the early gamers, especially the late Harold Guetzkow ( 1995 ), one of the founders of modern academic simulation. He did me the honour of inviting me to be on a panel that he organized at a meeting of the International Studies Association and to visit him and his wife at their California retirement home. See also Guetzkow and Valadez ( 1981 ), Druckman ( 2011a , 2011b ) and Ward ( 2019 , 2022 ). The other pioneering gamers mentioned are …, well I will let you discover them for yourself when you read the book.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Crookall, D. (2023). Debriefing: A Practical Guide. In: Angelini, M.L., Muñiz, R. (eds) Simulation for Participatory Education. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21011-2_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21011-2_6

Published : 01 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-21010-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-21011-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Breadcrumbs

Deception & Debriefing in Research

The key over-arching principle in research ethics as it is discussed in the Tri-council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) is respect for human dignity, of which an important component is respect for free and informed consent; that individuals should be in a position to make a genuinely free and informed choice as to whether or not to participate in a research study.

In some research studies, however, disclosing full information at time of consent or at all, may introduce bias, nullify validity of results, or prevent the research from taking place. For these reasons, deception is sometimes required.

Deception with debriefing

Some types of research might entail less than full disclosure at the outset, but not involve actively deceiving participants with misleading information. For instance, a researcher might truthfully explain to a participant the general topic of the research, but not be able to explain the specific focus of the study at the outset, at risk of altering the phenomenon in question. Less than full disclosure at the outset should, in general, be easily handled by providing participants with a full explanation at the end of the study, in the form of a verbal or written debriefing, followed by re-consent. Issues that may need to be addressed through the debriefing include the following.

Privacy: A participant might reasonably feel that their privacy has been violated, if the researcher has collected information that the participant considers private, and not something they initially consented to. They might also feel that their privacy has been violated if the information collected is to be used to some other end than they would agree with
Misinformation: If a deceptive scenario deliberately misrepresents facts about real individuals, groups, or states of affairs in the world, the researcher has a responsibility to set the record straight. This involves not only clearly identifying which elements of the study were outright fabrications or misrepresentations, but also providing a positive statement of actual facts. This could be particularly important if the topic relates to issues that participants might reasonably be expected to consider important
Temporary and residual harm: If a deceptive scenario involves provision of false information that might be understood as applying to participants themselves, or to a group they belong to, the researcher should address and attempt to minimize any temporary negative arousal that might occur during the deception, such as frustration due to false failure feedback; the researcher should also address and attempt to minimize any residual misconceptions that might actually last beyond the period of the study itself.

To manage such issues, researchers should abide by the following guidelines, as suggested by the TCPS.

Studies involving active deception should have a clear and defensible scholarly motivation. Each of the deceptive elements of the study should be necessary, with a clear rationale to back this up
which elements of the study were deceptive
why these were necessary
how the study relates to a broader, important area of knowledge
Once participants have been fully debriefed, they should be given the opportunity to re-consent to the use of their data, so it is clear that they have in fact given informed consent, and understand that they are otherwise free to withdraw their data
Research involving active deception should be relatively low risk and, should not involve therapeutic interventions, or highly vulnerable groups and sensitive topics.

Some additional points for researchers to consider are the following.

Initial consent: It is a good practice to make the initial consent process as informative as possible, keeping as much deception out of it as possible. To this end, it may make sense to mention explicitly that while it is not possible to fully explain the study in advance, participants will be provided with a full debriefing at the end.
Tone: A sensitive and informative debriefing can go a long way to mitigating possible adverse effects of deception. Participants should not leave feeling they have been duped. Researchers should work diligently to ensure that debriefings really are received and absorbed, using plain language with participants, about deceptive elements, and to situate the study in the larger area of interest.
Mitigating potential harms: Researchers should be sensitive to the fact that the specific focus of a particular study might relate to issues that are actually of some personal concern to participants. In situations where this is reasonably foreseeable then it would be a good practice for the researcher to have on hand contact information for relevant services or general background information so that participants can pursue any larger questions or issues raised by the study.
Training: Given the complexity and sensitivity of issues surrounding deception and debriefing in research, supervisors should work closely with students to provide training and raise awareness regarding good practices for the use of these methods.

If active deception is properly thought through and properly handled, it is not inherently unethical; participants who have been properly debriefed should be unlikely to find fault with the study, or to wish to withdraw from it. If participants do have concerns, however, they should be in a position to contact the Research Ethics Board (REB), and the researcher should work with the REB to address any issues.

Deception without debriefing

Certain types of research require striking a particularly delicate balance among contrasting needs for free and informed consent, accuracy and objectivity, and distance and criticality. Deception in the context of not revealing the researcher’s perspective or full intention should not be understood as an exception to the general principle of respect for free and informed consent; nor, however, should it restrict a researcher from conducting legitimate critical inquiry, provided that the researcher meets all of the requirements of TCPS Article 3.7A and B. Such issues should be carefully articulated in a protocol, and carefully navigated and negotiated in the field.

Other types, such as the audit methodology, may require that participants are never informed that they are actually involved in research at all. Such methods may be appropriate only in highly circumscribed scenarios, such as those in which privacy is not a legitimate expectation because the research is focused on public or commercial acts.

In situations where the researcher does not plan on debriefing participants and/or intends to not inform prospective participants that they are in a study at all, s/he must justify and the REB consider why this proposal is appropriate from potential harm and research feasibility perspectives. Researchers should provide a plan to disseminate information about the study to participants and their communities, if possible.

VPRI Contact

Dean sharpe.

Other Resources

Tri-council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans >

You are invited to provide feedback about the services and support you recently received from VPRI. You need valid UTORid credentials to access the feedback form.

Debriefing as a form of reflection and catharsis for researchers

Affiliations.

1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
2 Western Sydney University.
PMID: 27641704
DOI: 10.7748/nr.2016.e1402

Background The collection of sensitive data can arouse emotional reactions and researchers may have difficulty distancing themselves from personal stories. Debriefing can address the emotional effect of an experience on researchers. Aim To explore the debrief responses of three research assistants who were involved in the review of retrospective charts and medical notes in a study that examined the risk factors for readmission in young people with anorexia nervosa. Discussion Based on a review of the responses, the principal research team reflected on the value and effectiveness of a debrief tool for research assistants entering sensitive quantitative data. The paper highlights these reflections. Conclusion The use of an electronic debrief tool, while not without its challenges, provides an opportunity for individual reflection and a platform for emotional release for researchers engaged in sustained and intensive collection of sensitive data. This type of tool may serve as a guide for research teams and assist them in monitoring the well-being of those collecting sensitive data. We also advocate that a debriefing tool may contribute to closure for research assistants who become emotionally invested and affected by meticulous quantitative data entry. Implications for practice This paper provides recommendations for future use of an electronic debrief tool for researchers collecting sensitive data.

Keywords: anorexia nervosa; clinical notes; data entry; debrief tool; nurse researchers; relationships; sensitive data.

Adaptation, Psychological*
Anorexia Nervosa / nursing
Anorexia Nervosa / psychology
Data Collection
Nurse's Role / psychology*
Nursing Research*
Research Personnel / psychology*
Researcher-Subject Relations / psychology*
Social Support
Surveys and Questionnaires

Deception, Incomplete Disclosure, and Debriefing

The IRB recognizes that the uses of deception and incomplete disclosure in research are valuable research techniques. Deception and incomplete disclosure are often necessary, especially in social and behavioral research, in order to avoid demand effects and response bias in subjects. However, these techniques raise concerns for the IRB because they interfere with the subject's ability to make a fully informed decision about whether or not to participate in the research. Thus, any proposed research involving deception or incomplete disclosure will be subject to careful consideration by the IRB including whether there is adequate justification for the use of such techniques and if the consent and debriefing process is sufficient and appropriate.

What is Deception?

Deception occurs when researchers purposely mislead research subjects by providing them with false information or misdirect them in some way about some aspect of the research procedure and/or purpose of the research.

Examples include:

Subjects are told they are working with a group of other subjects on a task; however, the other "subjects" are confederates acting as research subjects.
Participants are told they performed poorly on a task regardless of how they actually performed.

What is Incomplete Disclosure?

Incomplete disclosure occurs when the researchers withhold information about some aspect of the research from the subjects. In some instances, researchers may tell subjects the general purpose of the study but do not give them enough details to reveal the entire purpose.

Subjects are told the purpose of the study is to examine how much time people spend studying for finals but they aren't told the secondary purpose which is to examine how well they performed on their finals.
Researchers inform subjects that the study is exploring people's ability to read quickly but they do not tell subjects that a task they will complete during the research is intended to also examine their emotional responses to certain words they read.

When is Deception or Incomplete Disclosure Permitted?

Deception or incomplete disclosure will only be permitted when the researcher documents that an alteration of the usual informed consent requirements is justified under the criteria presented in the federal regulations (45 CFR 46.116(d)).

The IRB must find and document that:

The research presents no more than minimal risk to subjects.
The alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects.
The research could not practicably be carried out without the alteration. ( The use of deceptive techniques must be justified by the study's prospective value and there should be no reasonable alternative method that would be equally effective.)
Where appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation.

The following points will be taken into consideration by the IRB when reviewing proposed research involving the use of deception or incomplete disclosure:

Research subjects cannot be deceived about significant aspects of the research that would affect their willingness to participate or that would cause them physical or emotional harm
Adequate justification for the use of deception or incomplete disclosure must be included in the IRB protocol application and should describe why the research cannot be conducted without the use of deception. Further, the benefits of using deception in this research must outweigh the risks.
Subjects should be informed about the deception or incomplete disclosure (debriefed) as soon as possible.

Justifying the Use of Deception in the IRB Protocol Application

Federal regulations prohibit the use of deceptive techniques that places participants at "greater than minimal risk." Researchers proposing to use deception or incomplete disclosure should justify its use in the IRB protocol application by addressing the following:

In the Deception/Incomplete Disclosure section, justify the use of deception and explain why deception is necessary to achieve the goals of the study. Explain if alternative methods not involving the use of deception were considered and why these methods are not being used.
In the Deception/Incomplete Disclosure section, complete the explain the process that will be used to debrief subjects. Explain when subjects will be debriefed and who will debrief them. Provide copies of the debriefing statement that will be given to subjects and the script that will be used by the researchers to orally explain the study.
In the Consent Process section, complete the required sections for a waiver or alteration of some informed consent elements. When subjects are not given complete information about the study in the consent document, the IRB must waive certain required elements of the consent process such as the inclusion of an explanation of the purpose of the research.
In the Risk/Benefits section, explain if use of deception is likely to cause subjects psychological discomfort (i.e. stress, loss of esteem, embarrassment) while the deception is taking place. Explain how this risk will be minimized during the research and after the research is complete (i.e. full debriefing).

What is Debriefing?

Debriefing is a crucial component of the consent process for any research involving the use of deception or incomplete disclosure. Debriefing occurs when subjects are given the full explanation of how and why subjects were deceived and the true hypotheses being tested by the research. The debriefing also should include any other relevant information pertaining to the study.

When debriefing will occur, researchers should should consider if it would be more appropriate to provide subjects with a debriefing script and/or a debriefing statement. Researchers use a debriefing script as a reference to orally explain the study to a subject. A debriefing statement is a document given to subjects to keep after an oral debriefing occurs or is made available to subjects after the research has concluded.

In some circumstances, informing subjects of deception may cause more than the deception itself. For example, if a student is selected for participation in a study based upon certain physical characteristics (i.e. weight), it may not be appropriate for the debriefing to describe that aspect of the research.

The timing of the debriefing is also important to consider depending on the nature of the research. The IRB generally requires that subjects be debriefed immediately following their participation in the research. However, it is possible that debriefing subjects immediately after their participation in the research has ended could compromise the validity of the study (e.g. subjects who have already participated in the study tell other potential subjects about the research). Therefore, the IRB recommends the following strategies:

If the subjects' name and contact information are collected as part of the research procedures , debriefing information can be sent to them via mail, email, or by phone following the completion of the study.
If the subjects' names and contact information are not collected, researchers can give subjects a URL (website address) that they can go to in order to view debriefing information and a date in which it is available.

Additional Site Navigation

Social media links, additional navigation links.

Alumni Resources & Events
Athletics & Wellness
Campus Calendar
Parent & Family Resources

Helpful Information

Dining hall hours, next trains to philadelphia, next trico shuttles.

Swarthmore Traditions

How to Plan Your Classes

The Swarthmore Bucket List

Search the website

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
BMJ Glob Health
v.3(5); 2018

Systematic debriefing after qualitative encounters: an essential analysis step in applied qualitative research

Shannon a mcmahon.

1 Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

2 Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Peter J Winch

Associated data.

bmjgh-2018-000837supp001.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000837supp002.pdf

Summary box

The quality of data in qualitative global health research is stronger when researchers engage local interviewers in a systematic debriefing process.
Understanding interviewers’ strengths and weaknesses in real time allows researchers to enhance interviewer skills and thus data quality.
Through systematic debriefing, researchers can identify and address gaps in the data; capture nuances and other non-verbal information; enhance intellectual partnership within teams; triangulate data; and build theory.
Drawing from our research experiences in Tanzania and Sierra Leone, this paper outlines the process and value of debriefings.

Introduction

Organization of qualitative research and qualitative data collection teams

What are debriefings?

Debriefings are a discrete moment in the qualitative data collection process where a research manager sits with a data collector (or data collection team) to discuss the tenor, flow and resulting findings from a recently undertaken data collection activity. Ideally conducted after the close of a day’s data collection, debriefings are an essential supplement to qualitative methods such as focus groups, interviews or observations. ii 10 During debriefings, the research lead takes copious notes. These notes then serve as one component of the full qualitative data set, and methods used to analyze transcripts and observational memos are also applied to debriefing notes.

How should debriefings be done?

Debriefings serve a different purpose as the process of data collection unfolds.

Once roughly a quarter of the data collection process is completed, we typically conduct a refresher training on the craft of high-quality interviewing. 1 4 11 This presentation often involves distributing interviewing tips and tricks (see box 1 : Interview tips, a refresher), and asking data collectors to share with the group one challenge they have encountered in the preceding interviews and how they overcame that challenge.

Interview tips,* a refresher

Adhere to ethical principles

Ask for consent.
Ensure privacy throughout the interview or focus group discussion.
Convey in your actions and your questions that you respect the respondent’s autonomy.

Remove any mystery about the recorder/recording device

Put the recorder within reach of the respondent.
Tell the respondent they can turn it off at will and show them how to do this.
Assure the respondent that only researchers will listen to the recording.

Use all senses to capture details

Recognize pauses long and short.
Capture what is spoken and unspoken (gestures, glances, fidgeting, fear, smiles, sincerity, pride).
Note the smells, sights, the ‘texture’ of the interview.

Keep a conversation comfortable

Ask uncomplicated, unintrusive questions.
Be prepared and open to responding to questions about who you are and why you are there.
Avoid double-barrelled questions.
Know when to pause.
Give time for responses.
Refer back to comments or phrases made by the respondent in the course of the interview.

Follow the golden rules of great interviews

Avoid the temptation to interrupt the respondent.
Don’t attach your interpretation to a response.
Ask "remarkable questions in an unremarkable tone".*
Do not judge—not with your voice, body or face.

Avoid scientific jargon

Words and phrases like ‘plural health systems’, ‘structural violence’ and ‘stigma’ "sap the power and beauty of plain language".*

Be reflexive, be conscious of your role in this endeavor

Memo how you, as the human being you are, shaped this interview.

End every interview with this question: ‘Is there anything I should have asked you that I did not ask you?’

If the respondent offers some suggestions—ask those questions!

*Informed by Harrington’s 4 ‘Intimate Journalism: The Art and Craft of Reporting Everyday Life’.

Debriefings in Tanzania

Debriefings in Sierra Leone

Supplementary data

Acknowledgments.

i An iterative approach refers to the process of adapting and updating data collection tools (but possibly also methods and sampling) in light of information gleaned from data collected earlier.

ii Beyond qualitative research, debriefings have also been described as a way to examine response error in quantitative surveys, 7 and as a way to interrogate differing assumptions of quantitative and qualitative researchers in a mixed methods study. 10

Handling editor: Seye Abimbola

Contributors: The two authors contributed equally to the manuscript.

Funding: The National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health supported coauthor SAM (Award F31MH095653) throughout her PhD work. The Olympia-Morata-Programm supports her current position as an Assistant Professor at Heidelberg University.

Disclaimer: The funders had no role in the decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The content is the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of any funder.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient consent: Not required.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.

IMAGES

Frontiers
How Nursing Simulations & Debriefing Create Better Nurses
Experiential learning & Debriefing session
Debriefing in Psychology: Sample Studies & Protocol (2024)
Debriefing in Psychology
Debriefing in online experiment

VIDEO

I want to see if he responses
Atom Age Vampire (1960) Full Movie
Everyone Knows That True Singer Possibly Found Now With Correct Pitch
Women Making History: UK researcher uses new methods to reduce harms associated with substance use
#teachingtuesday: Developing the MBCP in Clinical Practice
Project 5: LabBot: Your Personal Research Assistant

COMMENTS

Debriefing Process Guidance
Debriefing Process Guidance. In the course of designing a research project, researchers may find it useful to include a debriefing of the study for participants at the close of the project. The debriefing process is a requirement for studies that employ deception (#1 below), however it could also be used as an educational tool (#2 below).
Systematic debriefing after qualitative encounters: an essential
Debriefings are the best protection against an unfortunate scenario where, long after the close of data collection, transcripts reveal that the research team did not pursue essential lines of inquiry, or worse, that the data collected will not be able to respond to research aims. For examples of debriefing templates, see online supplementary ...
The Importance of Debriefing in Psychological Research
Data Quality. Debriefing contributes to ensuring the quality and validity of data collected in psychological research by minimizing the impact of deception, enhancing participant honesty, and evaluating the effectiveness of study interventions. Debriefing plays a crucial role in reducing biases that may skew research findings.
Debriefing in Psychology: Sample Studies & Protocol
Debriefing refers to the procedure for revealing the true purpose of a psychological study to a research participant at the conclusion of a research session. In order to examine authentic behavior, it is sometimes necessary to tell participants that the study is about one subject, when in fact it is about something else. This is called deception.
Debrief Reports to Expedite the Impact of Qualitative Research: Do They
The strategy of employing DRs is grounded in the concepts of peer debriefing, which has long been recommended in qualitative research [9, 10]. Peer debriefing involves discussing experiences and findings with other interviewers or research teams throughout the process of gathering interview data largely to enhance interviewer self-reflection ...
12
Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17 (3), 437 ... Debriefing research participants: Though this be method there is madness to it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ...
A systematic scoping review on the evidence behind debriefing practices
Research to date has suggested limited efficacy of the use of CISM as a debriefing intervention for the emotional responses of workers. Tuckey and Scott ( 19 ) found that there was no statistical difference in post-traumatic stress or psychological distress scores between fire-fighters accessing CISM, a stress management intervention and a non ...
Interviewing the Interpretive Researcher: A Method for Addressing the
In quantitative research studies in the social and behavioral sciences, multiple instruments might be used in a single study, for example published surveys and/or known treatments (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).From the postpositivist point of view, in quantitative research the researcher is distant from the data, in fact so distant that the research is considered to be completely bias free ().
Debriefing
Debriefing. Debriefing is a process for telling participants all the information related to the study that was initially withheld. Debriefing may be done in-person, but is more often a document provided to subjects at the completion of the study activities. There are two conditions that require debriefing. A study involves deception.
Debriefing: A Practical Guide
Debriefing is the most important part of a simulation. That is why this is a key chapter in this book. The chapter contains several sections, each one offering insights, guidance and stories for debriefers. The central sections of this chapter look at various aspects of debriefing, such as what it is and when, why and how we should conduct it.
Deception & Debriefing in Research
Participants should not leave feeling they have been duped. Researchers should work diligently to ensure that debriefings really are received and absorbed, using plain language with participants, about deceptive elements, and to situate the study in the larger area of interest. Mitigating potential harms: Researchers should be sensitive to the ...
Debriefing in Psychology
Finally, some challenges of debriefing include the researchers' inability to use efficient techniques or the participants' inability to understand thoroughly, whereby the researcher should ensure ...
Informed Consent and Debriefing When Deceiving Participants: A
A systematic review of research ethics guidelines was conducted to sketch a picture of whether, why and how informed consent and debriefing are recommended when using deception. Documents roughly agreed on several general principles, but varied significantly in the specifics of why and whether these safeguards are necessary, in which conditions ...
Debriefing as a form of reflection and catharsis for researchers
Debriefing can address the emotional effect of an experience on researchers. Aim To explore the debrief responses of three research assistants who were involved in the review of retrospective charts and medical notes in a study that examined the risk factors for readmission in young people with anorexia nervosa.
Deception, Incomplete Disclosure, and Debriefing
What is Debriefing? The IRB recognizes that the uses of deception and incomplete disclosure in research are valuable research techniques. Deception and incomplete disclosure are often necessary, especially in social and behavioral research, in order to avoid demand effects and response bias in subjects.
(PDF) Debriefing and Accountability in Deceptive Research
In cases where there is any deception (e.g., leading participants to believe some false information is true), researchers should consider obtaining additional consent for data use post-debriefing ...
Deception/Debriefing
Deception/Debriefing. The IRB recognizes that the uses of deception or incomplete disclosure in research are valuable research techniques. However, the use of such techniques raises special issues that the IRB will review closely. Deception occurs when participants are deliberately given false information about some aspect of the research.
Systematic debriefing after qualitative encounters: an essential
The archetypal means through which such data are collected is the interview, a one-on-one encounter where a researcher and a respondent 'are talking and asking questions of one another' usually with the help of an interview guide. 1-3 During the 1-2 hours that a typical interview lasts, a researcher must juggle competing demands ...
(PDF) Chapter 6. Debriefing: A practical guide
This chapter will provide ideas, leads, food for. thought and concrete, ready-to-use examples of materials for debrie ﬁng; you have. to go out, jump in, get debriefed on your debrie ﬁng, adapt ...
Unit 1 Psychology Exam Flashcards
A researcher uses debriefing when he. explains the true purpose of a study immediately after the study is complete. Why is random assignment of participants to groups an important aspect of a properly designed experiment? If the participants are randomly assigned, the researcher can assume that the people in each of the groups are pretty ...
AP psych unit 1 Flashcards
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like A researcher uses debriefing when he, he generalizability of a study increases when, variable that researchers do not control and can affect the results of a study and more.
psychology unit 2 check for understanding Flashcards
a researcher uses debriefing when he... a. uses deception in study b. has a study approved by the institutional review board c. has a study approved by the institutional animal care and use committee d. explains the purpose of a study before the study begins e. explains the true purpose of a study immediately after the study is complete
ap psych unit 1 and 2 Flashcards
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like A researcher uses debriefing when he, Experimental research differs from correlational research in that experimental research, Ivan Pavlov was most well known for which of the following? and more.

Debriefing Process Guidance

1. Use of Debriefing for Deception Studies

Preparing Your Kuali Protocol Submission for Deception Studies.

B. Debriefing Requirements and Process

2. Use of Debriefing as an Educational Tool

Last modified:

Research Guidance

Research Form

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Summary box

Introduction

What are debriefings?

How should debriefings be done?

Interview tips,* a refresher

Debriefings in Tanzania

Debriefings in Sierra Leone

Supplemental material

Read the full text or download the PDF:

The Importance of Debriefing in Psychological Research

What is Debriefing in Psychological Research?

Why is Debriefing Important in Psychological Research?

Ethical Considerations

Participant Understanding

Data Quality

What are the Components of a Debriefing Session?

Explanation of the Study

Clarification of Misunderstandings

Deception Disclosure

Participant Feedback

How is Debriefing Conducted in Psychological Research?

Individual Debriefing

Group Debriefing

Online Debriefing

What are the Best Practices for Conducting a Debriefing Session?

Be Sensitive and Respectful

Use Plain Language

Provide Resources for Further Support

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is debriefing important in psychological research?

When should debriefing take place in psychological research?

Who is responsible for conducting the debriefing in psychological research?

What information should be included in a debriefing session?

Is debriefing required in all psychological research studies?

Similar Posts

The Psychological Phenomenon of Loss Aversion: Insights and Implications

Understanding the Concept of Statistical Significance in Psychology

Exploring the Salary Potential for Psychology Majors: A Comprehensive Guide

Signal Detection Theory in Psychology: Explanation and Applications

The Role of Psychology in Social Science

Key Features that Distinguish Psychology as a Field

Debriefing in Psychology: Sample Studies & Protocol

Ethics of Debriefing

The Debriefing Protocol and Form

About The Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Infamous Studies Demonstrating the Need for Quality Debriefing

2. Bystander Intervention

Debriefing Effects

Debriefing Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Debriefing: A Practical Guide

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Essentials of Debriefing in Simulation-Based Education

Debrief it all: a tool for inclusion of Safety-II

Debriefing Using a Structured and Supported Approach

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

1.1 Guide for Observers/Debriefers

Box 15. Guide for observers/debriefers

1.2 Sequence of Games and Debriefing for a Course on Teamwork

1.3 Debrief form for a Short Cross-Cultural Game

1.4 Debriefing Materials Used for Fishbanks

1.5 Debriefing forms for ICEWISE

1.6 PROFFIteROLE

1.7 Classic, 50-Year Old Book Still Relevant for Simulation and Debriefing

Rights and permissions