Beyond ethical obligation to research dissemination: Conceptualizing debriefing as a form of knowledge transfer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of debriefing has been part of psychology for many decades, although it owes its origins to other fields. Debriefing is often tied to research involving deception, however it is part of a much larger set of obligations that psychologists adhere to as professionals operating in an ethical manner. There is some emerging evidence that debriefing participants in research contexts is not taking place frequently or even to the degree that is necessary to impart knowledge. We argue that debriefing can be conceptualized as a form of knowledge transfer, and accordingly can draw on successful strategies from knowledge transfer and exchange and knowledge translation (KT) as these fields are involved in disseminating research knowledge to create awareness, educate, and even teach skills to participants. As well, we contend that psychologists are well poised to develop effective debriefing practices given a research tradition in messaging and innovative community collaborative research. Finally, we provide insights and suggestions for engaging in effective debriefing and future research directions.Keywords: debriefing, knowledge transfer, knowledge translation, ethics, research disseminationResumeLa seance de verbalisation fait partie de la psychologie depuis des decennies, bien qu'elle doive ses origines a d'autres domaines. Le concept de debreffage ou de compte rendu est souvent associe aux recherches sur la deception. Toutefois, il appartient a un ensemble beaucoup plus grand d'obligations auquel se conforment les psychologues suivant une methode ethique. De nouvelles donnees laissent entendre que les participants a des recherches ne sont pas informes des connaissances pertinentes aussi frequemment qu'ils le devraient ou dans la mesure requise. Il est soutenu que le debreffage peut etre percu comme une forme de transfert de connaissances, et ainsi, qu'il peut s'appuyer sur des strategies fructueuses de transfert des connaissances et d'echange de connaissances et d'application des connaissances puisque ces domaines contribuent a la dissemination du savoir issu de la recherche en vue de sensibiliser, eduquer, voire enseigner des competences aux participants. En outre, nous faisons valoir que les psychologues sont bien places pour elaborer des pratiques de debreffage, compte tenu de la tradition de recherche dans la communication de messages et des recherches communautaires novatrices menees en collaboration. Finalement, nous proposons des points de vue et des suggestions pour obtenir un debreffage efficace ainsi que des perspectives de recherche futures.Mots-cles : debreffage, transfert de connaissances, application des connaissances, ethique, diffusion des resultats de recherche.The process of debriefing has been part of psychology for many decades, although it owes its origins to other fields. Debriefing is often tied to research involving deception, however, it is part of a much larger set of obligations that psychologists adhere to as professionals operating in an ethical manner. Regrettably, there is evidence to indicate that debriefing participants in a research context is not taking place frequently or even to the degree that is necessary to impart knowledge. The field of knowledge transfer (KT) is dedicated to disseminating research knowledge to create awareness, educate, and effect change in daily practice. We propose that KT theory and practice can be used to conceptualize research debriefing and could provide psychologists with a framework to plan research dissemination to participants in a more effective and purposeful manner. We also draw on research from social psychology and emerging insights from community-engaged participatory research, technology, and the arts which might provide further direction and strategies in the debriefing process. Our aim is to demonstrate that KT theory and practice can provide a useful framework, when coupled with psychological research to more effectively disseminate research findings to participants. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".