Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Participant Debriefing Procedures/Evidence
Method evidence record

Participant Debriefing Procedures

Participant debriefing is a post-study conversation or disclosure providing information to participants after research participation concludes. Debriefing serves multiple ethical purposes: (1) explaining the research aims and design, (2) revealing any deception (if applicable), (3) addressing misconceptions, (4) offering support if the research caused discomfort, (5) providing information about study findings, and (6) ensuring participants understand their rights (e.g., right to withdraw data). Debriefing is especially important in research involving deception (participants must learn the truth), sensitive topics (participants may experience distress), or invasive procedures (participants deserve explanation). The American Psychological Association's Ethical Code, ESOMAR guidelines, and international research ethics frameworks emphasize debriefing as a core protective procedure.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Post-Study Disclosure and Ethical Debriefing Protocols for Research Participants
Taxonomic method record · process-pipeline / research-ethics
  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Section 8.08 - Debriefing. · URL
  • ESOMAR. (2016). ESOMAR Guideline: Conducting Qualitative Research Ethically. Data Collection Ethics. · URL
  • The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. · URL
  • Williamson, V., & Williams, M. (2011). Using Narratives to Assess Ethical Issues in Longitudinal Research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 3(1), 92-106. · URL
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Same method familyDeception and Debriefing in Researchmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyEthics Committee Application Processmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyResearch with Vulnerable Populationsmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyRisk-Benefit Assessment in Research Protocolsmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

4 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account