Evidence Library

The authors report on training and debriefing the interviewers as well as the need to provide ongoing support.

 

They report that employing peer reviewers had both a negative and positive impact. Problems arose because many of the interviewees refused to have their interviews taped which left the researchers anxious about working with 'second-hand' data. Also the peer interviewers familiarity with the language and lifestyles of the people being interviewed meant that they didn't always make notes of what they perceived to be 'common knowledge' - but these were issues thought to be relevant and important by the researchers. The researchers thought they would need to conduct the interviews themselves in future and work with users to find people to interview.

 

The most important advantage was being able to interview people who could not have been reached in any other way. The peer interviewers were also able to collect the data quickly and from a diverse range of users.

 

On reflection the authors conclude that such projects would benefit from a more flexible approach - particularly in terms of the roles of lay experts and researchers and their respective areas of control. They recommend more joint working - during training, debriefing, and both during and after carrying out the fieldwork.