Peer and Self Assessment Strategies - Term Paper Example

The following analysis provides a structured and in depth approach to the issue of self and peer analysis within the field of research. Byanalyzing the issue from a multifaceted standpoint, it will be the hope of this author that the strengths and weaknesses that are inherent within the critique and review process can be elucidated to a further extent. Introduction: One of the key aspects of research and scholarly inquiry is with regards to seeking to understand a given issue or present a given approach in a new, novel, and/or effective manner. As a result of this underlying need, researchers tend to craft their approach based upon their own ideas as well as the salient information that they had integrated with throughout the course of their literature review and research approach. Entire volumes exist with regards to the best way in which an individual researcher can and should approach such a process. In short, and entry into the topic field, a broad research and literature review, a consideration of pertinent and salient issues, and a final delineation with regards to a topic, are invariably the steps undertaken prior to any research actually being conducted and/or performed. Although there are many sources of information that help to discuss the way in which the aforementioned process should take place, there is relatively little information that is published concerning the importance of peer and self assessment strategies. Due to the fact that this is oftentimes overlooked, the overall importance of such a process is by extension overlooked as well. Yes, the fact of the matter is that peer and self-assessment is an extraordinarily powerful tool for helping to correct and ultimately improve upon the quality of the research and information that is presented to the final audience. As a direct function of the overall importance that such processes have with regards to the quality and relevance of information presented, the following analysis will seek to analyze the means by which peer evaluation and self evaluation are both positive tools they can help to strengthen the legitimacy and relevance of a particular work as well as analyzing some of the weaknesses that these approach is necessarily engendered. It is the hope of this author that such an analysis will lead the reader to a more profound level of understanding with regards to the overall importance use and application of both year and self-evaluation within the research process. Discussion: Benefits of Peer and Self Review: Firstly, it is necessary to discuss some of the benefits that peer and self-review can have. First and perhaps most importantly, the self in peer review process helps to define the ways in which a researcher/student/individual can improve upon key aspects of their approach. Quite obviously, allowing an individual, other than the writer/researcher, to engage with a given piece of research and evaluated based upon its merits, is a fundamental barometer that can be used with regards to determining what strengths and what weaknesses the research might engender (Grant, 2011). With obviously, the ultimate benefit that peer evaluation can provide eclipses the benefit that self-evaluation can provide. This is naturally due to the fact that an individual researcher is less likely to approach their own work with a critical frame of mind and/or be able to delineate some of the weaknesses that are inherently presented within it to the same extent that a peer researcher might be able to. Another core function that peer research is able to perform is with regards to its inherent ability to streamline the academic responses to key issues by approaching them utilizing a framework of rigorous analysis that is been agreed upon by a broad majority of experts within a given field (McCarty et al., 2012). Whereas an individual researcher might be tempted to approach an issue via an alternate framework and/or use measurements that would otherwise not be considered in crafting a particular research approach, a peer reviewer is necessarily far more attuned to the level of academic similarity and pertinent theoretical approaches that are currently exhibited within the environment. Although this has been listed within the benefit section of this analysis, it will also be listed with regards to a net drawback due to the fact that non-symmetrical thinking is oftentimes discouraged in lieu of a more traditional and methodologically consistent approach (Duncan, 2011). Another impact that peer and self-evaluation can have with regards to the research process is of course correcting mechanical or errors in grammar/spelling that oftentimes are overlooked by the author himself/herself. Through allowing an alternative approach and another set of eyes to overlook the process, many shortcomings, not only of a mechanical nature, Negative Aspects of the Peer and Self Review: An aspect that is oftentimes overlooked is the fact that there can in fact be many negative aspects of the peer or self-review process. Firstly, as referenced briefly above, one of these is with regards to the formulaic nature that peer review oftentimes lends itself. The ultimate goal and purpose of any form of research is to provide useful and salient information with regards to a given research topic/issue/problem. However, one of the pitfalls that is oftentimes noted with regards to peer review is that the peer reviewers invariably choose to approach the given research with an overly formulaic and predetermined set of biases. This is not to say that bias cannot and does not exist already within the mind of the researcher; rather, it merely reinforces the fact that secondary shareholders in the process not only are able to delineate the biases that might exist with regards to the research itself, but also bring to bear predetermined expectations with regards to the way in which research should be conducted. Many of these preconceived expectations ultimately help the researcher to hone and focus the research to a more effective degree; however, by the same token they also help to reinforce many of the commonly accepted means of understanding that are exhibited within whatever research community is in question. Within the same frame of understanding, the self-review process ultimately has the detraction of not providing any level of critique other than what was already provided while the piece was being research and/or written (Morris-Thompson, 2012). All too often, the self critique is merely with respect to cleaning up any mechanical errors that might be present; being entirely unconcerned with the extent to which further improvement in the research itself can be affected. Naturally, this is not always the case; however, it is the intent of this particular piece to elucidate a level of understanding with regards to some of the most common factors that are represented in both the peer review and self critique process. Another salient issue that bears mention with regards to the cons of the self and peer review process is with respect to the fact that it ultimately reduces the outside box thinking the researcher can and should bring to bear. As has been reference previously, individual biases of the peer reviewer are likely to impact upon the way in which they seek to constrain and define the research that takes place in the future. Moreover, rather than integrating with new ideas and new trends within the research, it is oftentimes the compulsion of the reviewer to seek to curtail such a level of growth and bring it more in line with the mainstream research which is been conducted previously (McMillan, 2012). Oftentimes, this is a necessary approach; however, the research process in and of itself is one that is ultimately fluid and must shift as salient theory and new information/data is brought to life concerning various trends and/or previous theories. In short, the research process is one that demands a level of oversight. Rather than arguing that the level of oversight in peer review/self critique/self-review which have been elaborated upon within this analysis are ultimately faulty and should be dismissed, it is the ultimate goal of this author to present the understanding that the peer and self-review process is, like any other process, one that can be improved upon. Conclusion and Recommendations: Rather than becoming stodgy and entrenched in theoretical interpretations of the past, the peer reviewer should keep an open mind and seek to weigh the research based upon its own merits and tangential information from previous and current research with regards to whatever issue or topic is at hand. Further, the aid that such a process can provide has been evidenced throughout many decades of research. Far beyond merely correcting mechanical issues and pointing to areas that could use development, the peer review and self-review process is one that helps to shape a particular piece of research into a final product. Without such a transitional approach, raw research, invariably filled with a litany of incorrect approaches, would be introduced into the field of existing literature. This would therefore derail the entire process and slow the rate of development that theory and practice could glean otherwise. Most importantly of all, it must be realized that the peer and self-review process is not one that is designed to confirm and congratulate each and every researcher. Rather, the research process itself, and by extension the process of critique, is one that is intended to sift the week theories and separate them from the strong ones. In such a way the process of self critique and/or peer review should not be abandoned or fundamentally redefined. Instead, it should be understood that the inherent flaws that these approaches engender necessitate a degree of compensation for many aspects that they cannot fulfill. References Duncan D. Nulty (2011): Peer and self‐assessment in the first year of university, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36:5, 493-507. Grant, A. A. (2011). Getting to know you: performance articles and the peer review process. Journal Of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, 18(9), 833-836. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2011.01745.x McCarty, L. S., Borgert, C. J., & Mihaich, E. M. (2012). Information Quality in Regulatory Decision Making: Peer Review versus Good Laboratory Practice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(7), 927-934. doi:10.1289/ehp.1104277 McMillan, R. (2012). Accessibility, feasibility and educational impact of a peer review process for general practitioner consultation skills. Quality In Primary Care, 20(2), 105-114. Morris-Thompson, T., Shepherd, J., Rogers, M., Ladbury, B., Kirk, C., & Marks-Maran, D. (2012). Safeguarding children: the benefits of a peer-review process. British Journal Of Nursing, 21(12), 742-747. Read More