Activities
Sign in

Peer consultation: 5 methods you can use today

Peer consultation is collegial advice with a structure around it: a small standing group, one case at a time, and an agreement made in advance about who speaks when. That agreement is not the wrapping — it is the active ingredient.

Below: what peer consultation is, what a session is built from, and 5 methods you can run here right away.

See all structures

What is peer consultation?

A group of four to eight colleagues meets. One of them brings a real question from their own work. The others help — but not by advising the moment they recognise something: they follow a method that decides when questions are asked, when the situation is analysed, and when the presenter only listens.

That is where it differs from the three things it gets confused with most. Unlike supervision there is no guide with more experience: the group is equal. Unlike coaching the group's own expertise is the instrument, not one person's. And unlike an ordinary case discussion the order of the steps is fixed, so the case does not turn into tips within five minutes.

What a session yields is usually not the solution the presenter asked for. It is the question behind it: what made this so hard for you? Which is exactly why the step where the presenter stays silent shows up in nearly every method.

What a session is built from

The methods below differ in the order and the number of steps, but all five consist of the same five parts. If you adapt a session, these are the dials you turn:

  1. The presenter and their question — one case per round, and a question that starts with "how" or "what" — not with "don't you agree that…".
  2. The clarifying round — the group asks about facts until everyone pictures the same situation. No opinions yet.
  3. The moment the presenter listens — the core of every method. Whoever joins in defends; whoever only listens hears what is really being said.
  4. The time per step — timed, not estimated. A step that runs over runs over in favour of whoever talks longest.
  5. The reflection on the session itself — the last step is about the conversation, not about the case. That is how a group learns to steer itself.

The third and the fifth are the parts that go first when time gets tight — and without exactly those two, peer consultation turns back into a meeting where the fastest speaker wins.

Which method do you pick?

Group size and duration are those of the structure as it runs here: the timings per step plus what settling in and the closing reflection cost. When you prepare a session you set every step yourself.

MethodWhat it doesGroup sizeDurationPick this when
Trio adviceeveryone gets advice, in parallel trios3 per group± 35 minthe whole group has a question and time is short
Gossip Methodhonest talk without anyone defending4–8± 35 minthe presenter goes on the defensive quickly
Socratic dialogueinvestigating which stance is wise here4–8± 45 minit is a question of values, not of technique
Dominant ideasmaking the unspoken beliefs visible4–8± 45 minthe presenter keeps hitting the same wall
Incident Methodworking one incident through to a decision5–8± 50 minthe team is stuck on one situation

The methods up close

Trio advice (Troika Consulting)

The only one of the five that runs in parallel groups: everyone sits in a trio and all trios run the same step at the same time. One person puts a real question on the table, the two others ask clarifying questions, and then think out loud while the presenter turns their chair away and only listens.

Because the roles rotate after each case, everyone has had a turn within half an hour — and that is exactly what makes it the right first taste of peer consultation. Formally it is a Liberating Structure rather than a peer-consultation method, but it does the same thing in a quarter of the time.

Gossip Method

Five steps, and one of them is the reason for the name: the presenter turns their chair away and the group talks about them in the third person, as if they were not there. Out loud, so they hear everything — but without being able to respond.

That sounds uncomfortable and the first time it is. The effect is that things get said which eye contact would have kept polite, and that the presenter can hear them without having to account for themselves. Pick this method when someone starts explaining how it really was the moment feedback arrives.

Socratic dialogue

Seven steps around one moment: the presenter tells the case like a film, up to the point where the charge was, and stops there. Then every member of the group puts themselves into that moment out loud — in the first person — and answers the research question themselves.

The fourth and fifth steps make it different from the rest: everyone writes down in silence what they think it really comes down to, and then the group uses the four cardinal virtues to find which stance is wise here. So no advice, and no decision — a shared understanding of what was at stake.

Dominant ideas

Seven steps in which the group listens not to the situation but to the beliefs underneath it: "a good teacher solves this alone", "if I keep asking I'm being difficult". Those get named, not judged, while the presenter takes notes.

After that the group puts alternative ideas next to them — not an action plan, other ways of looking at it. Pick this method when someone keeps hitting the same wall in different situations: the problem is rarely in the situation then.

Incident Method

The most extensive of the five, and the only one with a real construction in it: the presenter describes an incident without telling how it ended. The group asks, analyses and works out alternatives of its own — and only in step six does everyone hear what actually happened.

That order is the whole point. Whoever knows the outcome judges it; whoever doesn't has to think. Eight steps and about fifty minutes, so plan it as the entire subject of a meeting — not as an agenda item.

Where do you start?

With Trio advice. Not because it is the best, but because it asks the least: groups of three, half an hour, and everyone has been both presenter and adviser. A group that has been through that once understands without explanation why the step where you have to stay silent is in there.

If that works, the Gossip Method is the logical second: the same move, but now with the whole group and with more time to keep asking. Five steps, about thirty-five minutes, and the discomfort of the third step is exactly where the yield is.

Save the Incident Method and the Socratic dialogue for later. They are not harder, but they ask three quarters of an hour to an hour, and a group already used to listening without helping straight away.

What goes wrong

  • The presenter keeps talking along. Every method has a step where they only listen. Have them physically turn away — as long as there is eye contact the conversation stays polite and the group spares them.
  • The clarifying round is advice in disguise. "Have you tried…" is not a question. Rephrase it out loud once into "what did you do then?"; after that the group does it itself.
  • The time per step gets dropped. By far the most common mistake. A step that runs over runs over in favour of whoever talks longest — exactly what the method was there to prevent.
  • The last step gets cut. Reflection on the session itself feels like the step you can miss. It is the only step in which the group learns to improve the structure, so cut something else.
  • There is no standing group. Peer consultation runs on trust built across sessions. A group with different people every time brings a safe case every time.
  • The case is too old. A situation from six months ago has been told so often that there is nothing left to investigate. Ask for something from the past few weeks that the presenter is still sitting with.

Frequently asked questions

How big should a peer-consultation group be?

Four to eight. Below four there are too few perspectives to produce anything new; above eight the rounds no longer come full circle within the time and people drop out. For larger teams Trio advice is the way out: then all groups of three run at the same time.

How often do you meet?

In practice once every four to six weeks works best, with the same group. More often rarely fits the calendar; less often and the trust — and with it the honesty of the cases — has to be rebuilt every time.

Do you need a facilitator?

Not on content: the group is equal, and that is the difference from supervision. You do need someone guarding the steps and the clock. That role may rotate — it even helps, because everyone then notices how fast a conversation slides back into advising.

What is the difference between peer consultation and supervision?

In supervision someone with more experience guides one or a few professionals. In peer consultation all participants are equal and the method does the work the supervisor would otherwise do: deciding when to ask, when to analyse and when to listen.

Does this work with students?

Trio advice certainly, and the Gossip Method in higher education too. The Socratic dialogue and the Incident Method ask for a group used to listening without helping straight away — with a class that is the goal of a series of lessons rather than the starting point.

Can you do this online?

Yes, provided everyone has their camera on. Trio advice needs breakout rooms. For the step where the presenter listens, agree that they mute themselves and sit out of frame — that replaces turning the chair around reasonably well.

Sources

  • Hendriksen, J. — Intervisie bij werkproblemen. Boom/Nelissen.
  • Bellersen, M. & Kohlmann, I. — Praktijkboek intervisie. Vakmedianet.
  • liberatingstructures.com — Troika Consulting, the structure behind Trio advice.
  • The steps and timings on this page come from the structure pages themselves, so that both say the same thing.

Compiled by Oksana Oliinyk ·

Ready to run in LudensFlow

See all structures →