Member checking, or the process of soliciting feedback from one's participants about one's data or interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), has become so widely and consistently recommended as a validity check that it often seems to be a requirement for rigorous qualitative research. Editors, peer reviewers, Institutional Review Board (IRB), dissertation advisors, and research supervisors may assume that threats to validity are not adequately addressed unless member checking is included in the research design. However, member checking has a long and contentious history in qualitative inquiry with critical approaches warning of epistemological conundrums and a variety of pitfalls, both practical and philosophical. These complex and controversial discussions seem lost in the uncritical assumption that member checking is necessary for credible qualitative research. Rather than being one among many validity checks, it is sometimes regarded as the gold standard of qualitative research (Madill & Sullivan, 2018). This article examines the assumption that member checking ensures an ethical and rigorous study, raises critical questions about epistemic privilege in the interpretation and trustworthiness of research data, and explores its relationship to validity. Inherent in the use of member checking are considerations of power, ethics, and social justice that are often unaddressed. A new term, reflexive participant collaboration, may better describe this strategy in critical, participatory research designs. Evaluative questions are presented to guide researchers in their decision-making about the incorporation of member checking. Member checking is a powerful validity tool-one of many-that requires thoughtful and considered integration within the research project.