Is member checking the gold standard of quality in qualitative research?

Abstract

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.

‘A circuit breaker’ – Interrupting the alcohol autopilot: A qualitative exploration of participants’ experiences of a personalised mHealth approach bias modification intervention for alcohol use

“…We attempted to divert social desirability responding with the use of neutral, non-leading questioning. Furthermore, due to practical considerations and potential for a further ‘power paradox’ to emerge ( Motulsky, 2021 ), this study did not employ member checking (i.e. respondent validation post-analysis).…”

Intersubjective recognition as the methodological enactment of epistemic privilege: A critical basis for consensus and intersubjective confirmation procedures.

“…Although we have focused on the intersubjective recognition in the guise of consensus, the principles and practices that we have outlined can be applied within similar procedures, such as auditing or seeking and utilizing participant feedback (see Motulsky, 2021). For instance, when considering participant feedback, it can be important to recognize that, although participants may be the experts on their own life stories and experiences, the researchers have access to all the data across participants and so they may hold privilege in their ability to identify patterns across the participants' stories.…”

Black People Narrate Inequalities in Healthcare Systems that Hinder COVID-19 Vaccination: Evidence from the USA and the UK

“…Further, all authors carefully conducted member checking with eight participants (four USA and four UK participants) to enhance the correctness of data interpretation. Member checking is conducted to strengthen data validity in qualitative research (Motulsky, 2021 ; Naidu & Prose, 2018 ).…”