Should you share your #qualitative research with participants?
Here's my take, and why I recommend calling this practice "member reflections" rather than "member checks."
Many researchers believe that participant correspondence with findings is a sign of rigor, HOWEVER...
A ๐งต
Here's my take, and why I recommend calling this practice "member reflections" rather than "member checks."
Many researchers believe that participant correspondence with findings is a sign of rigor, HOWEVER...
A ๐งต
...there is โno evidence that routine member checks enhance the credibility or trustworthiness of qualitative researchโ (Thomas, 2017, p. 37). Given that member checks do not lead to "validity", why is sharing research with participants still worthwhile? tandfonline.com
Member reflections lead to additional insight, producing new data, throwing fresh light, and spurring richer analyses. Participants can react, agree, or point out problems. For researchers with a critical or focus, this is time to work alongside participants as co-researchers.
Sometimes members disagree with or dislike your emerging analysis. Does this mean your research is problematic? Perhaps, but not necessarily. This is one of many reasons why I call them member "reflections" and not member "checks" or member "validation."
Of course, you should consider the variety of reactions received. This does NOT mean, though, that you automatically change the direction of your analysis to align perfectly with participantsโ viewpoints. Further, participant critique does not invalidate the research. Why?
First, it's unsurprising that participants are defensive in the face of critical research that threatens their identity or unveils issues privilege.
Varpio, et al. (2017). Problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. doi.org
Varpio, et al. (2017). Problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. doi.org
Second, participants' responses are provisional & subject to change.
Third, individual participants do not have access to the range of findings and sophistication of interpretation that hopefully is the result of thoughtful qualitative analysis.
Third, individual participants do not have access to the range of findings and sophistication of interpretation that hopefully is the result of thoughtful qualitative analysis.
As a practice of #qualitative quality, researchers should create options for and consider participant input.
However, as I discuss in more detail here, my recommendation is to call this a process of "member reflections" and NOT "member checks."
journals.sagepub.com
However, as I discuss in more detail here, my recommendation is to call this a process of "member reflections" and NOT "member checks."
journals.sagepub.com
I'll be attending to additional issues and questions about qualitative quality in two workshops next week. Please feel free to take a look and join me! eventbrite.com
Join us for Qualitative Quality Part A: Worthy Topic, Rigor, Sincerity, Credibility. Arm yourself to answer pesky (& often inappropriate) questions about #qualitative research and feel confident from the beginning!
eventbrite.com
eventbrite.com
Tired of reviewers, funders, or supervisors asking about generalizability, reliability, or saturation? This workshop provides the answers you need for crafting quality in #qualitative research -- through resonance and significance. Thur June 29.
eventbrite.com
eventbrite.com
@andrea_isabel So if it is a community base problem, the solution and next steps also need to have community buy-in.
Have you engaged in CBPR where your recommended solutions conflicted with what the community wanted? Iโm curious about how you handled this. Would make for a valuable essay.
Have you engaged in CBPR where your recommended solutions conflicted with what the community wanted? Iโm curious about how you handled this. Would make for a valuable essay.
Loading suggestions...