Member checking Flashcards
Member checking is a method designed to reduce researcher bias.
True or False?
True
COREQ guidelines are used to promote best practice in reporting qualitative research.
What does COREQ stands for?
Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research
When a transcript is returned to an interviewee for checking can they add further information?
Provide a brief summary of why this might be considered good or bad practice.
Enhancing Accuracy and Nuance: Participants may recall new details or clarify earlier responses, leading to richer, more accurate data that better reflects their experiences.
Empowering Participants: It gives participants greater control over how their narratives are represented, helping to balance the researcher-participant power dynamic.
Addressing Researcher Bias: Participant feedback can correct misunderstandings and reduce the impact of researcher bias.
Building Trust: Involving participants fosters trust and shows their input is valued and respected.
Ethical Practice: It honours participant autonomy and recognizes them as experts in their own experiences.
What are the potential benefits of sharing synthesised information from a qualitative study back to the interviewees?
Enhancing Accuracy and Nuance: After reflecting on the interview, participants may recall new details or clarify earlier responses, enriching the data and ensuring it more accurately reflects their experiences.
Empowering Participants: Member checking shifts some control to participants, allowing them to shape how their narratives are represented and helping to balance researcher-participant power dynamics.
Reducing Researcher Bias: Participant feedback helps correct misunderstandings and mitigates the influence of researcher assumptions or misinterpretations.
Building Trust: Involving participants signals respect and appreciation for their input, fostering trust and rapport.
Ethical Considerations: It upholds participants’ autonomy and recognizes them as the experts of their own lived experiences.
Example: A participant in a chronic pain study may initially hold back on discussing emotional challenges. Upon reviewing their transcript, they may choose to share deeper insights into the psychological impact, adding significant depth to the research.
Important Note: Clear guidelines should be provided for how participants can offer feedback during member checking. This keeps the process focused, respectful of their time, and productive for both parties.
What are some ethical concerns involved in member checking of qualitative data?
- Interviewee fails to recognise their personal experience in the interpreted data and may be unheard or isolated
- Interviewee may be re-traumatised by re-visiting the experience they discussed
- Interviewee may be reminded of a time of better health or circumstances at the time of the interview
- Interviewee might be embarrassed about how they speak
Briefly explain one ethical issue that might affect the interviewee when member checking qualitative data.
- This practice can raise sensitive or triggering findings to the participant.
- Offer appropriate support or resources if sharing the synthesized information might cause distress
- Emotional Distress: Participants might have shared deeply personal or traumatic experiences. Revisiting this material, even in synthesized form, could re-trigger difficult emotions or memories. This is especially important for sensitive topics such as abuse, mental health struggles, or loss.
Breach of Confidentiality: Even if anonymity was promised, participants may identify themselves or others in the synthesized data, especially if the sample size is small or the community is tight-knit. This could lead to social repercussions, embarrassment, or damage to relationships.
Misinterpretation: Participants might misunderstand the synthesized findings, jumping to incorrect conclusions about themes or implications that the researcher hadn’t intended. This could lead to anxiety, misdirected concerns, or even misinformed action based on partial data.
Compromising Future Publication: If the synthesized information contains significant new findings or interpretations, the participant might unintentionally cause challenges or delays in publishing the full research. This occurs especially if they share the information with others before the study has been released in academic channels.
Undermining Trust: In some cases, if participants see their experiences synthesized in a way they disagree with or feel misrepresented, it could damage their trust in the researcher and the research process.
