Member checking is a technique used in qualitative research where researchers share their findings (e.g., themes, interpretations, narratives) with the participants who provided the data.

This process allows participants to confirm the accuracy of the researcher’s understanding, provide additional context, and potentially challenge or refine the researcher’s interpretations.

Also known as participant validation or respondent validation, it enhances the trustworthiness and authenticity of qualitative research findings.

Why is member checking important?

Member checking serves a different purpose than traditional validation.

While a positivist perspective assumes a single, objective truth that can be verified, qualitative research recognizes multiple valid interpretations of reality.

Therefore, member feedback should be viewed as an opportunity for dialogue and elaboration, not as a definitive test of the research findings.

Participants may have varying responses to the analysis, and their interpretations can evolve over time.

Instead of seeking validation, approach member reflections as a collaborative dialogue that can enrich and deepen your analysis.

This shifts the focus from “getting it right” to achieving a shared understanding of the data through open and respectful discussions with participants.

Enhancing Trustworthiness:

Qualitative research aims to capture the multiple realities and diverse perspectives that shape human experience.

Member checking can strengthen the trustworthiness of qualitative findings by ensuring that they resonate with participants’ lived experiences.

This process of validation strengthens the credibility of the findings and demonstrates that the researcher has faithfully represented the participants’ voices.

Deeper Understanding:

The iterative nature of qualitative research often leads to evolving interpretations as the researcher engages with the data.

Member checking provides a valuable opportunity to gain a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under study.

Feedback from participants can reveal aspects that the researcher might have overlooked, leading to more refined and insightful interpretations.

Promoting Ethical Research Practice:

Qualitative research often involves exploring sensitive topics and personal experiences.

Member checking embodies a commitment to ethical qualitative research practice by recognizing the participants as active agents in the research process rather than passive subjects.

It demonstrates respect for their perspectives and gives them a voice in shaping how their experiences are represented.

In some studies, member checking can even have therapeutic benefits for participants, as it provides them with a safe space to reflect on their experiences and make sense of their lives.

Member Checking Questions

By using these structured interview questions, researchers can transform the member-checking process into a collaborative dialogue that honors the participants’ expertise and fosters a deeper understanding of the research topic.

This approach not only strengthens the validity and trustworthiness of the findings but also contributes to building stronger relationships between researchers and participants, laying the groundwork for more ethically engaged and impactful qualitative research.

“After reading through the findings, what are your general thoughts?”

This open-ended question invites participants to share their overall impressions of the findings, allowing them to express their initial reactions and highlight aspects that stand out to them.
It provides a starting point for a deeper conversation about the research and encourages participants to engage critically with the researcher’s interpretations.

“How accurately do you feel the findings captured your thoughts/experiences?”

This question directly addresses the core purpose of member checking: to assess the accuracy and validity of the researcher’s interpretations.
It prompts participants to reflect on how their own experiences and perspectives are reflected in the findings and provides an opportunity for them to point out any discrepancies or areas where they feel misrepresented.

“What could be added to the findings to capture your experiences better?”

This question shifts the focus from identifying inaccuracies to generating new insights.
It encourages participants to think about aspects of their experiences that might have been overlooked or underemphasized in the findings, providing valuable input for refining the analysis and enriching the understanding of the phenomenon under study.

“If there is anything you would like removed, what would that be and why?”

This question acknowledges the sensitive nature of qualitative research and emphasizes the participants’ right to control how their experiences are represented.
It provides a space for participants to voice concerns about confidentiality or potentially identifying information, ensuring that their privacy and well-being are protected.

Example of Member Checking

Let’s consider a qualitative study exploring the experiences of individuals living with chronic pain.

The researcher has conducted in-depth interviews with 15 participants, focusing on their daily challenges, coping mechanisms, and interactions with healthcare providers.

After transcribing the interviews and analyzing the data using thematic analysis, the researcher has identified several key themes:

The Invisible Struggle: Many participants express frustration with the lack of understanding and validation from others regarding their pain, as it is often an invisible condition.
Navigating the Healthcare System: Participants describe difficulties in accessing appropriate care, feeling dismissed by some healthcare professionals, and struggling to find effective pain management strategies.
The Impact on Daily Life: Chronic pain significantly affects participants’ work, social activities, and overall quality of life.
Resilience and Adaptation: Despite the challenges, participants demonstrate resilience by developing coping mechanisms, finding sources of support, and adjusting their lifestyles to accommodate their pain.

The researcher contacts each participant and invites them to a follow-up interview to discuss the preliminary findings.

To guide the conversation, the researcher prepares a set of questions based on the structured member-checking approach discussed in our conversation history.

Here’s how the interview might unfold with one of the participants:

Researcher: Thank you for agreeing to meet with me again. I’ve analyzed the interview data, and I’d like to share some of the key themes I’ve identified and get your feedback.

Participant: Sure, I’m happy to help.

Researcher: One of the main themes is what I’m calling “The Invisible Struggle.”

Many participants talked about the frustration of dealing with a condition that others can’t see or understand. Does this resonate with your own experience?

Participant: Absolutely. People just don’t get it unless they’ve gone through it themselves.

They think I’m exaggerating or being lazy.

Researcher: That’s a powerful point, and it definitely came through in the data.

How accurately do you feel the findings, overall, capture your thoughts and experiences with chronic pain?

Participant: I think you’ve done a good job of capturing the main challenges.

The theme about navigating the healthcare system is spot on. I’ve had so many frustrating experiences with doctors.

Researcher: Is there anything you feel could be added to the findings to better reflect your personal experiences?

Participant: One thing that’s important to me is the impact on my mental health.

Chronic pain takes a toll not just physically but emotionally as well. It can be really isolating and depressing.

Researcher: That’s really valuable feedback, thank you.

I’ll make sure to incorporate that perspective into the analysis. Is there anything in the findings that you feel uncomfortable with or would like to have removed?

Participant: Not really, I think you’ve been respectful of our stories.

The researcher would then proceed with similar conversations with each participant, carefully documenting their feedback and making adjustments to the analysis and interpretations as needed.

How should member checking be conducted?

The choice of member-checking method should align with the research question, design, and goals.

Factors to consider include the type of data collected, the researcher’s experience, and the project’s goals.

For instance, transcript review might be more suitable for studies with rich narrative data from interviews, while sharing findings or themes could be more appropriate when working with larger datasets or seeking feedback on overall interpretations.

The level of participant involvement desired is another crucial consideration.

Some methods, such as cognitive interviewing or the structured member checking interview, foster more active collaboration with participants, while others, like transcript review, might involve a more passive form of feedback.

Ultimately, the most effective member-checking approach will be one that enables meaningful dialogue with participants, promotes trust and collaboration, and contributes to the rigor, trustworthiness, and impact of the qualitative research.

Researchers should describe the chosen member checking approach in detail, outlining each step of the process. This may include:

How the data were presented to participants (e.g., transcripts, summaries of findings, a full draft of the report).
The format in which the data were shared (e.g., hard copies, electronic copies, audio recordings).
The instructions given to participants for reviewing and providing feedback.
The time frame for participants to respond.
The number of participants who participated in member checking.
The types of feedback received from participants (e.g., corrections, clarifications, additions, disagreements).

Transcript Review:

This is the most traditional approach to member checking, often mentioned in the context of qualitative interviews.

Researchers share the transcribed interview data with participants, asking them to review it for accuracy and completeness.

This method offers participants a chance to correct any factual errors, clarify their statements, and ensure their perspectives are accurately represented.

However:

Participants may not be inclined to provide detailed feedback on lengthy transcripts.
Re-reading their own words may not be an engaging or insightful experience for participants.
Participants may experience distress when they see their spoken words in typed form, and it can trigger memories of disturbing event.

Structured Interview:

A more structured approach to member checking involves presenting participants with the study findings and conducting a brief interview using the following questions:

Do the findings resonate with you and your experiences?
Are there any areas of the findings that do not resonate with you, and if so, how can they be changed to more accurately reflect your experiences?
Are there any additional data or perspectives you would like to share related to the findings?
Do you have any other comments, suggestions, or feedback about the research?

This method has greater congruence with constructivist epistemology because knowledge is co-constructed.

This can also empower participants because they have the opportunity to remove and add data, thereby co-constructing new meanings.

Focus Groups:

Facilitating focus group discussions can generate diverse perspectives and provide a platform for collective validation of the findings.

However, researchers should be mindful of potential group dynamics and ensure all participants have the opportunity to share their views.

Cognitive Interviewing:

Cognitive interviewing involves asking participants to think aloud as they answer questions or engage with the materials, providing insights into their cognitive processes and understanding.

This form of member checking used to assess the comprehension, relevance, and ease of newly developed research instruments, such as survey items or intervention elements.

Synthesized Member Checking

In Synthesized Member Checking (SMC), researchers present participants with synthesized data from the final stages of analysis, along with illustrative quotes, and ask them to comment on whether the results resonate with their experiences.

Participants are also provided with opportunities to make further comments.

No single data source is privileged over the other; each enhances understanding of the others and can prompt further analysis.

SMC differs from other member checking methods because both interview data and interpreted data are returned to participants.

SMC is most appropriate for studies with an objectivist epistemology and a subtle realist theoretical perspective.

This means the researcher believes there is an external reality that is only understood through individuals’ understandings and meanings

When should member checking be conducted?

It is important to note that member checking is not about seeking complete agreement from all participants.

The goal is to engage in a dialogue, to understand different perspectives, and to use this feedback to strengthen the rigor and trustworthiness of the research.

The frequency and intensity of member checking will vary depending on the research design, the complexity of the data, and the time and resources available.

1. During Data Collection:

As data is being collected, researchers can engage in informal member checking by seeking clarification or confirmation from participants during interviews or focus groups.

This can help ensure that the researcher is accurately understanding the participant’s perspective and can prevent misinterpretations from arising later in the analysis.

Some researchers might also choose to share initial observations or emerging themes with participants towards the end of data collection to get early feedback.

Engaging in informal member checking during data collection can be viewed as a way to foster open communication and trust with participants, potentially leading to richer data.

2. After Initial Coding and Analysis:

Once the researcher has developed an initial coding scheme and begun analyzing the data, member checking can be used to assess the accuracy and relevance of the emerging codes and categories.

This can be particularly useful for identifying any gaps or inconsistencies in the analysis and for refining the coding framework to better reflect the nuances of the data.

3. After Developing Preliminary Themes or Findings:

As the analysis progresses and the researcher begins to identify key themes or patterns, member checking can be conducted to validate these interpretations and ensure they resonate with the participants’ experiences.

This can involve sharing a written summary of the findings or conducting follow-up interviews with participants to discuss their reactions and perspectives on the emerging themes.

Engaging in member checking after developing preliminary themes can help assess whether this point of data saturation has been reached or if further exploration is needed.

4. After Drafting the Research Report:

Once a draft of the research report has been completed, member checking can be used to give participants an opportunity to review the overall narrative and provide feedback on how their experiences have been represented.

This final stage of member checking helps ensure that the final report accurately and respectfully portrays the participants’ voices and contributes to the credibility and impact of the research.

Researchers should consider the dissemination of their findings from the very beginning of the study.

Engaging in member checking after drafting the report can be seen as a way to ensure that the dissemination of findings is aligned with the participants’ perspectives and contributes to the ethical and responsible reporting of their experiences.

best practices

Researchers should clearly articulate their reasons for using member checking, ensuring that the chosen method aligns with their research design and epistemology.

For instance, post-positivist researchers might prioritize verifying the accuracy of data, while constructivist researchers may focus on co-constructing meaning with participants.

Critical researchers, on the other hand, might use member checking as a way to empower participants and promote social change.

Clear Communication: Explain the purpose and process of member checking to participants in a clear and understandable way.
Openness to Feedback: Be genuinely receptive to participant feedback, even if it challenges initial interpretations.
Transparency: Document the member checking process, including any discrepancies or unresolved issues, to enhance the transparency and rigor of the qualitative research.
Iterative Approach: Be prepared to revise interpretations based on participant feedback and, if necessary, engage in multiple rounds of member checking.
Report the outcomes of member checking: Researchers should clearly report the outcomes of member checking and how these outcomes influenced the research findings. This might involve:
- Discussing how participant feedback was incorporated into the analysis and interpretation of the data.
- Explaining how disagreements or discrepancies between researcher and participant perspectives were addressed.
- Providing examples of participant feedback to illustrate the impact of member checking on the research.
- Including a table summarizing participant responses to member checking.

Potential challenges

Member checking should not be viewed as a silver bullet for achieving rigor in qualitative research.

Researchers should acknowledge the limitations of member checking and the potential for bias in participant responses.

It is essential to carefully consider the potential challenges and ethical implications of using member checking, as well as the resources and time needed to implement it effectively.

Time and Resources: The process can be time-consuming and may require additional resources for scheduling follow-up interviews or facilitating feedback sessions.
Conflicting Perspectives: Researchers should be prepared to engage with disconfirming voices and consider revising their interpretations or acknowledging limitations in the findings. Failing to address these discrepancies can undermine the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
Power Dynamics: Researchers must be mindful of potential power imbalances between themselves and participants, ensuring that feedback is provided freely and without coercion. When participants disagree with researchers’ interpretations, it raises questions about who has the final say in how the data are represented.
Ethics: Researchers should carefully consider the potential impact of member checking on participants. While some participants may find the process empowering or therapeutic, others may feel burdened, distressed, or even harmed. Researchers should be prepared to address these concerns and to provide support to participants as needed.

FAQs

Is member checking the same as getting informed consent?

No, member checking is distinct from informed consent.

Informed consent is obtained before the research begins and focuses on informing participants about the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits, ensuring voluntary participation.

Member checking, on the other hand, occurs during or after data analysis and involves engaging participants in validating the research findings.

How does member checking relate to other strategies for ensuring quality in qualitative research?

Member checking should not be seen as a guaranteed way to achieve validity or as the only strategy for addressing validity threats.

Instead, it should be considered as one of many tools available to researchers.

Other methods for enhancing the rigor of qualitative research include triangulation, prolonged engagement, rich thick description, and reflexivity

Triangulation: Using multiple data sources or methods to corroborate findings.
Reflexivity: Critically reflecting on the researcher’s own role and potential biases throughout the research process.
Thick Description: Providing rich and detailed accounts of the research context and participant experiences to enhance transferability.
Audit Trail: Maintaining detailed documentation of the research process, including data collection, analysis, and member checking procedures, to enhance transparency and accountability.

Member checking, combined with these strategies, contributes to the overall trustworthiness and quality of qualitative research findings.

Can member checking be used with questionnaire data?

Yes, member checking can be used with questionnaire data, particularly when open-ended questions are included. Sharing thematic analysis results or summaries derived from open-ended responses can be a valuable form of member checking.

However, it’s essential to consider the limitations of questionnaires in capturing the richness of contextual details compared to interviews, as highlighted in our conversation history.

Researchers may need to supplement questionnaire data with other forms of information or be particularly attentive to the nuances of participant responses to ensure accurate interpretation.

Reading List

Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?. Qualitative health research, 26(13), 1802-1811.
Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1102-1113.
Doyle, S. (2007). Member checking with older women: A framework for negotiating meaning. Health care for women international, 28(10), 888-908.
Forbat, L., & Henderson, J. (2005). Theoretical and practical reflections on sharing transcripts with participants. Qualitative health research, 15(8), 1114-1128.
Koelsch, L. E. (2013). Reconceptualizing the member check interview. International journal of qualitative methods, 12(1), 168-179.
Motulsky, S. L. (2021). Is member checking the gold standard of quality in qualitative research?. Qualitative Psychology, 8(3), 389.

Member Checking In Qualitative Research