Synthesized Member Checking

Synthesized Member Checking (SMC) is a specific type of member checking designed to enhance the trustworthiness of qualitative research findings.

In SMC, researchers present participants with a synthesized summary of the study’s findings, including illustrative quotes, and ask them to provide feedback on whether those findings resonate with their experiences.

This technique allows participants to engage in the interpretive process and contribute to the final analysis

SMC returns both interview data and interpreted data to participants. In contrast, other methods might only involve verifying transcripts or providing individual case summaries.

What are the steps involved in SMC?

SMC is a five-step process:

1. Prepare a synthesized summary: Create a summary of emerging themes from the analysis, including illustrative quotes. Use accessible language to engage participants and provide space for their feedback.
2. Check participant eligibility: Work with relevant gatekeepers, like healthcare professionals, to ensure that returning data to participants is appropriate, considering their health status and other ethical factors.
3. Send out the SMC report: Mail the synthesized summary to participants along with a cover letter explaining the purpose, instructions, and researcher contact information. Include a freepost reply envelope.
4. Gather responses: Collect returned documents, record response rates, and add any new data provided by participants to the dataset.
5. Integrate findings: Analyze and integrate any additional data from participants into the existing analysis, cross-referencing with existing codes.

Epistemological Alignment

SMC is most aligned with studies that adopt an objectivist epistemology and a subtle realist theoretical perspective.

This means the researcher believes there is an objective reality that is only accessible through individuals’ subjective understandings and interpretations.

The researcher’s role is to capture these interpretations as accurately as possible and use them to construct a credible representation of the phenomenon.

SMC is seen as a way to verify the accuracy and trustworthiness of these interpretations by ensuring that they resonate with the participants who provided the data.

SMC Document

Synthesized Member Checking (SMC) involves returning synthesized, analyzed data to participants for their feedback.

This process often involves a written document, known as an SMC document, which includes summaries of key themes identified in the research, alongside illustrative quotes from participant interviews.

The SMC document aims to engage participants in a clear and accessible way, prompting their feedback on the researcher’s interpretations.

Key elements often included in an SMC document are:

• Non-scientific wording: The language used should be easy for participants to understand, avoiding technical jargon or complex terminology.
• Open questions: The document should include open-ended questions that encourage participants to reflect on the findings and provide detailed feedback. Examples of such questions might include:
  • “Does this match your experience?”
  • “Do you want to change anything?”
  • Do you want to add anything?”
• Clear space for feedback: The document should provide ample space for participants to write their responses to the open-ended questions and offer any additional thoughts or perspectives.
• Illustrative quotes: Direct quotes from participant interviews are included to contextualize the synthesized themes and allow participants to recognize their own experiences within the broader findings.

Alternative Formats

While most researchers use a physical document for SMC, researchers acknowledge that other formats might be more suitable in different contexts.

For example, researchers could offer electronic copies, which might encourage greater participation and online editing.

Audio documents might be appropriate for participants with disabilities, or researchers could arrange for someone to visit participants and discuss the document with them.

What should researchers report about SMC?

Researchers should provide a comprehensive and transparent account of the SMC process in their research reports.

This reporting should go beyond a simple mention of using member checking and instead offer details about how SMC was implemented and how participant feedback was used in the analysis.

Here’s a breakdown of what to include when reporting on SMC:

1. Rationale for Using SMC:

Clearly articulate the reasons for choosing SMC as a validation technique.

This should include a discussion of how SMC aligns with the study’s epistemological stance, research goals, and methodological approach.

For example, if the study adopts an objectivist epistemology, the researcher might explain that SMC was used to enhance the accuracy and credibility of findings by ensuring that the researcher’s interpretations resonated with the participants’ experiences.

2. Description of the SMC Process:

Provide a detailed description of how SMC was conducted, outlining each step involved. This includes information on:

• Development of the SMC document: Explain how the synthesized summary was created, what information it contained (e.g., themes, illustrative quotes, open-ended questions), and why certain choices were made (e.g., using non-scientific language).
• Participant eligibility and recruitment: Describe how participants were selected for SMC, any criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and how the researcher ensured the ethical treatment of participants, especially vulnerable ones. This might involve consulting with gatekeepers or obtaining additional consent.
• Methods of sharing the summary and obtaining feedback: Explain how the summary was shared with participants (e.g., mail, email, in-person meetings) and what format was used (e.g., written document, audio recording). Also, describe the types of questions or prompts used to elicit feedback.
• Timeline and response rate: Specify the timeframe given to participants for providing feedback and the overall response rate. Include information on the characteristics of respondents and non-respondents (e.g., age, gender, type of melanoma) to allow readers to assess potential biases.

3. Analysis and Integration of Participant Feedback:

Explain how participant feedback was analyzed and used to refine the study’s findings. This could involve:

• Categorizing responses: Grouping feedback based on whether it confirms, disconfirms, or expands on the initial themes.
• Identifying patterns in responses: Looking for commonalities or divergences in participants’ perspectives.
• Revising interpretations: Modifying or refining the initial themes or explanations based on participant input.
• Adding new data: Incorporating new information or perspectives shared by participants into the analysis.

4. Discussion of Disconfirming Voices:

Transparently discuss any instances where participants disagreed with the researcher’s interpretations or challenged the findings.

Explain how these disconfirming voices were addressed and how they influenced the final analysis.

This demonstrates that the researcher engaged with the complexity of the data and did not simply seek to confirm pre-existing assumptions.

5. Examples of Participant Feedback:

Include illustrative examples of participant feedback, using direct quotes or paraphrased summaries, to demonstrate how participants engaged with the SMC process.

This helps readers understand the nature and depth of participant involvement and adds to the transparency and trustworthiness of the research.

6. Limitations of SMC:

Acknowledge the limitations of using SMC as a validation tool. This might include discussing:

• Potential for participant bias: Acknowledging that participants might agree with the researcher out of politeness or a desire to be helpful.
• Challenges in capturing the full range of perspectives: Recognizing that not all participants may be able to or willing to participate in SMC, potentially limiting the representativeness of the feedback.
• Temporal nature of experiences: Understanding that participants’ perspectives might change over time, and SMC only captures their views at a specific point in time.

By providing a thorough and reflexive account of the SMC process, researchers can enhance the trustworthiness and rigor of their qualitative studies.

Clear reporting allows readers to assess the credibility of the findings, understand the role of participant feedback in shaping the analysis, and appreciate the complexity of the interpretive process.

alternative approaches to member checking

• Returning interview transcripts: Participants review and verify the accuracy of their interview transcripts. This approach is more aligned with a positivist stance seeking to ensure factual accuracy.
• Member check interview: Participants engage in a second interview focused on confirming, modifying, or adding to the data from their first interview. This method allows for more co-construction of knowledge.
• Member check focus group: A group of participants discuss the findings and provide collective feedback. This approach facilitates validation and shared understanding within a group context.