Member Checking Process with Adolescent Students: Not Just Reading a Transcript

There is nothing like looking, if you want to find something. You certainly usually find something, if you look, but it not always quite the something you are after. (J. R. R. Tolkien) Our Story As a recent doctoral student, Amber's first encounter with member checking was in a research course entitled Qualitative Inquiry in Education taught by the second author, Cassie. In the second week of this class, we discussed the ethical implications of member checking (Lareau, 2011)--the challenges and dilemmas we may encounter as developing researchers and will continuously face throughout our life passions in the field of educational research. The second encounter was again in this course, when we talked about ways to establish rigor and trustworthiness within our studies. As we discussed member checking, it we situated as a "best practice" in the field of qualitative research, a practice that as a graduate research assistant was never a part of any research project I (1) conducted involving children, adolescents, or even adults. It was not until my dissertation that I came face-to-face with how to conduct member checking as I felt it was not only important to check my interpretations (e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tracy, 2010); but it was also as a vital part of my research agenda, which was providing adolescent students with a voice in an era when educational policies and other choices are made for them (e.g., single-sex classes or ability grouped tracking). Cassie, who also served as Amber's methodological advisor for her dissertation, suggested looking to other authors for guidance on this approach. As the opening quote illustrates, I began searching for how other researchers have conducted member checking, but much of what I found simply defined member checking and "presented [it] as should do's rather than must do's" (Carlson, 2010, p. 1102; italics in original). For example, Glesne (2006) defined the process as "sharing interview transcripts, analytical thoughts, and/or drafts of the final report with research participants to make sure you are representing them and their ideas accurately" (p. 38). Similarly, Stake (1995) discussed participants' role in the process as the actor is requested to examine rough drafts of writing where the actions or words of the actor are featured ... The actor is asked to review the material for accuracy and palatability. The actor may be encouraged to provide alternative language or interpretation but is not promised that that version will appear in the final report. Regardless, some of that feedback is worthy of inclusion. (pp. 115-116) As another example, Richards (2003) defined member checking as a form of validation to "seek views of members on accuracy of data gathered, descriptions, or even interpretations" (p. 287). Even within the second edition of the Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000), a handbook of 41 chapters, 1065 pages, I found at most 10 pages dedicated to member checking (e.g., credibility, reliability, rigor); hence, there was not a full chapter dedicated to member checking, which I believe to be an important component of sound qualitative research methods. I recognize that this process extends the life of a study and may bring about negative reactions and emotions from participants; and in the end, do little to change researchers' interpretations and final text (Lareau, 2011), which is why researchers may have chosen to not conduct member checks or write about their process. Additionally, I am not discrediting the work of these individuals as I believe their work is influential to the past, present, and future work of researchers, but I felt trapped in a box of frustration. This frustration became more intense as the process of member checking was presented as a list of ways to conduct member checking. For example, through a focus group discussion, by distributing copies of the draft manuscript to individuals for their written comments, in (formal or informal) one-on-one interviews, via e-mail discussions, or by presenting findings in a public forum with participants present and then recording or taking notes on the conversations that ensue. …