disabilities or to offer to have someone visit and go through the document with them (Doyle 2007). ***insert Box 1 about here*** Before mailing the member checking documents, we checked with the relevant skin cancer nurse specialists that the participant was in good health, to reduce risk of distress (SMC Step 2). This proved an important step as 13 participants were not approached: two had died, seven were too ill to receive the report, and the specialist nurses were unsure of current addresses for four participants. Fifty member checking documents were posted, with a copy for participants to retain and a copy to be returned in a stamped addressed envelope (SMC Step 3). A cover letter explained that the document was a summary of interim results developed through analysis of all the interviews to represent the experiences important to most people interviewed. Participants were asked to read the document and comment on whether or not they felt the synthesised results resonated with their experiences and if there was anything they would like to change, in order to help us complete our analyses and develop interpretations (See Box 1). This statement reiterated that these were not final results; rather that there was the opportunity to influence the analysis, giving participants permission to disagree. The researcher’s contact details were provided in case of queries but no one made use of this. We allowed two weeks to return the document.
Walter F.M., Birt, L., Cavers, D., Scott, S., Emery, J., Burrows, N., Cavanagh, G., Mackie, R., Weller, D., & Campbell, C. (2014) ‘This isn’t what mine looked like’: a qualitative study of symptom appraisal and help seeking in people recently diagnosed with melanoma. BMJ Open, 4(7), 1-2 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005566. Table 1 Examples of different types of member checking Method of member checking Epistemological stance Theoretical issues Method Ethical issues Returning transcribed verbatim transcripts (Forbat & Henderson, 2005; Carlson 2010) Positivist: Implies there is a truth value in the spoken/written word Appropriate for checking factual information. Could enable the addition of new data Could enable participant to delete the data they no longer wish to have used thereby changing the data set Need to return transcripts relatively quickly while interview still fresh in memory Could return transcript using paper or electronic methods, or audio tapes Participant distress when see the spoken word in typed form. Can retrigger memories of disturbing events Member check interview –using the transcript (Doyle, 2007) Can co-construct new meaning and validate previous interpretations Enables shared discussion of the interview transcript Interview focuses on confirmation, modification and verification of interview text Could enable the addition of new data Need to undertake further analysis of member check interview Transcript could be returned prior to the interview Need to re-consent the participant Additional cost for further transcribing and time to analysis Losing participants to follow-up Concerns for participant safety reduced as the researcher present Coercion as it might be hard to disagree with researcher’s interpretation in their presence Member check interview – using analyses of single participant’s Interpretive Each participant receives researcher’s interpretation of their interview Interview focuses on Need to have undertaken sufficient analysis to prepare data for sharing. Concerns for participant safety reduced as the researcher
data (Birt, 2010; Koelsch, 2013; Harvey, 2015) confirmation, modification and verification of interpretation Could enable the addition of new data Need to undertake further analysis of member check interview Participants might agree on potential illustrative quotations Does not enhance the trustworthiness of the whole data set as researcher still needs to combine data set Need to re-consent the participant Additional cost for further transcribing and time to analysis Losing participants to follow-up present Coercion as it might be hard to disagree with researcher’s interpretation in their presence Participants can veto illustrative quotes which might expose their identity in small research environments Member check focus group (Klinger, 2005) Interpretive Focus group might include participants or others with similar experiences Participants might feel their experiences are validated and others have the same experience Group might move from a discussion group to one of support Can confirm or disaffirm results Group might generate new data which has been constructed in different social setting (i.e. group rather an individual) Need to have undertaken sufficient analysis to prepare data for sharing. Need to re-consent people for confidentiality of original data and understanding how new data will be used Cost of venue and further transcribing of the focus group. Not as convenient for participant if they have to travel to venue Data needs to be Group coercion can make it difficult for single disconfirming voice Coercion as it might be hard to disagree with the researcher if they are leading the focus group Member check using synthesised analysed data (1) (Harvey, 2015) Positivist if simply for confirming results. Constructionist if opportunity to comment and add data as in Synthesised Member Checking Themes are returned so can make claims about the trustworthiness of findings. The participant should be able to recognise their own experiences within the synthesised themes. If seeking additive data need to provide explanation and space for participants to engage with this. If several participants do not return limits claims on trustworthiness of final data set Need to do analysis increasing time before the themes can be returned Have to consider the length and language of the document to engage participants in conceptual themes Need to check contact details if several months after the interview Losing participants to follow-up Less risk of participant distress as the themes are synthesised and conceptualised. Need to confirm participants able and willing to receive the document if several months have elapsed