DESCRIPTION

Also referred to as participant validation (Slettebø, 2021), member checking or member sharing is the process by which participants are invited to provide input on the data or analyses produced from their participation in qualitative research. Member sharing (our preferred term) may involve participants being asked for their feedback on raw data (e.g. a transcript of an interview or focus group), analysed data (e.g. emerging findings; a summary of themes identified by the researcher) or a draft research report (Thomas, 2017, 23). The forms of input invited may include approval or suggested edits to an interview transcript; affirmation or contestation of researchers' interpretations; or more sustained and collaborative negotiation of the content and meaning of the research, including the (co)creation of additional data. Member sharing can be a single event or a continuous process (Doyle, 2007, 893). As well as engagement with textual data and analysis, it can also take the form of inviting participants to respond to more varied representations of the research, in the form of illustrated pamphlets (Caretta, 2016), research diagrams (Crilly et al., 2006; Sahakyan, 2023), found poetry (Reilly, 2013), and video (Schafer & Phillippi, 2025).

Accounts of the significance of member sharing often invoke Cho and Trent's (2006) identification of two approaches to the question of validity in qualitative research. The first of these is transactional validity, 'an interactive process between the researcher, the researched, and the collected data that is aimed at achieving a relatively higher level of accuracy and consensus' (Cho & Trent, 2006, 321) - i.e. a convergence between research findings and reality. The second approach, transformational validity, is more congruent with constructivist and interpretive approaches for which reality is always (inter)subjectively constituted and perspectival. Transactional validity may in this context be less meaningful, but what might yet be significant is a form of validity - the transformational - that Cho and Trent read as a 'progressive, emancipatory process leading toward social change that is to be achieved by the research endeavor itself' (2006, 321-2) - i.e. the degree to which the research achieves its aims in terms of action on, rather than representation of, the world.

While Cho and Trent suggest a holistic approach in which both forms of validity are relevant and deployed as appropriate, the purpose of member sharing - and therefore the kind of openness this practice embodies - differs depending on which concept of validity is privileged. Where transformational validity is concerned, the role of member sharing is one of redistributing power in the research relationship and affirming participants' agency, illustrating a form of openness to participants' experience and knowledge that is comparable to that of participatory methodologies, albeit usually less sustained. One example is the 'enhanced member checking' used by Chase in her work on young mothers' educational experiences, an approach that 'allowed for participant-researcher construction of the participant narratives, in the space between raw data and published pieces' (2017, 2691). Where transactional validity is concerned, member sharing has a more technical role of verifying accuracy - yet in opening this process to participants and hence affirming the importance of lived experience as a source of knowledge, it can still be considered an open practice.

While there is little comprehensive guidance on how member sharing should be conducted, a number of researchers offer insights. Birt et al. comment that '[b]efore using member checking, researchers need to be clear on the relevance and value of the method within their design; they need to have strategies for dealing with the disconfirming voice, and to have considered whether they have the resources or willingness to undertake further analyses if participants do not agree with their analysis' (2016, 1806). Carlson emphasises the benefits of providing choice to participants regarding their preferred member sharing process and format; clarifying the nature and granularity of the feedback that researchers would like to receive; and informing participants how their feedback will be used (2010, 1110-1112). Recognising that the practice is not, as discussed below, universally appropriate, Motulsky further suggests five questions researchers should consider when deciding whether to use member sharing, including how this would fit with the researcher's aims and beliefs about the research and its purpose, what burdens and/or opportunities the sharing would provide to participants, and how disagreement would be handled and reported (2021, 403).

As Thomas notes, member sharing has been challenged on a number of grounds, including 'a lack of response from most participants, creating additional intrusion for participants, little or no substantive changes in research findings, and the need for additional project resources' (2017, 39); on the question of intrusion, some researchers have also observed distress or even re-traumatisation of participants as a potential unintended consequence of member sharing (Erdmann & Potthoff, 2023, 3-4). Motulsky further notes ambiguity over the extent to which member sharing can actually refigure power relations between researcher and participant (2021, 398). Nevertheless, member sharing ensures participants 'have a central part in the research process and in the co-construction of knowledge if they want to' (Slettebø, 2021, 1236), recognises participants' cognitive agency (Harvey, 2015, 34), and ensures that vulnerable or marginalised participants are not subjected to further harm in the ways their experiences are reported (Thomas et al., 2024, 4). Researchers who use this practice have also reported potential therapeutic benefits for participants (Harper & Cole, 2012; Koelsch, 2013) in addition to 'a much deeper discussion on key themes that held significance for participants and the study' (Doyle, 2007, 904).

References

Birt, L. et al. (2016). 'Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation?', Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870 Open access version available here: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/ws/files/52859539/Member_checking_a_tool_BIRT_Accepted_2016_GREEN_AAM.pdf

Caretta M.A. (2016). 'Member Checking: A Feminist Participatory Analysis of the Use of Preliminary Results Pamphlets in Cross-cultural, Cross-language Research'. Qualitative Research, 16(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115606495

Carlson, J.A. (2010). 'Avoiding Traps in Member Checking', Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1102–1113. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/avoiding-traps-member-checking/docview/757177806/se-2 [accessed 08/09/25]

Chase, E. (2017). 'Enhanced Member Checks: Reflections and Insights from a Participant-Researcher Collaboration'. The Qualitative Report, 22(10), 2689–2703. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2957

Cho, J. and Trent, A. (2006). 'Validity in Qualitative Research Revisited', Qualitative Research: QR, 6(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006

Crilly, N., Clarkson, P.J., and Blackwell, A.F. (2006). 'Using Research Diagrams for Member Validation in Qualitative Research'. In Barker-Plummer, D., Cox, R. and Swoboda, N. (eds), Diagrammatic Representation and Inference: 4th international conference, Diagrams 2006 Stanford, CA, USA, June 28-30, 2006: proceedings. Berlin: Springer. 258-262

Doyle, S. (2007). 'Member Checking With Older Women: A Framework for Negotiating Meaning', Health Care for Women International, 28(10), 888–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399330701615325

Erdmann, A. and Potthoff, S. (2023). 'Decision Criteria for the Ethically Reflected Choice of a Member Check Method in Qualitative Research: A Proposal for Discussion', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231177664

Harper, M. and Cole, P. (2012). 'Member Checking: Can Benefits be Gained Similar to Group Therapy?', Qualitative Report, 17(2), 1–8. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/member-checking-can-benefits-be-gained-similar/docview/2122315874/se-2 [accessed 08/09/25]

Harvey, L. (2015). 'Beyond Member-checking: A Dialogic Approach to the Research Interview', International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 38(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2014.914487

Koelsch, L. E. (2013). 'Reconceptualizing the Member Check Interview'. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200105

Motulsky, S.L. (2021). 'Is Member Checking the Gold Standard of Quality in Qualitative Research?', Qualitative Psychology (Washington, D.C.), 8(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000215

Reilly, R.C. (2013). 'Found Poems, Member Checking and Crises of Representation', Qualitative Report, 18(15). https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/found-poems-member-checking-crises-representation/docview/1504410466/se-2 [accessed 08/09/25]

Sahakyan, T. (2023). 'Member‐Checking through Diagrammatic Elicitation: Constructing Meaning with Participants', TESOL Quarterly, 57(2), 686–701. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3210

Schafer, R. and Phillippi, J.C. (2025). 'Updating and Advancing Member-Checking Methods: Use of Video and Asynchronous Technology to Optimize Participant Engagement', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251315395

Slettebø, T. (2021). 'Participant Validation: Exploring a Contested Tool in Qualitative Research'. Qualitative Social Work, 20(5), 1223–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325020968189

Thomas, D. R. (2017). 'Feedback from Research Participants: Are Member Checks Useful in Qualitative Research?' Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14, 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435

Thomas, J., Maxwell, D. and Thomas, S. (2024). 'These Are Not My Words: Sexual Trauma, Member Checking, and Qualitative Research', Best Practices in Mental Health, 19(2), 1–17. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/these-are-not-my-words-sexual-trauma-member/docview/3109480365/se-2 [accessed 08/09/25]