Cited by 60Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsParticipatory Visual Research MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Applications

When participants do not agree: member checking and challenges to epistemic authority in participatory research

Caretta, Martina Angela, Pérez, María Alejandra·2019·Field Methods

Abstract

Transactional validity, a common approach in participatory research, is attained when preliminary analyses of research results are discussed with research participants and their feedback is incorporated in the analysis. Member checking is one way of achieving transactional validity, which has been heralded as a stronger version of validity reached through triangulation. Through member checking, we engaged with participants to ensure mutual agreement and understanding on the accounts and analysis to be published. Attaining methodological rigor and reliability is based on shared analytical understanding between researchers and research participants. However, this shared understanding does not always materialize. Participants do not always agree with researchers or with each other. As a result, efforts to increase validity created moments of conflict and challenged epistemic authority. This article provides detailed accounts of these conflicts and challenges and their eventual, even if problematic, resolution in the context of broader approaches in participatory research. The importance of a dialogical and recursive research process with participant communities, which cannot be assumed to be homogeneous, is underscored.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1525822x19866578

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caretta, M. A., & Pérez, M. A.
Affiliations
West Virginia University (US)
Corresponding author
Pérez, María Alejandra
Venue
Field Methods
Published
2019-08-06
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
359-374
ISSN
  • 1064-8631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-822X
  • 1552-3969
OpenAlex
W2966527438
Cited by
60
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
9.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Field Methods (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
member checking, participatory research, epistemic authority, participant feedback, triangulation, dialogical research, participant heterogeneity, methodological quality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review