Conducting member checking within a qualitative case study on health-related behaviours in a large European city

Appraising interpretations and co-constructing findings

Bibliographic Data

ID7787729
AuthorsIgnacio de Loyola González-Salgado (0000-0002-3560-6585, corresponding author), Jesús Rivera-Navarro, Jesús Rivera‐Navarro (0000-0003-4763-0993), Marta Gutiérrez Sastre (0000-0003-1072-0848, Universidad de Salamanca), Marta Gutiérrez-Sastre (Universidad de Salamanca), Paloma Conde (Universidad de Alcalá), Manuel Franco (0000-0002-3639-2523, Universidad de Alcalá)
Year2024
Volume28
Issue1
Pages3-21
Publication date2024-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1363-4593 • E-ISSN: 1461-7196
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/13634593221109682
PMID35822544
OpenAlexW4285393308
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited42

Although member checking is a well-established strategy for appraising credibility, there is a lack of research reporting procedures and outcomes when using this strategy. In recent years, scholars have implemented new member checking strategies along with several epistemological stances. In this work, researchers conducted member checking in three neighbourhoods with different socioeconomic status in Madrid, Spain. Attendance at member checking meetings was lower than expected. Member checking meetings were conducted in public halls within each neighbourhood and lasted approximately 2 hours. During the first hour, researchers introduced the aim of the meetings and shared summarized research findings with attendees using a slideshow. During the second hour, attendees had the opportunity to comment on any aspect of the research. Researchers used grounded theory coding strategies and a constructivist approach informed the analysis of the transcribed member checking meetings. One core category emerged, and it was named ‘Co-constructing findings and side effects of the interaction between researchers and participants in member checking’. Member checking attendees contributed to co-constructing findings by means of underscore and disagreement. It is possible that these meetings might have caused side effects such as unintended comparisons between neighbourhoods and negative health-related behaviours. Attendees wondered how the findings could improve their neighbourhoods. The meetings allowed interaction between participants and researchers and resulted in appraising and co-constructing qualitative research findings. More research is needed to advance knowledge about member checking

Epistemology · Qualitative research · Social science · Sociology · Behavioral Health and Interventions · Community Health and Development · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access