Member checking and Heideggerian phenomenology: a redundant component
Intended for healthcare professionals
General Previous     Next

Member checking and Heideggerian phenomenology: a redundant component

Tracy McConnell-Henry PhD candidate, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Churchill, Australia
Ysanne Chapman Associate professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Churchill, Australia
Karen Francis Professor of rural nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Churchill, Australia

Although member-checking has long been accepted as the gold standard in quantitative research, it is not the pinnacle for expressing rigour in Heideggerian phenomenology because it contradicts many of the underpinning philosophies. Similarly, employing ‘experts’ to confirm findings conflicts with the values of interpretivism. In this paper, the authors argue that member-checking is frequently used to cover poor interview technique or a lack of understanding of the methodology chosen to underpin the study. They debate why member-checking is incongruent with Heideggerian philosophy and suggest strategies that enhance the generation of data and render the follow-up interview redundant.

Nurse Researcher. 18, 2, 28-37. doi: 10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.28.c8282

Want to read more?

RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

or

3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more