Member checking and Heideggerian phenomenology: a redundant component
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?

Already subscribed? Log in

OR

Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Subscribe
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

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

Or