The Dual Meaning of Trustworthiness: How Member Checking can Promote More Rigorous and Ethical Research

John L. Lane; Karmin Bourdo

doi:10.66815/ajqr/18541

John L. Lane ¹ ^* , Karmin Bourdo ²

More Detail

AM J QUALITATIVE RES, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp. 233-248

https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/18541

OPEN ACCESS 38 Views 0 Downloads

Abstract

This article highlights the tension of two different meanings of trustworthiness. Researchers are responsible for being empirically trustworthy by producing social scientific manuscripts of high quality. Researchers must also be relationally trustworthy by protecting the vulnerabilities and best interests of the research participants. However, researchers often face the dilemma of attending to both types of trustworthiness without strategies for addressing the challenges. This article, co-constructed by a researcher and participant, describes how member checking can promote both more rigorous research (empirical trustworthiness) and strengthen relationships and leave participants feeling valued and empowered (relational trustworthiness). To this end, this article highlights the challenges and affordances of the member checking process itself, examines the process’s impact on both the researcher and the participant, and offers guidelines for how member checking can simultaneously promote both more rigorous and more ethical research.

Keywords: Member Checking, Qualitative Methods, Transactional Validity, Transformative Validity, Catalytic Validity, Participatory Research, Trustworthiness

References

Becker, H. S. (1986). Doing things together: Selected papers. Northwestern University Press.
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (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
Brear, M. (2019). Process and outcomes of a recursive, dialogic member checking approach: A project ethnography. Qualitative Health Research, 29(7), 944-957.https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318812448
Buchbinder, E. (2011). Beyond checking: Experiences of the validation interview. Qualitative Social Work, 10(1), 106-122.https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010370189
Candela, A. G. (2019). Exploring the function of member checking. The Qualitative Report, 24(3), 619-628.https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3726
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
Caretta, M. A., & Pérez, M. A. (2019). When participants do not agree: Member checking and challenges to epistemic authority in participatory research. Field Methods, 31(4), 359-374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x19866578
Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1102-1113.https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1332
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., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006
Creswell, J. W. & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6^th edition). Pearson.
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
Forbat, L., & Henderson, J. (2005). Theoretical and practical reflections on sharing transcripts with participants.Qualitative Health Research, 15(8), 1114-1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305279065
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. The Sociology Press.
Goldblatt, H., Karnieli-Miller, O., & Neumann, M. (2011). Sharing qualitative research findings with participants: Study experiences of methodological and ethical dilemmas. Patient Education and Counseling, 82(3), 389-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.016
Hallett, R. E. (2012). Dangers in member checking. In W. Midgley, P. A. Danaher, and
M. Baguley (Eds.), The Role of Participants in Education Research: Ethics, Epistemologies, and Methods. Taylor & Francis.
Harvey, L. (2015). Beyond member-checking: A dialogic approach to the research interview. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2014.914487
Iivari, N. (2018). Using member checking in interpretive research practice: A hermeneutic analysis of informants’ interpretation of their organizational realities. Information Technology & People, 31(1), 111-133. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-07-2016-0168
Koelsch, L. E. (2013). Reconceptualizing the member check interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 168-179.https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200105
Kornbluh, M. (2015). Combatting challenges to establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(4), 397-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1021941
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985), Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Locke, K., & Ramakrishna Velamuri, S. (2009). The design of member review: Showing what to organization members and why. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3), 488-509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108320235
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6^th edition). Sage.
Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212-1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501
Motulsky, S. L. (2021). Is member checking the gold standard of quality in qualitative research? Qualitative Psychology, 8(3), 389. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000215
Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435

Citation

Lane, J. L., & Bourdo, K. (2026). The Dual Meaning of Trustworthiness: How Member Checking can Promote More Rigorous and Ethical Research. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 10(3), 233-248. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/18541

Lane, J. L., and Bourdo, K. (2026). The Dual Meaning of Trustworthiness: How Member Checking can Promote More Rigorous and Ethical Research. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 10(3), pp. 233-248. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/18541

Lane JL, Bourdo K. The Dual Meaning of Trustworthiness: How Member Checking can Promote More Rigorous and Ethical Research. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2026;10(3), 233-248. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/18541

Lane, John L., and Karmin Bourdo. "The Dual Meaning of Trustworthiness: How Member Checking can Promote More Rigorous and Ethical Research". American Journal of Qualitative Research 2026 10 no. 3 (2026): 233-248. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/18541

Lane, John L. et al. "The Dual Meaning of Trustworthiness: How Member Checking can Promote More Rigorous and Ethical Research". American Journal of Qualitative Research, vol. 10, no. 3, 2026, pp. 233-248. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/18541

Lane JL, Bourdo K. The Dual Meaning of Trustworthiness: How Member Checking can Promote More Rigorous and Ethical Research. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2026;10(3):233-48. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/18541