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.
|Number of pages||10|
|Publication status||Published - Jan 2011|