Member checking and Heideggerian phenomenology: a redundant component

Tracy McConnell-Henry, Ysanne Chapman, Karen Francis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

54 Citations (Scopus)


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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)28-37
Number of pages10
JournalNurse Researcher
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2011

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Member checking and Heideggerian phenomenology: a redundant component'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this