In pursuit of credibility: Evaluating the divergence between member-checking and hermeneutic phenomenology

Abstract

Credibility refers to the trustworthiness, genuineness, and plausibility of the research findings and has always been a contentious issue in qualitative research, particularly for those conducting studies on the hermeneutic phenomenology paradigm. The relationship between credibility and high qualitative research is noted by many qualitative scholars. Member checking, also known as participant or respondent validation, is a technique for exploring the credibility of results where data or results are returned to participants to check for accuracy and resonance with their experiences. Although member-checking has long been accepted as the gold standard in quantitative research, research shows that it is not the pinnacle for expressing rigor in Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenology because it contradicts many of the underpinning philosophies. Within this article the author explores how member checking has been used in published research and presents a brief overview of the various discourses on member checking in qualitative research. The author discusses the importance of evaluating whether the method fits with the theoretical position of a study and the importance to consider how member checking was undertaken and for what purpose. It is essential that researchers are transparent about what they hope to achieve with the method and how their claims about credibility and validity fit with their epistemological stance.