The current paper presents recommendations from the Task Force on Resources for the Publication of Qualitative Research of the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology, a section of Division 5 of the American Psychological Association. This initiative was a response to concerns by authors that reviews of qualitative research articles frequently utilize inflexible sets of procedures and provide contradictory feedback when evaluating acceptability. In response, the Task Force proposes the concept of methodological integrity and recommends its evaluation via its two composite processes: (a) fidelity to the subject matter, which is the process by which researchers develop and maintain allegiance to the phenomenon under study as it is conceived within their tradition of inquiry, and (b) utility in achieving research goals, which is the process by which researchers select procedures to generate insightful findings that usefully answer their research questions. Questions that guide the evaluation of these processes, example principles, and a flowchart are provided to help authors and reviewers in the process of both research design and review. The consideration of methodological integrity examines whether the implementation of fidelity and utility function coherently together. Researchers and reviewers also examine whether methods further the research goals, are consistent with researchers' approaches to inquiry, and are tailored to the characteristics of the subject matter and investigators. This approach to evaluation encourages researchers and reviewers to shift from using standardized and decontextualized procedures as criteria for rigor toward assessing the underlying methodological bases for trustworthiness as they function within research projects.

Recent years have witnessed increased calls from counseling psychology to include social justice competencies in the training of future practitioners. Integration of social justice awareness, advocacy skills, and opportunities for social change action are needed extensions of the field’s commitment to multicultural competency. Classroom teaching is a key component of transforming counseling psychology curricula and of developing students’ awareness of the value of social justice perspectives, yet pedagogical applications are rarely present in the literature. This article provides a case example of the integration of social justice and multicultural consciousness across the curriculum of one counseling psychology program. It highlights examples of innovative pedagogical techniques within a variety of core courses. We present specific examples of readings and nontraditional teaching approaches to promote social justice consciousness, including experiential exercises, self-reflection opportunities, use of video and online discussions, and assignments.

A growing body of work in relational theory and career decision making explores how relational processes, not just people's relationships but more broadly their connections to self, others, and society, inform career development and counseling. This article presents the results of a qualitative research study of midlife women in career transition that contributes to building an empirical foundation for relational perspectives in career development. Feminist relational psychology, specifically relational cultural theory, frames the study, focusing attention on gender and culture in the context of relational influences. It extends the current research by focusing on career transition for midcareer, midlife women. Findings presented here illustrate the ways participants' connections across a range of relationships enhanced and supported the process of career change and how their disconnections hindered, and sometimes halted, their movement through the transition. Implications for research and practice are offered.

Member checking, or the process of soliciting feedback from one's participants about one's data or interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), has become so widely and consistently recommended as a validity check that it often seems to be a requirement for rigorous qualitative research. Editors, peer reviewers, Institutional Review Board (IRB), dissertation advisors, and research supervisors may assume that threats to validity are not adequately addressed unless member checking is included in the research design. However, member checking has a long and contentious history in qualitative inquiry with critical approaches warning of epistemological conundrums and a variety of pitfalls, both practical and philosophical. These complex and controversial discussions seem lost in the uncritical assumption that member checking is necessary for credible qualitative research. Rather than being one among many validity checks, it is sometimes regarded as the gold standard of qualitative research (Madill & Sullivan, 2018). This article examines the assumption that member checking ensures an ethical and rigorous study, raises critical questions about epistemic privilege in the interpretation and trustworthiness of research data, and explores its relationship to validity. Inherent in the use of member checking are considerations of power, ethics, and social justice that are often unaddressed. A new term, reflexive participant collaboration, may better describe this strategy in critical, participatory research designs. Evaluative questions are presented to guide researchers in their decision-making about the incorporation of member checking. Member checking is a powerful validity tool-one of many-that requires thoughtful and considered integration within the research project.

No abstract