Intersubjective recognition as the methodological enactment of epistemic privilege: A critical basis for consensus and intersubjective confirmation procedures.

Abstract

There are a number of procedures, well established within qualitative research, that were originally formulated to use intersubjective confirmation as a way to bolster confidence in findings (e.g., consensus, auditing, member checks). These procedures enhanced methodological integrity by demonstrating that people from differing perspectives can examine the data and reach the same conclusions-indicating that a finding was not entirely idiosyncratic. In this article, we propose the concept of epistemic privilege as an alternate foundation for these procedures. In this approach, the recognition of differences among the histories, perspectives, knowledge, and investments of research team members creates a context in which forms of subjective knowledge (i.e., lived experience, expertise) become resources that heighten a team's perspicacity. The enactment of the proposed procedures shifts the meanings and application of confirmation processes so they become appropriate for critical, constructivist, and participatory research. They change the theoretical formulation from a democratic process of confirming objective perceptions to a collaborative process of intersubjective recognition that values diverse knowledge sources. We focus on the example of researcher consensus, providing a brief history of past rationales and practices for this procedure, and describing our approach as strengthening findings as well as improving research team dynamics. This form of collaboration ameliorates prior concerns expressed about consensus, such as intergroup power differentials, and the fear that attuned investigators may weaken their interpretations to obtain consensus with others. In this process, we identify sources of epistemic privilege, detail methodological procedures, and offer suggestions for research reporting.

The meaning of scientific objectivity and subjectivity: From the perspective of methodologists.

“…Second, a method of consensus was utilized within both small groups and the larger team. Within this process, we assigned epistemological privilege to members who had more knowledge or experience within a certain area (for instance, the interviewers were thought to have more insight on their interviewees’ meanings on the basis of having had the lived experience of interviewing them; see [Levitt, Ipekci, Morrill, & Rizo, 2020] for further description). Third, saturation was obtained at the eighth interview and the final three interviews did not add categories to the hierarchy, suggesting that the analysis was comprehensive.…”

Is member checking the gold standard of quality in qualitative research?

“…Envisioning transformational validity as Li and Ross (2021) have done locates it within the research process as intersubjective dialogue, which deepens perspectives about validity. These ideas contribute to current perspectives about epistemic privilege and intersubjective recognition within research (Levitt et al, 2021). Epistemic privilege, a feminist application of lived experience and positionality to knowledge authority (Levitt, 2021), influences the value of participant knowledge by the researcher, wherein some participant perspectives are sought, including through member checking, as a social justice goal because of their unique lived experiences or marginalized voices.…”

A Pluralistic Perspective on Research in Psychotherapy: Harnessing Passion, Difference and Dialogue to Promote Justice and Relevance

“…Epistemic injustice has been identified as highly prevalent in mental health settings, for instance in terms of lack of credence given to the cultural and experiential knowledge of service users, and black and minority ethnic staff and clients (Carel and Kidd, 2014;Crichton et al, 2017;Kidd and Carel, 2017;Newbigging and Ridley, 2018). Epistemic injustice may also occur with research groups, for example when qualitative data are analysed by members of a research team that includes novice researchers alongside senior academics, or individuals from different cultural or social class backgrounds (Levitt et al, 2021a).…”

“…Within the qualitative research community, this practice has been accompanied by an interest in how power differences in understanding and data interpretation between co-analysts (e.g. members of a research team or between researchers and participants) might be handled (see, for example Levitt et al, 2021a) to ensure that final consensus judgements reflect open discussion rather than domination by more powerful voices, while still recognising legitimate differences between researchers. While such respect of epistemic justice is consistent with a pluralistic perspective, what is even more valuable is also to attend to the potential meaning and significance of differences in how co-analysts make sense of qualitative data.…”