Sharing qualitative research findings with participants: Study experiences of methodological and ethical dilemmas

Goldblatt, Hadass; Karnieli‐Miller, Orit; Neumann, Melanie

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.016

Cited by 128 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(103 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I participated in two qualitative interview studies. In my opinion, the researchers behaved well above admirable because they did everything one would hope in terms of treating me with respect, honoring my responses, and they went beyond the typical member checking (Goldblatt et al, 2011) by additionally offering me an opportunity to read their final write-ups. Yet, my experience as a participant was complicated in ways I felt I had to hide.…”

Section: How I Got Interested In This Issuementioning

confidence: 83%

“…Goldblatt, Karnieli-Miller, and Neuman (2011) investigated what it meant to share qualitative research findings with participants through member checking. Goldblatt et al (2011) reported four examples from different research studies; each example highlighted an interesting challenge in the use of member checking. The findings suggested that member checks might not be a good way to establish credibility.…”

Section: What Do Research Findings Indicate About How Specific Researmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some have characterized the relationship as "intimate" (Birch & Miller, 2000), non-judgmental (McCoyd & Shdaimah, 2007), and democratically impassioned (Ritchie & Barker, 2005). Other scholars have characterized the relationship in terms of the power dynamics (Goldblatt et al, 2011). The power dynamics privilege the researcher and may explain why participants provide largely positive feedback to researchers regarding their experiences.…”

Section: The Relational Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Last, the outcomes of our research are directly tied to the way participants experience and engage with the research process. See Goldblatt et al, 2011 for an example of a discussion on the utilitarian costs/benefits of member checks. In other words, because qualitative research findings are intimately derived from interpersonal contact with participants, their experiences will be directly reflected in those findings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Understanding Participant Experiences: Reflections of a Novice Research Participant

Dennis

2014

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is very little empirical work on the experiences research participants have engaging in qualitative inquiry; yet, qualitative researchers often think of themselves as forging critical relationships with their participants. It seems that perhaps the actual experiences of participants in the research process are being taken largely for granted. I want to problematize research participants being taken for granted. In this article, I analyze the existing literature and report on insights from my own experience as a participant in two interview studies. The article offers insights regarding participant experiences that are not well captured in the existing literature.

show abstract

Section: How I Got Interested In This Issuementioning

confidence: 83%

Section: What Do Research Findings Indicate About How Specific Researmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Relational Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding Participant Experiences: Reflections of a Novice Research Participant

Dennis

2014

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notwithstanding debate in the literature regarding the value, methodology, and risks of member checking (Goldblatt, Karnieli-Miller, & Neumann, 2011;Julie, 2010), a lack of iterative feedback to participants is a potential flaw in research in this area and the rationale when excluding member checking is only occasionally considered (Coombes & Wratten, 2007;Staiger et al, 2011;Strickler et al, 2009;Wadell & Skarsater, 2007). As with reflexivity, this can be a conspicuous absence when not explicitly addressed by the researcher.…”

Section: The Qualitative Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery From Comorbidity

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comorbidity among mood, anxiety, and alcohol disorders is common and burdensome, affecting individuals, families, and public health. A systematic and integrative review of the literature across disciplines and research methodologies was performed. Supradisciplinary approaches were applied to the review and the ensuing critical appraisal. Definitions, measurement, and estimation are controversial and inconstant. Recovery from comorbidity cannot be easily extricated from a sociocultural milieu. Methodological challenges in quantitative and qualitative research and across disciplines are many and are discussed. The evidence supporting current treatments is sparse and short-term, and modalities operating in isolation typically fail. People easily fall into the cracks between mental health and addiction services. Clinicians feel untrained and consumers bear the brunt of this: Judgmental and moralistic interactions persist and comorbidity is unrecognized in high-risk populations. Competing historical paradigms of mental illness and addiction present a barrier to progress and reductionism is an impediment to care and an obstacle to the integration and interpretation of research. What matters to consumers is challenging to quantify but worth considering: Finding employment, safe housing, and meaning are crucial to recovery. Complex social networks and peer support in recovery are important but poorly understood. The focus on modalities of limited evidence or generalizability persists in literature and practice. We need to consider different combinations of comorbidity, transitions as opposed to dichotomies of use or illness, and explore the long-term view and emic perspectives.

show abstract

Member Checks

Arora

2017

The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Member checks are an effective technique and procedure applied in qualitative research to ensure and establish (the) validity of a researcher's findings by seeking feedback from the participants in response to the raw data originally collected from them. Qualitative research is based on the concept that multiple realities prevail. Hence, member checks enable the researcher to share her/his initial findings with study participants (or representatives of the population studied) to ensure an appropriate representation of their culture, establish credibility for the researcher, and validate the study. Member checks can take place formally as well as informally, as and when opportunities arise in the field, and also after the interviews are transcribed. This entry highlights the positive aspects, problems, and drawbacks of member checks.

show abstract

Sharing qualitative research findings with participants: Study experiences of methodological and ethical dilemmas

Cited by 128 publications

References 42 publications

Understanding Participant Experiences: Reflections of a Novice Research Participant

Understanding Participant Experiences: Reflections of a Novice Research Participant

Recovery From Comorbidity

Member Checks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About