Although member-checking has long been accepted as the gol standard in quantitative research, it is not the pinnacle for expressin rigour in Heideggerian phenomenology because it contradicts many o the underpinning philosophies. Similarly, employing 'experts' to confirm findings conflicts with the values of interpretivism. In this paper, th authors argue that member-checking is frequently used to cover poo interview technique or a lack of understanding of the methodology chosen to underpin the study. They debate why member-checkin is incongruent with Heideggerian philosophy and suggest strategie that enhance the generation of data and render the follow-u interview redundant.
|Number of pages||10|
|Publication status||Published - 2011|