1. Elizabeth Visedo Independent Scholar ICQI 2015- Fri041
“Extreme” Member Check for Augmented Focus on Participants’ Voices and Agency

Elizabeth Visedo
Independent Scholar
ICQI Fri041

2. The Study Theoretical Framework Purpose Design: Multicase study
- Critical Pedagogy
Design: Multicase study
Three cases
Snowball selection
Spanish-English bilinguals
Limited English Proficient
High achievers: GPA > 3.01
Data sources (all online)
Blogs
Interviews
Artifacts
Purpose
- describe and explain the participants’ perspectives on their biliteracy journeys to become educators in the US
Questions
What elements constitute their perceptions
Key factors
Relevance of their experience to become educators
Impact of technologies, if any

3. Trustworthiness: Constructivist Criteria
Credibility (v. internal validity)
truthful depiction of the phenomenon under study
Transferability (v. generalizability)
dense context description permits informed decisions on possible applications of findings to other contexts
Dependability (v. reliability)
enabled the potential repetition of the study by others
Confirmability (v. objectivity)
findings emerged from the data, not from my bias or predispositions
Triangulation
for increasing trustworthiness
(Denzin, 2006; Guba, 1981; Lincoln, 1995; Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

4. Trustworthiness thick description respect for emic voices
The study satisfied these criteria through
thick description
respect for emic voices
member checks
methodological triangulation
investigator triangulation
data triangulation
through time, space, and participants
theory triangulation
application of multiple sub-theories to interpret the phenomenon under study
Credibility (v. internal validity)
Transferability (v. generalizability)
Dependability (v. reliability)
Confirmability (v. objectivity)
Triangulation
(Denzin, 2006; Guba, 1981; Lincoln, 1995; Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

5. Trustworthiness thick description respect for emic voices
The study satisfied these criteria through
thick description
respect for emic voices
member checks
methodological triangulation
investigator triangulation
data triangulation
through time, space, and participants
theory triangulation
application of multiple sub-theories to interpret the phenomenon under study
Credibility (v. internal validity)
Transferability (v. generalizability)
Dependability (v. reliability)
Confirmability (v. objectivity)
Triangulation
(Denzin, 2006; Guba, 1981; Lincoln, 1995; Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

6. A quality control technique used to increase the credibility and confirmability of Q. I.
Types of member check include
narrative accuracy checks
interpretive validity
descriptive validity
theoretical validity
evaluative validity
Used during data collection, interpretation, and study report
What’s Member Check? a.k.a. informant feedback, participant verification, respondent validation

7. What makes member check in my study “extreme”?
Timing (moment, frequency, and duration)
Objects of checking
Interview transcripts
Analysis and interpretation
Reports
Procedures
Iterative
Invite data completion and supplementation

8. Timing Moment Frequency & Duration
Data Collection
Interview transcriptions (including audio)
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Throughout iterative steps
Case Exposition
High frequency
Low duration

9. Objects of Checking & Procedures The Steps Followed
Transcriptions
Edit audio files to contain only their contributions
Divide them into minute long units
the units plus the corresponding full transcription for that unit, one by one, for member check
Descriptions
Analyses
Interpretations
Final reports
Objects of Checking & Procedures The Steps Followed
Reviews for authenticity
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

10. Audacity Simplifies Editing Audio Files

11. Using Red Font for Member Check Additions and Corrections

12. Researcher Requisites
Rapport
- Wait for it to build before requesting extreme member checks
Engagement
Wait for it to build before requesting extreme member checks
Prep time
- Audio-editing is time consuming
Return timing
- Be patient and don’t overwhelm your participants
Awareness of power imbalances
- Be explicit about participant voices and agency
Researcher Requisites
Be fair
Inform your participants
Include all requisites in your Informed Consent forms

13. Participant Requisites
Highly committed
- felt protagonists in the study and made it their own
Co-researchers
were invested in the study and interested in its completion
Advocates
- felt the study would help others
Passionate
- were emotionally involved with the study
Critical
- were in tune with Critical Pedagogy and its principles
Participant Requisites

14. The participants completed some gaps in my transcriptions
Modified or added elements recalled after the interviews
Added the insights they had during their reviews
Thicker and richer data
Increased trustworthiness
Participants’ satisfaction through agency
Focus on participants’ voices
Gains & Pluses

15. To Conclude “Extreme” Member Check
Demands from both participants and researcher requirements that may be hard to fulfill
However, when it is possible, it …
Increases trustworthiness exponentially
Provides beneficial impacts on both participants and researcher that go far beyond quality control
To Conclude “Extreme” Member Check

16. Denzin, N. K. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook (5th ed. )
Denzin, N. K. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook (5th ed.). Chicago, IL: Aldine. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–91. Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275–289. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
References

17. Thank you
Comments
Questions