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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

Objects of Checking & Procedures The Steps Followed Transcriptions Edit audio files to contain only their contributions Divide them into 15-20 minute long units Email 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)

Audacity Simplifies Editing Audio Files http://web.audacityteam.org

Using Red Font for Member Check Additions and Corrections

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Comments Questions elizabeth.visedo@gmail.com