McConnell-Henry Tracy, Chapman Ysanne, Francis Karen
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Churchill, Australia.
Nurse Res. 2011;18(2):28-37. doi: 10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.28.c8282.
Although member-checking has long been accepted as the gold standard in quantitative research, it is not the pinnacle for expressing 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 poor interview technique or a lack of understanding of the methodology chosen to underpin the study. They debate why member-checking is incongruent with Heideggerian philosophy and suggest strategies that enhance the generation of data and render the follow-u interview redundant.
尽管成员核对长期以来一直被视为定量研究的黄金标准，但在海德格尔现象学中，它并非体现严谨性的巅峰，因为它与许多基础哲学相矛盾。同样，聘请“专家”来确认研究结果也与解释主义的价值观相冲突。在本文中，作者认为成员核对经常被用来掩盖糟糕的访谈技巧或对支撑该研究的所选方法论缺乏理解。他们探讨了为何成员核对与海德格尔哲学不一致，并提出了增强数据生成并使后续访谈变得多余的策略。
