Rethinking Member Checking: Restorative Justice as a Tool for Relational Accountability in Qualitative Research

Abstract

Member checking is now seen as the “gold standard” in qualitative research; however, scholars have begun a critical discourse surrounding member checking and the harm it may unintentionally bring to participants. To address these potential harms, we posit the use of restorative justice-guided member checking strategies. The recommendations put forth in this article were first utilized in a study exploring the emotional labor experiences of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) teachers. Drawing from restorative justice principles, restorative justice-guided member checking uses relationship building, harm reparation, reflection, and researcher accountability to address concerns of epistemic injustice that permeate research.

Keywords

member checking qualitative research restorative justice epistemic injustice researcher–participant relations

Introduction

Member checking is one of the most cited practices in qualitative methods (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In its ideal form, member checking centers the voices and priorities of research collaborators and participants during multiple moments in qualitative inquiry, creating more epistemically just research processes. At the same time, we know that, even while scientific inquiry has elongated and enriched lives, it has also been a mechanism of harm and injury (Freimuth et al., 2001; Macrakis, 1993; Skloot, 2017), including its perpetuation of epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007). We argue specifically that member checking has become a hollowed-out practice, far from achieving its ideals related to epistemic justice. Rather than integrating diverse ways of knowing into qualitative research, member checking has become a box to check—to prove some sort of trustworthiness or authenticity in the project. Our guiding question in this article, then, is how researchers can use member-checking processes as a tool of epistemic justice? Our central thesis is that restorative justice-guided member checking can serve a unique reparative role for historic epistemic injustice caused by the social scientific inquiry, particularly with communities historically harmed or neglected by the research endeavor. Restorative justice (RJ) is a philosophical orientation to community-building that is rooted in relational accountability and harm reparation (Zehr, 2015b). It has stood as an alternative to Western punitive justice found in many colonizing countries, but it has recently gained popularity in Western discourses as a tool in criminal justice and educational reform (Marcucci et al., 2025; Zehr, 2015a). We argue that the philosophy and values of RJ lend themselves to reinvigorating and re-centering the reparative intent of member-checking protocols. Our goal is to provide not only a theoretical support for this argument but also a practical guide for novice researchers (or any researcher interested in these ethical stances and methods for the first time).

A Brief Overview of the Social Scientific Research Enterprise

We believe in the value of scientific inquiry. Through both health and social scientific research, the research endeavor, though imperfect, has greatly improved the longevity and quality of life for millions of individuals globally (Murphy et al., 2024; Riley, 2001/2008). Life expectancy has doubled in the last century and a half, in part due to scientific research; individuals have access to cutting-edge learning and well-being opportunities, in part due to social scientific research. In an era where science is being attacked at the federal level (Association of American Universities, 2025; Guston & Keniston, 1994), we want to be clear that we believe in the value of modern scientific inquiry.

At the same time, scientific research has a history of violence and exclusion (Fanon, 2021). The research endeavor is situated in a world in which anti-Black racism, cis-normative patriarchy, and coloniality dominate socio-political relationships. The science-derived improvements in human experience are important—but they are not equitably distributed. Scientific research has systematically excluded and silenced diverse ways of knowing, even when these diverse ways of knowing could expand the positive impact of science (Fanon, 2021). Epistemic injustice (or epistemic oppression) refers to harm done to someone “as a knower” (Dotson, 2014; Fricker, 2007; Medina, 2013). There are two forms: testimonial epistemic injustice and hermeneutical epistemic injustice. Testimonial epistemic injustice occurs when the knowledge of someone is discredited (Dotson, 2011). Hermeneutical epistemic injustice occurs when we fail to articulate lenses and frames that can help individuals make sense of their world. These epistemic injustices are at times incidental, but more often are guided by these forces of social domination—structural racism, cis-normative patriarchy, and coloniality—leading to systematic silencing, discrediting, or de-prioritizing of individuals who are minoritized (Medina, 2013).

Epistemic injustice occurs in a variety of contexts, but the modern scientific research endeavor is one. What makes scientific inquiry powerful—its collaborative and social nature—also makes it vulnerable to enacting epistemic injustice on communities who have been marginalized by dominant institutions (Fricker, 2007; Settles et al., 2021). For example, Black individuals make up only 6% of earned doctorates in 2022, and American Indian or Alaskan Natives made up only 0.5% in that same year, a disproportionately small amount (National Science Foundation, 2022). As such, the ways of knowing prioritized by White, middle, or upper-class researchers, often men, are emphasized. This exists as a type of hermeneutical epistemic injustice.

We are situated within this tension: a recognition of the value of social scientific inquiry, while also, simultaneously, recognizing the epistemic injustices that the science enterprise has enacted, particularly on minoritized communities. It is in this reparative space that we enter the conversation. Justice-oriented methodologists have attended to these questions of harm for decades. The entire methodological tradition of ethnography has undergone a radical shift away from being an instrument of coloniality to being one of interrogating power (Harrison, 1991/2011). The canonical work by Ann Oakley, “Women interviewing women,” shifted discourse on the relationality of the interview interaction (Oakley, 2013). Most notably, the participatory method movement has established the co-researcher model (Call-Cummings et al., 2023). All these movements and more have wrestled with this idea of reparations for the historical harm of the social scientific endeavor, including epistemic injustices. These models are critical to the diverse ecology of research globally. At the same time, they often—though not always—require large amounts of time and resources that feel constrained in modern academic research. Instead, researchers have turned to member checking.

Member Checking

Background and Benefits of Member Checking

Member checking, which is the gathering of participants’ perceptions about qualitative interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), made its first appearance in literature over five decades ago. The role of member checking within the qualitative research realm has been met with both praise and criticism. When conducting a member check, researchers return to a study’s participants (with either data or interpretations) so that they may affirm or refute the analysis of data (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Participants engaging in the member checking process are provided the opportunity to respond to any errors they may see in the data or interpretations, as well as to supply the researcher with more information than was garnered during the initial data collection phase (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

There are several member checking techniques researchers may utilize. Transcripts can be returned to participants as either raw data or once the data analysis process has begun (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Thomas, 2017). Transcription return allows participants to directly edit transcripts, leave comments on the transcripts, or approve of their contents (Erdmann & Potthoff, 2023; Thomas, 2017). Member checking interviews are another technique, and these occur after the transcripts or written research was shared with participants. During the interviews, researchers would attempt to glean whether the participants felt that the data and interpretations of the data were consistent with participants’ thoughts and sentiments (Birt et al., 2016; Erdmann & Potthoff, 2023; Koelsch, 2013). Focus groups are an additional strategy to member check and operate in a similar fashion to individual interviews, but are done with a collective group. The focus group aims to gather the perspectives of multiple participants during their interactions together, and these comments may make their way into the final write-up (Birt et al., 2016; Creswell & Miller, 2000). Finally, researchers may share an initial draft of the research or a draft that is nearly publication-ready, as a means of member checking. Such a step is taken in the hopes of hearing participants’ takeaways in the latter stages of research, and participant commentary can refine the research piece (Brewis, 2014; Erdmann & Potthoff, 2023).

During the member checking process, knowledge ideally becomes co-constructed between the researcher and their participants. Such a collaboration can reposition and disrupt the traditional means of power that researchers possess in relation to participants (Caretta & Pérez, 2019; Chase, 2017; de Loyola González-Salgado et al., 2024). As opposed to researchers collecting data from participants and making their own interpretations about the data, eliciting and utilizing participant feedback invites participants into the research process and provides them with agency. Such agency and empowerment are of particular importance when research is being conducted with historically and racially marginalized populations (Caretta & Pérez, 2019; Chase, 2017).

Member checking can benefit researchers and participants throughout the research process. For researchers, the practice of member checking can improve investigators’ analysis and assessment of data (Chase, 2017; de Loyola González-Salgado et al., 2024; Slettebø, 2021). Studies have also expounded upon the benefits of member checking for participants (Brear, 2019; Caretta & Pérez, 2019), as member checking may result in positive self-reflection by participants or increases in self-worth (Simpson & Quigley, 2016; Slettebø, 2021). In an ideal world, it also provides pathways to hermeneutical epistemic justice, giving opportunity for the research participants to co-construct ideas that describe their lived realities.

Challenges and Critiques of Member Checking

Researcher Considerations

Although member checking has been upheld by many scholars, others have questioned its efficacy, benefits, and ubiquitous adoption. Such critiques led Motulsky (2021) to question the notion of member checking as the gold standard of qualitative research quality. Motulsky argued that member checking may be best positioned to serve as “one of many credibility strategies useful in meeting threats to validity for collaborating with participants”; however, member checking’s entrenched position and universality in qualitative research have allowed it to rise to become the shining exemplar of methodological soundness (p. 390). Motulsky (2021) and Morse (2015) held similar contentions across their writings, as they both argued that member checking’s unquestioned use does not provide the opportunity to hold space for a deep reflection and examination of all its components. Lloyd et al. (2024) followed suit in such questioning, as they stated that member checking is often “embraced uncritically by many researchers” (p. 2).

When researchers utilize member checking in studies, details about the process are commonly sparse, and often do not include how it was conducted, or the ways in which it impacted a study’s results (Brear, 2019; Lloyd et al., 2024; Simpson & Quigley, 2016; Thomas, 2017). The limited discussion of member checking in studies creates an even larger challenge for graduate students and early career researchers who are expected to engage in member checking, but do not have much guidance from extant literature (Carlson, 2010; Simpson & Quigley, 2016).

Participant Considerations

Challenges in member checking are not solely limited to the realm of researchers, however. Methods, such as the re-reading of transcripts and summarized data, or member checking interviews, can “make considerable demands on participants’ time” (Barbour, 2001, p. 1117). The time-consuming nature of the member check may be a deterrent for participants to engage, perhaps contributing to the low rates of response scholars have noted (Goldblatt et al., 2011; Mero-Jaffe, 2011; Thomas, 2017). Low response rates may also be due to a lack of interest in the study, with researchers erroneously believing that participants’ interest in the study is higher than it truly is (Carlson, 2010; de Loyola González-Salgado et al., 2024).

For those who choose to engage in the member checking process, the potential for a deleterious impact on participants emerges. In the process of reviewing transcripts or data, participants have expressed feeling anxious, embarrassed, and exposed seeing their syntax, grammar, and word choice on display (Barbour, 2001; Carlson, 2010; Mero-Jaffe, 2011). During member checking, participants can also experience discomfort as reviewing transcripts or data may serve as a reminder of previous traumas or difficult experiences that were discussed during the data collection interview (Birt et al., 2016; Motulsky, 2021). To compound this matter, unlike during data collection interviews, where a researcher can support a distressed participant in the moment, member checking often sees participants engaging with data without a researcher present to assuage their affective responses and concerns (Birt et al., 2016). Finally, de Loyola González-Salgado et al. (2024) put forth a cautionary tale regarding the member checking process, as their presentation of results led to unforeseen comparisons (and even the stigmatization) of groups involved in the study. Although unintended, these potentially inimical outcomes are representative of the power both the member checking process and the researcher possess.

Power Dynamics

While some researchers may be uncomfortable with the premise that they hold power over participants, such a premise must be acknowledged in member checking discourse. Simpson and Quigley (2016) claimed that it is naïve to believe researchers can relinquish their power, as power dynamics are “present in every phase of research” (Buchbinder, 2011, p. 118). The presence of power in member checking exists within each stage of the validation process due to several factors. First, researchers are the gatekeepers to member checking. If they elect to forego this step, there is no additional involvement by participants. Such a privilege emerges from researchers being experts in the subject, allowing them to hold the proverbial keys to the study’s processes, silencing participants’ voices and ways of knowing (Caretta & Pérez, 2019; Goldblatt et al., 2011). If researchers choose to invite participants into the member checking process, power dynamics still pervade to some degree. Participants, viewing the researcher as the expert, may be hesitant to push back against any data they are presented with, instead electing to agree or withhold their true sentiments (Buchbinder, 2011; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The importance of developing or enhancing a researcher’s lens related to understanding the role of power, then, is rather critical to an ethical deployment of member checking.

When researchers place a focus on attenuating the potentially adverse impact of a member check by looking to engage in a recalibration of power dynamics, the leveling of power between the researcher and participants can benefit the participant. Participants may feel that they have more control over themselves and the data, and that they are solidified partners in the research process (Koelsch, 2013). Although extant literature has often been inconsistent regarding in-depth descriptions of member checking, some scholars have extensively discussed methods to engage in ethical member checking (for a more detailed discussion, refer to Birt et al., 2016; Koelsch, 2013; Motulsky, 2021). While valuable, these important contributions have not yet revamped the way that member checking is widely utilized. We argue that we must build upon this methodological work to contextualize research within historical harms and act in a way that promotes diverse ways of knowing. RJ as a guiding philosophy recenters the reparative potential of member checking, while also enhancing the methodological authenticity.

Restorative Justice

RJ is a philosophical orientation to community-building that is rooted in relational accountability (Marcucci et al., 2025). It is often credited to diverse Indigenous epistemologies, although Tauri (2014), a critical Indigenous scholar, pointed out that this narrative commodifies “Indigenous life-worlds” (p. 39). Nonetheless, it is a radical departure from typical Western ways of knowing and being in community. In Western epistemologies, we often use the threat of institutional rule violation to promote conformity in a community. This “punitive justice” asks questions like, “What rules were broken? Who did it? What do they deserve?” (Zehr, 2015a, p. 91). RJ, alternatively, asks, “Who has been hurt? What are their needs? Who has the obligation to address the needs, to put right the harms, to restore relationships?” (Zehr, 2015a, p. 91).

RJ in the United States context has expanded massively over the last few decades. Originally finding its way into the juvenile justice system, RJ was operationalized into a spectrum of practices. These most canonically include restorative circles, which can be used both proactively to build community and reactively to repair relational harm once a wrongdoing occurs (Elmesky & Marcucci, 2024). Most notably, though, at the center of all RJ practices is relational accountability. While RJ is often conflated with the practices through which it is operationalized, we wish to make a clear distinction between RJ, the philosophy, and restorative practices. When we use the term “restorative justice” in this article, we are speaking specifically about the undergirding philosophy around relational accountability, rather than the set of practices.

RJ has been used in methodological conversation before, though not specifically on member checking discourse or practice. Stanfield (2006) argued that qualitative researchers should lean into the “restorative justice functions” of qualitative inquiry, prioritizing the “healing, reconciliation and restoration between the researcher and the researched” (p. 725). His focus is on rejecting performative positivistic ideas of science and, instead, fully embracing what makes qualitative inquiry possible: the mutual healing and improvement in the researcher and the researched. Dazzo’s (2023, 2024) more recent work has advanced Stanfield’s original work. Dazzo advocates for a “restorative validity.” Restorative validity measures the value of inquiry in its “orientations rooted in relationships, justice, and liberation” (Dazzo, 2024, p. 2). Dazzo (2023) poignantly asks, “If research does harm, what are we doing to right those wrongs?” (p. 4). Both Dazzo and Stanfield provide ethical and axiological guidance for researchers. We push this conversation into the pragmatic: What does that look like, on the ground, for early career or otherwise resource-constrained researchers?

Restorative Justice-Guided Member Checking

In our effort to build from recent methodological innovations, we propose a four-part reflection tool to utilize an RJ-guided lens in member checking. The tool should be used iteratively at multiple points in the research process, including during the design phase, during data collection and analysis, and during the writing and dissemination phase. Of note, the reflection protocol does not demand sequential use, and researchers may move back and forth between reflection topics.

This reflection tool was developed iteratively, initially by the first author through a study we will refer to as the “TESOL teachers of color study” (Parker & Mehrtens, 2025). The study sought to explore the emotional labor experiences of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) teachers of color. At the time of data collection, the participants (n = 10) worked in kindergarten-12th-grade school settings in four states across the Southwest, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. Each participant engaged in one semistructured interview, conducted by the first author and a colleague during the autumn months of 2024.

Following data collection and analysis, Parker the first author, and a colleague engaged in synthesized member checking (SMC; Birt et al., 2016). SMC, a five-step member checking process, sees researchers sharing interview data and emergent themes with participants in the form of an “SMC report.” The SMC reports were beneficial for the progression of the TESOL teachers of color study, as participants who returned the reports responded with detailed comments that were incorporated into the final analysis. Participants also stated that the reports also allowed them the ability to respond when best suited to their busy schedules, as opposed to the scheduling challenges of an interview.

While the authors of the TESOL teachers of color study found a great deal of value in the SMC approach to member checking, the authors found the protocolized step limiting. At the same time, Parker and Marcuccihad been actively involved in projects about RJ. In co-analysis meetings, we realized the synergy between the problems that Parker was experiencing with the helpful but heavily protocolized SMC and RJ.

What we explain next is the working reflection protocol for restorative justice-guided member checking. We integrate Parker’s use of early iterations of it in the TESOL teachers of color study when appropriate.

Proactive Relationship Building With Participants

The development of relationships with participants is a critical aspect of an RJ-based member checking process. This may be out of the scope of traditional member-checking procedures, but we argue that intentional cultivation of relationships is a crucial component of effective member checking (and at the heart of RJ) so that difficult conversations are possible. The process of relationship building began during participant interviews. The questions listed in Table 1 can serve as a guide in the fostering of relationships to optimize both the reparative potential and the empirical value of member checking.

Table 1.

Restorative Justice-Guided Member Checking Reflection Tool.

Proactive relationship building with participants	In what ways are we centering participants’ desires and needs in how our research relationship develops? How has the researcher/research team reflected on the social power dynamics that may shift participant–research relationships? What is the communication infrastructure and norms within the researcher–participant relationship?
Holding space to discuss and share harmful practices	Have we created opportunities for participants to name harmful research practices, including exclusion or marginalization of their ways of knowing, that they have experienced—whether in this study or previous ones? How are we signaling openness to hearing about harm and/or other epistemological stances without becoming defensive? What structures have we built into the research process that invite honest dialogue about diverse ways of knowing? How are we actively creating opportunities for participants to express how they have been harmed by this research or research processes more broadly?
Repairing harm incurred	How are we validating and acting on participants’ experiences of harm? What mechanisms exist for participants to shape how repair might occur? What resources does our team have to repair harm?
Reflecting and future planning	In what ways are we documenting and learning from moments where we have caused harm (epistemic or otherwise) or missed opportunities for repair? How will future research projects build on the knowledge learned during the restorative processes in this project? How are we attending to our own emotional well-being as researchers during these restorative processes?

In the TESOL teachers of color study, Parker operationalized elements of proactive relationship building. At the onset of the interviews, the TESOL teachers of color study authors shared information about their backgrounds, research agendas, and, at the conclusion of the interviews, shared the proximal and distal goals of the data and study with participants. When discussing the goals of the study, the authors informed participants of how much longer data collection was anticipated to last and when analysis would begin. In addition, the TESOL teachers of color study authors shared information about the conference presentation proposal they were planning to submit based on the data, how the member checking process would work, and the specific gaps in the literature the study would address. Sharing these specific details resulted in participants discussing their own interests in research, their own graduate school journeys (as both authors of the TESOL teachers of colors study are graduate students), and why having their lived experiences investigated was personally meaningful to participants based on their racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds.

Following each participant’s interview, the participants were sent updates about the study’s progress, such as when data analysis had been completed and when the researchers’ conference proposal had been accepted. Parker and his co-author also found readings germane to the study’s focus and shared these with participants. The readings shared included academic journal articles, readings from practitioner-focused websites, and posts from essayistic platforms, with each relating to TESOL teaching, the experiences of teachers of color, or the ways emotional labor is experienced by educators.

Holding Space to Discuss and Share Harmful Practices

The second domain of our RJ member-checking reflection protocol involves hearing and bearing witness to harm. We encourage researchers to use the second domain reflection questions (Table 1) at multiple points in the research process, as this domain provides questions to assist researchers in broaching the potential for harm. For researchers, this can be done by leaving space within member checking documents to discuss and disclose any harmful practices, as was completed in the TESOL teachers of color study. Although not utilized in the TESOL teachers of color study, member checking interviews are another space where we believe researchers can set aside time to discuss any potential harm. It is important to designate and set aside time for participants to share moments or actions of harm, as participants often wish to please the researcher and do not feel empowered enough to push back in any manner (Goldblatt et al., 2011). This can result in situations wherein a participant has experienced harm during member checking yet would not feel the comfort or agency needed to communicate this to the researcher. Instead, participants should have a structured pathway and channel of communication during this process to know that it is acceptable and encouraged to disagree or challenge the researcher(s) as deemed necessary (Birt et al., 2016; Doyle, 2007; Madill & Sullivan, 2018).

In the TESOL teachers of color study, Parker used these reflection questions, and the authorship team created an action plan that was responsive to their expertise and resources. Once member checking began, the SMC documents emailed to participants were created with boxes on each page, which invited participants to share their initial thoughts, interpretations, and takeaways from the primary data analysis. The boxes contained open-ended prompts for participants to respond to and contained language such as “Does this [emergent theme] represent your experience to any degree? Why or why not?” In addition, the cover sheet to the SMC document and the email inviting participants to complete the SMC document explicitly stated that participants may “freely respond with anything” and to reply via email if there were any matters they would want to discuss.

Following the conclusion of the SMC process, a similar process occurred when participants were contacted via email to begin dialogue about repairing potential harm done during member checking. The participants were emailed a restorative member checking document (Appendix A), which encouraged participants to share their sentiments: “If you felt that the research process made you feel uncomfortable, or you want to start towards a pathway of repairing harm caused during the process, fill in the boxes below.” By design, this form and the rhetoric utilized when presenting the form were crafted to feel invitational, aiming to elicit candor from participants if harmful practices had occurred. If participants felt that harm had been incurred and indicated this in the first question listed (Appendix A), they would then fill out the following three questions from the restorative member checking form:

“What can the researcher do to repair the harm?”

“What could have been done differently?”

“What would a researcher need to do in the future to avoid any harm?”

If participants felt harm had been a part of their experience, they were encouraged to fill out the form and return it. Conversely, if participants did not feel there were any harmful practices, they were informed that they could leave the form blank, as there was no need for follow-up, nor a need to bring forth additional participant labor.

Repairing Harm Incurred

When researchers are ready to move on from listening to reparative action, we invite them to engage with the reflection questions listed in Table 1 regarding the reparation of harm. McKim (2023) articulated that researchers should ensure to “never damage the relationship between researchers and participants” (p. 47). Such a mindset should be carried forward by all researchers; nevertheless, harm may still occur in the research process. In line with restorative justice-centric thinking, addressing harm that has been done to others is central to a reparative lens.

In Parker’s TESOL teachers of colors study, none of the participants returned the restorative member checking form with negative commentary. Although our study does not put forth every avenue within the member checking process where harm may emerge, nor does it display the process of acknowledging and addressing harm, this aspect of the discussion is important to note. There are several steps researchers can take to respond in an appropriate manner, which may include the following: the use of a mediating party, electing to pause the member checking interview, and informing the participant of intentions to reflect and amend. The inclusion of a mediating party is designed to directly address the role of power dynamics. In this regard, having an additional party, not involved with the study, can allow participants to feel that there is a neutral individual present to relay concerns to. Carlson (2010) discussed that a trusted mentor of a researcher can be present during both the member checking phase and the data collection phase. This is a viable option for researchers to deploy; nevertheless, the issues of power dynamics may still exist if the mentor is a researcher and academic. In this case, an independent mediator or advocate may be included; in cases where the research contexts are more sensitive, a social worker may be brought in.

Electing to pause (or even stop) a member checking interview should be done to ensure that any discomfort or harm is recognized, and both the researcher and participant can have time to adequately regroup, potentially set the stage to move forward, and repair the issues. Finally, if harm arises, informing participants of intentions to reflect and amend harmful practices can serve as a form of relational accountability. As is the spirit of RJ, repairing harm and restoring relationships are at the center of restorative member checking (Marcucci et al., 2025).

Reflecting, Accountability, and Future Planning

If harmful practices have been shared by a participant, and the harm has been acknowledged and repaired, the final steps can be rooted in practices of reflection, accountability, and futuring (Table 1). As previously discussed, the TESOL teachers of color study did not see any participants share harmful experiences. This may not always be the case for a study, however. If harmful practices have been shared by a participant, and the harm has been acknowledged, a researcher can take steps rooted in reflection and accountability, such as (a) taking time to reflect on participants’ sentiments; (b) completing a reflection sheet (Appendix B) or taking individual notes following personal contemplation; (c) sharing the completed reflection sheet or notes with participants; and (d) listening to participants’ desires for amends, including such desires in current and future research works.

The entirety of the RJ-centered member checking process asks researchers to pause and reflect, aiming to engage in prudent and intentional practices with participants. In the TESOL teachers of colors study, even though harmful practices were not reported, time was taken to reflect on participants’ experiences throughout the study, and on ways in which participants could be supported in studies going forward. In addition, the TESOL teacher of color study author team held space to reflect on emotional well-being throughout the process. We encourage researchers to do the same and to use the conclusion of the RJ-guided member checking process as an opportunity to continue reflective practices.

Discussion

The example shared of how RJ-guided member checking can be implemented is exactly that, an example of the process, not an exemplar. As we noted earlier, the reflection protocol we have provided does not have to be followed in complete sequential order. Aspects such as relationship building and researcher reflection benefit participants the most when they are consistently focused throughout a study. RJ stresses the importance of using proactive strategies to develop relationships within communities (Gregory et al., 2016; Marcucci, 2021). When relationships are developed before conflict emerges, the strength of those relationships can be leveraged if conflict arises, and responsive measures are needed. Regarding member checking, we view relationship building as a means to intentionally attenuate participant–researcher power dynamics. Without intentionality by researchers, member checking can reify power dynamics between the researcher and participant. While power dynamics cannot be wholly equalized, they may be ameliorated with direct attention to relationship development (Buchbinder, 2011; Mero-Jaffe, 2011).

In the TESOL teachers of color study, the way Parker and his co-author elected to develop relationships shifted rather quickly due to interactions with participants during the interview process. At the onset of the study, the two authors were in consistent discourse, internally, regarding what would be shared with participants and how to best establish a communication cadence. The questions regarding communication were quickly answered as participants were visibly and palpably enthusiastic about being kept up to date on the various aspects of the study. Receiving such commentary from participants set the stage to center participants’ desires in the development of the various participant–researcher relationships.

As Parker and his colleague carefully reflected on the power dynamics that exist within participant–researcher relationships, the authors attempted to ensure that communication to participants was intentional and accounted for these dynamics. This can be seen in the sharing of resources and readings with participants. The readings were emailed in a more casual manner and were designed to embody a friendly interaction, akin to the sentiment of “I saw this and thought of you” as opposed to a researcher sharing esoteric articles, potentially conveying an aura of expertise, knowing, and epistemic authority. Many of the readings shared with participants were from nonacademic outlets, such as practitioner-oriented pieces or essayistic pieces, which were also balanced with relevant academic pieces.

Parker also elected to ensure participants had up-to-date knowledge of the study’s timeline. Choosing to share the steps involved in the initial findings may, at first glance, not seem appealing to many participants, as results, analysis, and interpretation can venture into a recondite arena rather quickly. However, choosing to include participants in this step not only signals that researchers see participants as having the abilities to understand the nuances of the study’s data, but it also contributes to participants’ desires to remain engaged throughout the totality of the member checking process (Kornbluh, 2015). These phase-by-phase updates on the study can shrink the perceived gap between researcher and participant, allowing for the member checking process to be honest and “challenge(s) epistemic authority” (Caretta & Pérez, 2019, p. 359).

The consistent communication with participants throughout the research process of the TESOL teachers of color study was not only to develop an initial relationship with participants but also to maintain ongoing relationships. As communication may often cease with participants after data collection, and until an officially bounded member checking phase begins, attempting to reactively reestablish a relationship with participants, if harmful practices are shared, may be insufficient, inefficacious, and no longer timely. Instead, we posit that there is value in taking steps, such as utilizing consistent, yet brief and efficient communication to create and sustain foundational relationships early into the study process.

Although no researcher intends for harm to occur during the research process, the multifarious nature of member checking sees harm materialize through unintentional channels. Addressing the potential for harm cannot be singularly accomplished with positive intent. Instead, researchers “need to be more mindful of how engaging participants in the member checking process will affect them,” proactively deploying strategies to limit harm and give rise to positive experiences (Candela, 2019, p. 626). Following the lead of other scholars, who placed an intentional focus on the processes of member checking (Kornbluh, 2015; López-Zerón et al., 2021), we developed this RJ-centered process to ensure that our member checking processes operated with intentionality, responsive to historic epistemic injustices.

Moreover, by actively stating to participants that they are free to share their thoughts, in both the SMC document and restorative form, paired with our acknowledgment that harm may occur, we are attempting to create spaces where open dialogue can arise if necessary. As the restorative philosophy aims to equalize power dynamics, discourse between researcher and participant needs to exist in a bidirectional manner, while also addressing the epistemic authority of the researcher. By stating that there is a possibility of harm, we can reduce the notion of researcher infallibility and, instead, place ourselves in vulnerable positions, allowing for the participants to interrogate our practices and begin the process of holding us accountable. Within the TESOL teachers of color study, this was done with the goal of ensuring that participants have space provided during this process to know that it is acceptable and encouraged to disagree or challenge the researcher(s) as deemed necessary (Birt et al., 2016; Doyle, 2007; Madill & Sullivan, 2018).

Finally, if harmful practices have been shared by a participant and the harm has been acknowledged, researchers should take steps that are rooted in practices of reflection, accountability, and futuring. Encouraging researchers to engage in reflection before responding to participants’ sentiments of harm is recommended for several reasons. Hallett (2013) discussed the unintended harm that may result during member checking, which can be a potential pitfall for even the most assiduous scholars. Taking time to reflect on what events or actions led to the unplanned harm will allow researchers to make an informed decision on how to make amends. These unintended pitfalls are even more critical to focus on for early career scholars who often operate “by the book”; that is, they follow member checking rules and standards without a deep reflection on their consequences for participants (Carlson, 2010). As early career scholars and graduate students often encounter literature that has limited information about member checking (for a brief discussion, see Simpson & Quigley, 2016), scholars may easily fall into a trap of uncritical deployment of member checking.

For researchers, reflexivity becomes an integral aspect of the member checking process to combat such rote and sequential member checking practices. To best serve participants in restorative member checking, researchers should explore their own perspectives and choices made during the research process (Doyle, 2007; Moradi & Grzanka, 2017). Reflexive practices, particularly those that are brought forth by participants’ challenges to the researcher, offer the opportunity for researchers to see their oversights and interrogate their assumptions about the research process (Levitt, 2021; Madill & Sullivan, 2018). Once researchers have interrogated their practices, they may consider completing the reflection sheet used in the TESOL teachers of color study (Appendix B) and sharing this reflection sheet with participants. Once shared, researchers should be receptive to participants’ responses and aim to include such responses in present and future works. Naidu and Prose (2018) articulated that researcher accountability in member checking can be denoted by the reciprocal nature of interactions between the researcher and participant. When such reciprocity is present, accountability for researchers operates on a more meaningful level. Instead of solely having accountability in the form of returning transcripts, accountability where researchers choose to engage in dialogue and discourse with participants is conducive to strong reflexivity practices and informs researchers’ future projects (Naidu & Prose, 2018; Urry et al., 2024). Although researchers’ reflection and measures of accountability are not a panacea for research-based harm, they can provide the participant with the opportunity to be both listened to and heard. Moreover, researchers’ discussions on ways to avoid harm for future studies may be of value to the participant, who may feel assured that future research participants will be less likely to experience any unintentional harm.

Although we have stated that the researcher reflection sheet is an optional aspect of an RJ-guided lens to member checking, the sheet contains an important question for researchers to reflect on regarding their own affective wellness. As researcher wellness is often viewed secondarily to participant wellness, less focus has been placed on the emotional well-being of established scholars (Clark & Sousa, 2018; Velardo & Elliott, 2021) and emerging scholars (Velardo & Elliott, 2018). When working with historically marginalized or vulnerable populations, researchers may find themselves with a more complex range or deeper spectrum of emotions to process (Mallon & Elliott, 2019), potentially resulting in challenges related to burnout, secondary trauma, or emotional labor (Bloor et al., 2008; Fahie, 2014; Goodrum & Keys, 2007). As such, the importance of researchers taking time to sit with their emotions is also of value in this process.

Conclusion

Social scientific inquiry—and qualitative inquiry specifically—has been an essential tool in promoting well-being and elongating lives. We have an ethical responsibility to ensure that those benefits are equally felt, regardless of demographic or positionality. The clearest way to do this is to ensure that diverse ways of knowing are incorporated throughout qualitative research processes. When member checking was initially proposed decades ago, it held promise to do just that—and often it does. However, because of time and resource constraints, member checking can often become a hollowed-out practice that does little to encourage epistemological diversity in the research process. Instead, we argue that RJ as a philosophy can enhance member checking practices. Specifically, we articulate a reflection tool that uses a RJ ethos to provoke thoughtful interrogation with the qualitative research process and the member-checking protocols specifically.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B

Sample Reflection Form for Researchers.

What can you do for the participant(s) in this study to repair harm and attempt to make things right?

In what ways have you documented and learned from moments where you have caused harm (epistemic or otherwise) or missed opportunities for repair?

How will future research projects build on the knowledge learned during the restorative processes in this project?

How are you attending to your own emotional well-being as a researcher during these restorative processes?

ORCID iDs

Alexander E. Parker

Olivia Marcucci

Ethical Considerations

This study did not involve human participants and did not necessitate ethical approval. The paper refers to and draws on findings from prior research that was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at Johns Hopkins University.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in that study.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

No new data sets were generated or analyzed in the current study.

Author Biographies

Alexander E. Parker is a doctoral candidate at the Johns Hopkins School of Education. His research agenda primarily explores the affective challenges of teaching, understanding the ways historically and racially marginalized teachers experience burnout and emotional labor in light of the historical legacy of the teaching profession. Secondarily, he investigates restorative justice implementation in K–12 school settings.

Olivia Marcucci is a critical qualitative social scientist of education. Her research primarily interrogates race, racism, and racial bias in K–12 schools and supports organizational and structural transformation. In her research, she uses community-engaged, qualitative methodologies and a critical, transformative ethos. Currently, she is an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Education.

References

Association of American Universities. (2025, July 23). Federal research cuts threaten U.S. innovation and leadership. https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/federal-research-cuts-threaten-us-innovation-and-leadership

Barbour

R. S.

(2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322, 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115

Birt

Scott

Cavers

Campbell

Walter

(2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870

Bloor

Fincham

Sampson

(2008). QUALITI (NCRM) commissioned inquiry into the risk to well-being of researchers in qualitative research [Report]. Cardiff University. http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/qualiti/CIReport.pdf

Brear

(2019). Process and outcomes of a recursive, dialogic member checking approach: A project ethnography. Qualitative Health Research, 29(7), 944–957. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318812448

Brewis

(2014). The ethics of researching friends: On convenience sampling in qualitative management and organization studies. British Journal of Management, 25(4), 849– 862. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12064

Buchbinder

(2011). Beyond checking: Experiences of the validation interview. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 10(1), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010370189

Call-Cummings

Dazzo

G. P.

Hauber-Özer

(2023). Critical participatory inquiry: An interdisciplinary guide. Sage.

Candela

(2019). Exploring the function of member checking. Qualitative Report, 24(3), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3726

10.

Caretta

M. A.

Pérez

M. A.

(2019). When participants do not agree: Member checking and challenges to epistemic authority in participatory research. Field Methods, 31(4), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X19866578

11.

Carlson

(2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1102–1113. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3726

12.

Chase

(2017). Enhanced member checks: Reflections and insights from a participant- researcher collaboration. The Qualitative Report, 22(10), 2689–2703. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2957

13.

Clark

A. M.

Sousa

B. J.

(2018). The mental health of people doing qualitative research: Getting serious about risks and remedies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 160940691878724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918787244

14.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

15.

Dazzo

G. P.

(2023). Can research heal? Toward restorative validity: Axiological commitments and methodological obligations as contact zones. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231164937

16.

Dazzo

G. P.

(2024). On restorative validity: Reorienting inquiry toward peace, justice, and healing. The Qualitative Report, 29(2), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.5690

17.

de Loyola González-Salgado

Rivera-Navarro

Gutiérrez-Sastre

Conde

Franco

. (2024). Conducting member checking within a qualitative case study on health-related behaviours in a large European city: Appraising interpretations and co-constructing findings. Health, 28(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593221109682

18.

Dotson

(2011). Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236–257.

19.

Dotson

(2014). Conceptualizing epistemic oppression. Social Epistemology, 28(2), 115–138.

20.

Doyle

(2007). Member checking with older women: A framework for negotiating meaning. Health Care for Women International, 28(10), 888–908.

21.

Elmesky

Marcucci

(2024). Against the carceral logics of schools: A critical ethnographic study of restorative justice and politicized caring in a black school. AERA Open, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241297163

22.

Erdmann

Potthoff

(2023). Decision criteria for the ethically reflected choice of a member check method in qualitative research: A proposal for discussion. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231177664

23.

Fahie

(2014). Doing sensitive research sensitively: Ethical and methodological issues in researching workplace bullying. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300108

24.

Fanon

(2021). The wretched of the earth ( Philcox

, Trans., 60th anniversary ed.). Grove Press.

25.

Freimuth

V. S.

Quinn

S. C.

Thomas

S. B.

Cole

Zook

Duncan

(2001). African American’s views on research and the Tuskegee syphilis study. Social Science & Medicine, 52(5), 797–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00178-7

26.

Fricker

(2007). Epistemic injustice. Oxford University Press.

27.

Goldblatt

Karnieli-Miller

Neumann

(2011). Sharing qualitative research findings with participants: Study experiences of methodological and ethical dilemmas. Patient Education and Counseling, 82(3), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.013

28.

Goodrum

Keys

J. L.

(2007). Reflections on two studies of emotionally sensitive topics: Bereavement from murder and abortion. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 10(4), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701400976

29.

Gregory

Clawson

Davis

Gerewitz

(2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929950

30.

Guston

D. H.

Keniston

(Eds.). (1994). The fragile contract: University science and the federal government. MIT Press.

31.

Hallett

R. E.

(2013). Dangers of member checking. In Midgley

Danaher

P. A.

Baguley

(Eds.), The role of participants in education research: Ethics, epistemologies (pp. 29–39). Routledge.

32.

Harrison

F. V.

(Ed.). (2011). Decolonizing anthropology: Moving further toward an anthropology for liberation. American Anthropological Association. (Original work published 1991)

33.

Koelsch

L. E.

(2013). Reconceptualizing the member check interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200105

34.

Kornbluh

(2015). Combatting challenges to establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(4), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1021941

35.

Levitt

H. M.

(2021). Introduction to the special section: Questioning established qualitative methods and assumptions. Qualitative Psychology, 8(3), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000222

36.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

37.

Lloyd

Hyett

Kenny

(2024). To member check or not to member check? An evaluation of member checking in an interpretive descriptive study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241301383

38.

López-Zerón

Bilbao-Nieva

M. I.

Clements

K. A. V.

(2021). Conducting member checks with multilingual research participants from diverse backgrounds. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 2(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.24412

39.

Macrakis

(1993). Surviving the swastika: Scientific research in Nazi Germany. Oxford University Press.

40.

Madill

Sullivan

(2018). Mirrors, portraits, and member checking: Managing difficult moments of knowledge exchange in the social sciences. Qualitative Psychology, 5(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000089

41.

Mallon

Elliott

(2019). The emotional risks of turning stories into data: An exploration of the experiences of qualitative researchers working on sensitive topics. Societies, 9(3), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc9030062

42.

Marcucci

(2021). Why restorative justice works in schools: An investigation into the interactional dynamics of restorative circles. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 31, 100561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100561

43.

Marcucci

Grant

A. A.

Rice

Parker

Satchell

T. W.

Alicea

Phillips

Cruz

R. A.

(2025). Understanding the anti-carceral possibility of school-based restorative justice: A methodologically inclusive systematic review. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543251329595

44.

McKim

(2023). Meaningful member-checking: A structured approach to member-checking. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(2), 41–52.

45.

Medina

(2013). The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and the social imagination. Oxford University Press.

46.

Mero-Jaffe

(2011). “Is that what I said?” Interview transcript approval by participants: An aspect of ethics in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(3), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000304

47.

Moradi

Grzanka

P. R.

(2017). Using intersectionality responsibly: Toward critical epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice activism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(5), 500–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000203

48.

Morse

J. M.

(2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501

49.

Motulsky

S. L.

(2021). Is member checking the gold standard of quality in qualitative research? Qualitative Psychology, 8(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000215

50.

Murphy

S. L.

Kochanek

K. D.

J. Q.

Arias

(2024). Mortality in the United States, 2023 (NCHS Data Brief No. 521). National Center for Health Statistics. https://doi.org/10.15620/cdc/170564

51.

Naidu

Prose

(2018). Re-envisioning member checking and communicating results as accountability practice in qualitative research: A South African community-based organization example. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-19.3.3153

52.

National Science Foundation. (2022). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2022. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24300/figure/5

53.

Oakley

(2013). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In Roberts

(Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61). Routledge.

54.

Parker

A.E.

Mehrtens

(2025). Emotional labor experiences of TESOL teachers of color: A poststructural approach to racialized teaching experiences. [Manuscript submitted for publication].

55.

Riley

J. C.

(2008). Rising life expectancy: A global history. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 2001)

56.

Settles

I. H.

Jones

M. K.

Buchanan

N. T.

Dotson

(2021). Epistemic exclusion: Scholar (ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(4), 493–507.

57.

Simpson

Quigley

C. F.

(2016). Member checking process with adolescent students: Not just reading a transcript. The Qualitative Report, 21(2), 376–392. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2386

58.

Skloot

(2017). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. Broadway Paperbacks.

59.

Slettebø

(2021). Participant validation: Exploring a contested tool in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 20(5), 1223–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325020968189

60.

Stanfield

J. H.

(2006). The possible restorative justice functions of qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 723–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600975925

61.

Tauri

J. M.

(2014). An Indigenous commentary on the globalisation of restorative justice. British Journal of Community Justice, 12(2), 35–55.

62.

Thomas

D. R.

(2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435

63.

Urry

Chur-Hansen

Scholz

(2024). From member checking to collaborative reflection: A novel way to use a familiar method for engaging participants in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 21(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2355972

64.

Velardo

Elliott

(2018). Prioritising doctoral students’ wellbeing in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 23(2), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3074

65.

Velardo

Elliott

(2021). Co-interviewing in qualitative social research: Prospects, merits and considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211054920

66.

Zehr

(2015a). Changing lenses: Restorative justice for our times. MennoMedia, Inc.

67.

Zehr

(2015b). The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated. Simon & Schuster.