Yes / Consultation is an important feature of research and, increasingly, researchers are required to work in partnership with stakeholders to increase the impact of their work. Our aim is to demonstrate what can be learned from the scholarship on, and practice of, member checking to facilitate productive knowledge exchange. Using dialogical analysis we explore three member check interactions from three different qualitative psychology projects focusing our analysis on difficult moments between researchers and participants conceptualised here as ‘sore spots’. We identify two major genres in these sequences: participant ambivalence and participant challenge. We then consider passages that allow us to explore a more theoretical understanding of these two genres in terms of the metaphor of portraits and mirrors. Overall, we outline how implicit epistemologies and theories of subjectivity (uncomplicated, blank, and complex) may be linked to the way in which stakeholders approach research. We also provide a map with regard to the theories within which member checks can be undertaken, associated research practices in terms of a range of researcher responses to stakeholder ambivalence and challenge, and implications of these moments for knowledge exchange for qualitative research but also for psychological science as a whole. We conclude that sore spots in knowledge exchange process can be productive opportunities of transformational validity.

The purpose was to evaluate the psychometric properties of an 8-item questionnaire instrument to support member checks in positivistic qualitative research. A sample of 1603 junior-level university nursing students (98.2% participation rate) a completed the questionnaire instrument which assessed how closely a written description of the lived experience of in-hospital training applied to their personal experience. The instrument had excellent psychometric properties, including high measurement reliability (α=0.94), strong concurrent validity (72.2%-77.4%), discriminant validity (p < 0.000001), a parametric score distribution with little kurtosis and no skew, and an average score (G score) was centered at midpoint of the scale (midpoint of 4 on a scale from 1 to 7). The experience match was at the level of “matches experience to high degree,” showing the transferability (generalizability) of the findings to the present sample. The instrument can be used to assess the credibility and transferability of findings from qualitative research, assist in finding negative cases, determine the degree of saturation and success of bracketing, and complement the constant comparative method. The instrument is recommended for general use in positivistic qualitative or naturalistic inquiry studies for any type of sample and any type of lived experience. This approach would magnify and empower the reach of the products of qualitative research.

The purpose of this multicase study was to describe and explain the perceptions of three Spanish-English culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) high achievers on their biliteracy journeys to become educators in the United States (U.S.), by answering: What elements constitute the perspectives of three L1-Spanish/L2-English CLD high achievers on the relevance of their biliteracy experience in order to become educators in the U.S.?; What factors do these three L1-Spanish/L2-English CLD high achievers perceive as key to describe their biliteracy experience?; What relevance, if any, do these three L1-Spanish/L2-English CLD high achievers perceive their biliteracy experience had for them to become educators in the U.S.?; From the perspectives of these three L1-Spanish/L2-English CLD high-achiever educators, what impact, if any, did digital technologies have on their biliteracy experience? With a critical-pedagogy approach to multicase-study (Stake, 2006) inquiry, I used online methods to collect data on three high-achieving (GPA > 3.01) L1-Spanish graduates initially identified as limited-English-proficient by the American school system. For data collection, I used a participant-selection questionnaire, individual and group semi-structured interviews via Skype, e-journals for biliteracy autobiographies, artifact e-portfolios, my reflective e-journal, and one face-to-face unstructured interview with one participant only. Concurrently, I engaged in on-going data analysis to build meaning inductively and guide further data collection, analysis, and interpretation, until saturation, in an application of the dialectical method into research (Ollman, 2008). I included the email communications with the participants and their member checks. Two external auditors reviewed all data-collection and analytic procedures. I analyzed each case individually followed by the cross-case analysis. The findings indicated the importance of family and L1-community support, host-culture insiders as mentors, access to information, empowerment by means of conscientization, and the participants' advocacy of others by becoming educators. In this way, the study identified how the participants escaped the statistics of doom, which helps understand how to better serve growing L2-English student populations. The study closed with a discussion from the viewpoint of reviewed literature and critical pedagogy, my interpretation of the findings, and suggestions for future praxis in education and research.