Member checking provides the opportunity to volunteer additional information which may be stimulated by the playing back process.
The major problem with member checking however is that it relies on the assumption that there is a fixed truth of reality that can be accounted for by a researcher and can be confirmed by a respondent, which may not be true.
Interviewers must be aware of this imbalance of power and promote discussion from the interviewee by valuing opinions and reinforcing equal collaboration between the two.
The researcher constantly checks his or her understanding of the phenomenon by utilizing techniques such as paraphrasing and summarization for clarification.
Since the most important issue in evaluating the rigor of qualitative research is trustworthiness, using the strategy of member checks, (along with other techniques such as independent audit, prolonged engagement, triangulation, peer debriefing), is critical to minimizing distortion.
[9] In general, member checks are a useful function in research, especially when there are questions about the adequacy of understanding based on limited time of exposure.
Many writers establish internal validity – truthfulness and representation of the reality of the participants – by showing that they have carried out a ‘member check’ as Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest.
Many researchers have noted that when the essence of the participants' experiences are similar, their stories represent social reality.
They believe that for an account to have validity, its readers will have grasped not only the essence of the phenomenon but also understood something of the human condition they have in common with the participants-–intersubjective understanding.
Many methodologists caution against using member check as verification by defining what participants say to be correct because it may actually pose a threat to the validity instead.
Due to the different views regarding interpretation of data, member checks may be better suited as being identified as a tool for error reduction, rather than a verification protocol.
[18] Member checks can be used as a technique to evaluate the problems with the study process such as practical, theoretical, representational, and moral flaws to ensure the honesty of the research procedures.
[19] The process of a member check also is important in revealing missing information that should be addressed before concluding the study.
Likewise, they may also respond falsely in order to avoid social judgment or societal views on the subject, despite anonymity.
Avoidance of bias can be aided by having separate researchers review the member check responses rather than by those who conducted the interviews.