Member Checking in Qualitative Research

Quantitative and Qualitative Reviews

Quantitative

Baylor, A. (2021). Criminalized Students, Reparations, and the Limits of Prospective Reform. Wash. UL Rev., 99, 1229.

This report can be characterized as quantitative because it provides statistical evidence for its conclusions. The study is nonexperimental, and I decided this on the basis that no experiment was performed or described by the author. The researcher was examining cause-and-effect conditions but he used pre-existing data from prior surveys to draw conclusions. The causal-comparative method was not discussed directly but evidence of its application is apparent throughout. This method is also known as the ex post facto design because it is not possible to manipulate the independent variable(s) and the researcher must rely on pre-existing data. The advantage of this method is that it allows for the study of relationships between variables that would be unethical or impractical to study experimentally. The disadvantage of this method is that it is not possible to determine causal relationships with certainty due to the possibility of alternative explanations. Although the author uses this method, he does not discuss the pros and cons of its usage, but clearly there are some limitations that could be observed, particularly with the question of other variables that might be affecting outcomes that go undisclosed.

Measures used included survey instruments, but the researcher did not provide any information about them, as they were used in prior studies—although this information could be obtained as the sources of the data are provided. However, I could not make any judgments on their adequacy based on the little context given. How the surveys were conducted, sample sizes, and scales used would have been helpful. With some research, it might be useable for my dissertation.

Qualitative

Jiménez, D., & Glater, J. D. (2020). Student debt is a civil rights issue: The case for debt relief and higher education reform. Harv. CR-CLL Rev., 55, 131.

There are a number of characteristics that are typically found in qualitative reports and that can be seen in this report. First, qualitative reports tend to be more flexible in structure than quantitative reports and this is the case here. The reason for this is that qualitative data is often more fluid and open-ended, making it difficult to fit into the rigid framework of a traditional research paper. The report is also more descriptive than quantitative reports, as the qualitative data supplied is complex and multi-faceted, requiring a detailed analysis in order to be properly understood.

The study was conducted by a team, but the results were not analyzed by anyone other than the authors—no audit, etc., which could impact my confidence in the validity of the results. There was no evidence of member checking being used, and that would have increased my confidence as well. It looks like a purposive sample was used, as a purposive sample is a type of non-probability sampling that involves selecting units (e.g., people, organizations, documents) for inclusion in the sample based on specific characteristics. The goal of purposive sampling is to select a sample that best represents the population of interest and that will allow the researcher to answer the research question(s). Demographics were not clearly stated, and analysis methods were not discussed. Rather, the authors simply relate what they found with no specifics given on methodology.