Transactional validity, a common approach in participatory research, is attained when preliminary analyses of research results are discussed with research participants and their feedback is incorporated in the analysis. Member checking is one way of achieving transactional validity, which has been heralded as a stronger version of validity reached through triangulation. Through member checking, we engaged with participants to ensure mutual agreement and understanding on the accounts and analysis to be published. Attaining methodological rigor and reliability is based on shared analytical understanding between researchers and research participants. However, this shared understanding does not always materialize. Participants do not always agree with researchers or with each other. As a result, efforts to increase validity created moments of conflict and challenged epistemic authority. This article provides detailed accounts of these conflicts and challenges and their eventual, even if problematic, resolution in the context of broader approaches in participatory research. The importance of a dialogical and recursive research process with participant communities, which cannot be assumed to be homogeneous, is underscored.

中文翻译：

---

当参与者不同意时：参与式研究中的成员检查和对认知权威的挑战

当与研究参与者讨论研究结果的初步分析并将他们的反馈纳入分析时，交易有效性是参与式研究中的一种常见方法。成员检查是实现交易有效性的一种方式，它被认为是通过三角测量达到的更强的有效性版本。通过会员审核，我们与参与者进行接触，以确保对将要发布的账目和分析达成共识和理解。获得方法论的严谨性和可靠性是基于研究人员和研究参与者之间共享的分析理解。然而，这种共同的理解并不总是能够实现。参与者并不总是同意研究人员或彼此的意见。因此，提高有效性的努力造成了冲突的时刻并挑战了认知权威。本文详细介绍了这些冲突和挑战，以及在参与式研究的更广泛方法的背景下，它们最终（即使有问题）的解决方案。强调了与参与者社区进行对话和递归研究过程的重要性，这些过程不能被假定为同质的。