Navigating Consensus in Team-Based Qualitative Research: Challenges and Strategies for Rigorous Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-26.3.4386Keywords:
trustworthiness, qualitative coding, qualitative health research, quality criteria, rigorAbstract
Many researchers presume team-based qualitative research improves rigor, deepens meaning, and reduces bias by integrating multiple perspectives. Yet, researchers seldom challenge this belief. In the current paper, I critique these assumptions arising from power imbalances, pressure to align, and bargaining within research teams. Drawing from qualitative methodology, psychology, and epistemic justice, I argue that group coding can limit meaning-making, discourage dissent, and reinforce prevailing perspectives. Examining team dynamics reveals how forced consensus weakens trustworthiness. Instead of treating coder consensus as rigor, a reflexive approach prioritizing transparency, structured debate, and integrity is needed. I propose strategies for reducing bias, including team structures, audit trails, and clear steps for resolving interpretive differences.
Downloads
References
Alcoff, Linda Martín (2010). Epistemic identities. Episteme, 7(2), 128-137.
Asch, Solomon E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70.
Berger, Roni (2015). Now I see it, now I don't: Researcher's position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.
Birt, Linda; Scott, Suzanne; Cavers, Debbie; Campbell, Cristine & Walter, Fiona (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802-1811.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1988 [1984]). Homo academicus. Stanford University Press.
Braun, Virginia & Clarke, Victoria (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37-47.
Braun, Virginia & Clarke, Victoria (2024). Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG). Palliative Medicine, 38(6), 608-616, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02692163241234800 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
Creswell, John W. & Poth, Cheryl N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fricker, Miranda (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, Jori N.; Mitchel, Nia; Halpin, Sean N. & Kilanko, Glory A. (2023). Using focus groups for empowerment purposes in qualitative health research and evaluation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 26(4), 409-423, https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2049518 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
Halpin, Sean N. (2024). Inter-coder agreement in qualitative coding: Considerations for its use. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 8(3), 23-43, https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14887 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
Halpin, Sean N. & Konomos, Michael (2022). An iterative formative evaluation of medical education for multiple myeloma patients receiving autologous stem cell transplant. Journal of Cancer Education, 37(3), 779-787.
Halpin, Sean N.; Konomos, Michael & Roulston, Kathryn (2021). Using applied conversation analysis in patient education. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 8, 23333936211012990, https://doi.org/10.1177/23333936211012990 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
Halpin, Sean N.; Konomos, Michael & Roulston, Kathryn (2022). Using conversation analysis to appraise how novel educational videos impact patient medical education. Patient Education and Counseling, 105(7), 2027-2032.
Halpin, Sean N.; Wright, Rebecca; Gwaltney, Angela; Frantz, Annabelle; Peay, Holly; Olsson, Emily; Raspa, Melissa; Gehtland, Lisa & Andrews, Sara M. (2025). Assessing the acceptability of using patient portals to recruit pregnant women and new mothers for maternal-child health research. JAMIA Open, 8(3), ooaf027, https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf027 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
Holmes, Andrew G.D. (2020). Researcher positionality: A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1-10, https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
Horner, Bruce (2002). Critical ethnography, ethics, and work: Rearticulating labor. JAC, 22(3), 561-584.
Janis, Irving L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston; MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Karnieli-Miller, Orit; Strier, Roni & Pessach, Liat (2009). Power relations in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 279-289.
Krippendorff, Klaus (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Yvonna S. & Guba, Egon G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacPhail, Catherine; Khoza, Nomhle; Abler, Laurie & Ranganathan, Meghna (2016). Process guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 198-212.
Mauthner, Natasha S. & Doucet, Andrea (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37(3), 413-431.
Mauthner, Natasha S. & Doucet, Andrea (2008). "Knowledge once divided can be hard to put together again": An epistemological critique of collaborative and team-based research practices. Sociology, 42(5), 971-985.
Metcalfe, Mike. (2005). Generalisation: Learning across epistemologies. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Art. 17, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.1.525 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
Morse, Janice M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212-1222.
Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
Nowell, Lorelli S.; Norris, Jill M.; White, Deborah E. & Moules, Nancy J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
O'Connor, Cliodhna & Joffe, Helene (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
Reichertz, Jo (2019). Method police or quality assurance? Two patterns of interpretation in the struggle for supremacy in qualitative social research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(1), Art. 11, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.1.3205 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
Roulston, Kathryn & Halpin, Sean N. (2022). Designing qualitative research using interview data. In Uwe Flick (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research design, 667-683. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saldaña, Johnny (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Springett, Jane; Atkey, Kayla; Kongats, Krystyna; Zulla, Rosslynn & Wilkins, Emma (2016). Conceptualizing quality in participatory health research: A Phenomenographic inquiry. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(2), Art. 16, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-17.2.2568 [Accessed: May 29, 2025].
Tracy, Sarah J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight "big-tent" criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sean Halpin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
