Navigating Consensus in Team-Based Qualitative Research: Challenges and Strategies for Rigorous Analysis

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.