What Does ‘Participant 13a’ Really Mean? Rethinking Participant Identification in Qualitative Research Reporting

Participant identifiers, such as pseudonyms or numerical labels, are often attached to quoted data extracts in qualitative research. These identifiers may be considered markers of methodological rigour, analytic breadth, and transparency. Yet, qualitative inquiry encompasses diverse epistemological and analytic traditions, raising questions about whether participant identifiers necessarily serve the same methodological purpose across approaches. In this Pearls, Piths, and Provocations perspective, I draw on examples from my own research practice, experiences with peer review, and feedback from research ethics committees, and critique unquestioned use of participant identifiers. I suggest researchers consider adopting a more mindful and methodologically aligned approach to participant identification practices. Rather than treating identifiers as default indicators of rigour, greater emphasis should be placed on clearly explaining how data were generated, selected, and analysed, and on ensuring that reporting practices align with the aims and epistemological assumptions of a study.