Above is a slide from my TQR presentation in January of this year. You can find all of the slides on the newly titled: Research, papers and presentations page of this website. Time has slipped away these last two months but I am not going to waste space making excuses for failing to post blog entries. I completed my Ph.D.., searched for and obtained a faculty position and am in the process of packing to move while continuing to take a class and work on independent and collaborative research projects. No doubt I will refer to some of those experiences in future posts. I am in the midst of validating some transcripts of interviews that I did not conduct or transcribe. This has been a new experience for me and it has both reinforced my belief that researchers should create (or at least validate) their own interview transcripts. But knowing that is not the case, I have come up with a few recommendations for interviewers who know someone else is going to transcribe and people who are asked to transcribe someone else's work. 1 - Probably most important thing is to decide what should be transcribed and how it should be shown - and these directions should be clearly provided to the transcriptionist and then passed along to whomever is going to validate the transcripts. Things to consider, based on my recent experience:
To what extent should grammar be corrected? (I personally have no problem retaining contractions and possessive forms. I don't usually correct grammar but I do not transcribe sounds that represent dialect. I would polish things a little more - spell out 'because' instead of 'cause,' for instance, in a typed transcript that is going to be validated by the participant, to avoid embarrassment.) What material should be omitted? (One of my instructors recommended omission of 'false starts' and 'ums' or other verbal mannerisms. I would say that I generally do this when the conversation flows. When the participant pauses, or changes his/her mind, I tend to include a lot more detail in my transcript to remind myself of participant uncertainty.) What details should be included/omitted (I always omit names and sometimes omit place names or any other reference that can come back to the participant. However, the recordings I am listening to now reflect environmental/location research so place names are critical. If omitting names, is it important to distinguish among the omitted people? If so, I would use position, function, or relationship as labels; otherwise everyone can be PERSON.) How important is word order? (I think that it is very important, and I would consider, for instance, typing "very much agree" rather than "agree very much" to be an error.) Are there recorded elements you want to omit from the transcription? (I have eliminated personal chatter although I note what occurred - e.g., personal chatter - and the duration.) 2 - Hard as it is to imagine in some instances, I believe researchers should try to give outside transcriptionists and validators - some idea of the subject matter. A list of terms, some brief and not too dense readings, or even the review board protocol application might be helpful. In the recent transcripts I looked at, there were many place names - these were sometimes spelled incorrectly and sometimes were not shown as places at all. I don't know in this instance what directions were provided but this was missed at both transcriptionist and validator level. 3 - Validators, and sometimes transcriptionists (I would put more responsibility on academic transcriptionists than professionals from other fields) need to be prepared to do a little research. In the place name issues I mentioned, I used online resources including maps and lists of unincorporated areas, to find the location names. Through the years, I have had to look up many things including types of exercise/activity, names of researchers, as well as names of athletes, coaches, and facilities. A wise interviewer would ask for clarification during the interview but sometimes we don't realize that we don't understand in time. 4 - Carrying along with the point above, I recommend that interviewers who know they are not going to transcribe or validate the transcripts not hesitate to insert verbal 'notes,' to the extent they can without interrupting the flow of the interview. In a place name issue, the researcher might ask a clarifying question: "those are both unincorporated areas south of the main town, correct?" or even: "can you spell that for me?" or "what are you referring to?" 5 - What is going to be done about things that cannot be heard or understood. (Actually, these are two different items - things that cannot be heard cannot be transcribed; I usually note why and leave it at that. Things that cannot be understood are usually indicated by ? with partial information or guesses. A conscientious transcriptionist or validator might move forward but be able to fill in missing information later if the participant makes another reference or if the transcriptionist becomes more familiar with the participant's speech patterns over the course of the interview.) 6 - Transcriptionists should be IRB approved, which might mean completing institutional review board training. They are handing the most personal of data. I think any IRB that fails to ask about this issue is missing an important point. Here are a couple of reasons that I think researchers benefit from transcribing OR validating their own transcripts: 1 - It helps one reflect upon, critique, and improve interviewer skills. I still struggle (with interviewing and transcribing) but transcribing both my own and other people's interviews has been very, very helpful. 2 - You were there so you should have the inside track on some of the details like place names or other references. You know what material is not relevant (e.g., what constitutes 'personal chatter.') Having heard the material before, you have a far better chance of getting things correct than anyone else.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|