New transcription routines

I have been preparing transcripts from virtual class recordings and interactive/co-generative interviews for my dissertation project.  As I have done in the past with other projects, I am creating verbatim transcripts in a standardized format to “aid the handling, comparison, and sharing of language data” (Lapadat & Lindsay, 1999, p. 70). 

My primary tool for transcription, is InqScribe software, which has many features that I have come to rely on, especially the control for playback speed and the embedded timecodes that enable me to jump to specific locations in my audio files. However, one aspect I do not like about InqScribe is its output. I must copy and paste the raw transcript into a Word document, where I bold, italicize, and perform other formatting functions as needed.

My journey down the transcription road (more like grueling death march) happened to coincide with my recent venture into the case study literature.  For this reason, I closely attended to what the case study methodologists had to say about interviewing and transcribing, and I wondered if my readings would influence my process of data collection and handling.  In fact, they have, and I have added a few "new routines" to my process. 

Gisting

Somewhere along the way, I heard about this practice of capturing the "gist" of researcher-participant exchanges  -- maybe in ethnography? I can't remember. 

Nevertheless, to gist an interview or conversation, the researcher writes down everything that he or she can recall as soon as possible following the encounter. 

Gisting is essentially a good habit of all fieldwork. We were taught in intro to qualitative research to immediately review notes and reflect in writing after the fact. Sadly, it is not a habit I ever developed. Typically, when I am in the field, I am running hither and yon, usually because I have overscheduled the day and am late to the next engagement. As qualitative researchers, this may be our most debilitating mistake in the interview process. I realize this now.

In the short passage on interviewing techniques in The Art of Case Study Research, Stake says that the single most important thing the case researcher can do is "insist on ample time and space immediately following the interview to prepare the facsimile and interpretive commentary" (p. 66). In fact, Stake argues persuasively against any transcription, saying the "facsimile" is all anyone really wants to see. Participants are likely to be put off by the length of a typical transcript and "the inelegance of their own sentences" (p. 66). 

Briefly, Stake's interview tips are:

1. rather than tape record or write furious notes, listen and make a few notes
2. ask for clarification
3. after the interview (within a few hours) reconstruct the account in your own words
4. submit the facsimile to the participant for accuracy and stylistic improvement

I think I have the first two steps down pat, but I am not prepared to give up recording. I am a fairly decent listener and always take a few notes, and my notes work like markers for later navigation through the recording. On the downside of that, I have never mastered the art of discreetly noting the passage of time or approximate minutes transpired during an interview. (It seems rude to glance at my cell phone or clock during the interview. I don't want to wrongly cue the speaker that we are out of time.)

Insofar as reconstructing the account immediately after the interview (Step 3), this is something I would like to do better. What I have been doing based on Stake's advice is to deliberately stop after every 10 or so minutes of transcription and write and reflect on key ideas, impressions, and insights that accumulated in my brain. This has become my version of gisting the interview, and I'm very pleased with the results! When I finally finish transcribing -- and, unfortunately, this does drag out the transcription process even more so than ever -- I have a nice narrative summary of the interview with my interpretive commentary woven throughout. I insert timestamps as critical reference markers, should I or a participant want to go into the original transcript to read the exact words. 

Maintaining trustworthiness

I am starting to include the gist of the interview with the verbatim transcript when I submit it to the interviewee as part of my new member checking routine. So far, I have received one reaction from an interviewee, and it was wholly positive.  Stake says to expect this. Member checking is a necessary step, even when participants don't respond. If the researcher is anxious his or her facts or interpretations are off-base, it is up to the researcher to probe more deeply.

Member checks are one of several strategies identified by Yamagata-Lynch (2010) for maintaining trustworthiness in activity theoretical studies (the method of my dissertation). Other strategies include prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and triangulation. I feel relatively confident about upholding these standards during my study, but I have never purposefully applied member checks before. This is new territory for me.

While Yin does not use the term "member check," he says a major procedure in doing a case study is inviting participants and informants to view drafts of the report. Yin fixates on "corroboration" and "validity" as the main reason for member checks. He says participants may disagree with interpretation but should validate facts of the case. The case study is not complete until the researcher resolves these disagreements. 

I would argue the purpose is to check interpretations for "coherence," per Piantanida and Garman (2009). Yin allows for this possibility, too. In cases where "validity" or "objective truth" may not be the point, the process of member checking is helpful for identifying different participant perspectives, which will be portrayed in the final case study report. And, Yin says, the researcher ultimately has the "discretionary option" and does not have to accommodate participants' reinterpretations (Yin, Ch. 6, "Reviewing the Draft Case Study: A Validating Procedure," para 3).

As with gisting, member checking adds time. Also, Yin advises, participant-reviewers may use the opportunity to open a fresh line of dialogue about the study. The researcher must plan ahead and budget time accordingly.

I have only started to do member checks, but to expedite the process, I am finding the Evernote notetaking app to be especially useful.

It was not my plan initially to use Evernote so deliberately in my data collection process. In January, during my very first interview with a teacher-learner, my digital audio recorder was making me nervous, indicating it was low on both memory and battery life. I didn't have a back-up recording device -- or so I thought! I remembered I could use the built--in recording feature of Evernote. I opened my iPad, opened Evernote, created a note using the participant's pseudonym as a title, and clicked on the Record Audio button in the top menu. With tablet devices becoming almost ever-present in daily life, it was easy to place the iPad unobtrusively on the table between me and the interviewee while we talked. It may even have been less distracting than the microrecorder.

Later, when I prepared to send the transcript with gisting to the participant, it occurred to me that I could use the Share tool in Evernote and the original audio file would embed in an email. So, I copied and pasted the gist and the transcript from Word into the Evernote note with audio and sent it. 

I am hopeful that the member checking routine will enrich my study. According to Yin, "Often, the opportunity to review the draft also produces further evidence, as the informants and participants may remember new materials that they had forgotten during the initial data collection period" (Yin, Ch. 6, "Reviewing the Draft Case Study: A Validating Procedure," para 2).

In the event this does not happen (and it may not), I still wonder if this could not serve as the basic premise of eventual follow-up interviews, asking participants to react to the short gist of their first interview (as opposed to, "What did you think of the transcript?")? 

Group update

Last week our group workshopped Brian's Chapter 3. I learned a lot from reading Brian's work and got some ideas about interviewing as well as a lead on another possible resource, ‪Learning From Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies by Weiss. The group also selected a reading for the week of  Feb. 24, Edwards (1998). We plan to discuss the reading and workshop some of Nalani's early coding efforts from a pilot study she conducted.

References

Lapadat, J. C., & Lindsay, A. C. (1999). Transcription in research and practice: From standardization of technique to interpretive positionings. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(1), 64 –86. doi:10.1177/107780049900500104

Piantanida, M., & Garman, N. B. (2009). The qualitative dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed., Kindle version.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. New York: Springer.

Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., Kindle version.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

New transcription routines