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:- rather than tape record or write furious notes, listen and make a few notes
- ask for clarification
- after the interview (within a few hours) reconstruct the account in your own words
- 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.
