Journal
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages 565-581Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1468794119884806
Keywords
Data collection; interviews; group discussions; audio recording; field notes; transcription; trustworthiness; rigour
Categories
Funding
- UK Medical Research Council (MRC)
- UK Department for International Development (DFID)
- European Union
- UK MRC Public Health and Intervention Development Scheme [MR/NO27515/1]
- UK government
- THRiVE-2, a DELTAS Africa grant from Wellcome Trust [DEL-15-011, 107742/Z/15/Z]
- MRC [MC_UU_00027/4] Funding Source: UKRI
- Wellcome Trust [107742/Z/15/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The use of audio recordings has become a taken-for-granted approach to generating transcripts of in-depth interviewing and group discussions. In this paper we begin by describing circumstances where the use of a recorder is not, or may not be, possible, before sharing our comparative analysis of audio-recorded transcriptions and interview scripts made from notes taken during the interview (by experienced, well-trained interviewers). Our comparison shows that the data quality between audio-recorded transcripts and interview scripts written directly after the interview were comparable in the detail captured. The structures of the transcript and script were usually different because in the interview scripts, topics and ideas were grouped, rather than being in the more scattered order of the conversation in the transcripts. We suggest that in some circumstances not recording is the best approach, not 'second best'.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available