4.3 Article

Outsourcing Transcription: Extending Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research

期刊

QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 1197-1204

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/10497323221101709

关键词

ethics; qualitative; research ethics; transcription; vicarious trauma

资金

  1. Health Research Board (HRB) Ireland [ILP-HSR-2019-011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article highlights the ethical considerations when outsourcing audio for transcription, with a focus on the well-being of transcriptionists. Through qualitative interviews, the perspectives of various individuals and those who experienced recurrent miscarriage were explored. Distress protocols were put in place for participants, researchers, and the transcriptionist. The isolation of the transcriptionist's role and the lack of consideration for the personal impact of the work were emphasized.
Research ethics considerations foreground minimising harm to participants. Whilst increasing attention is being paid to researcher vulnerabilities, little has been written about transcriptionists, who can potentially experience emotional distress and vicarious trauma. In this article, we highlight ethical considerations when outsourcing audio for transcription as part of the RE:CURRENT (REcurrent miscarriage: evaluating CURRENT services) Project. Through qualitative interviews, we explored the perspectives of those involved in the management/delivery of services, and women and men who experienced recurrent miscarriage (N = 62). We put distress protocols in place for participants, researchers and the transcriptionist, and adopted a research team approach with the professional transcriber. The transcriptionist highlighted the isolated nature of the role; how researchers often did not brief her when commissioning work, and how the personal impacts of this work were rarely considered. Researchers and ethics committees should consider ethical responsibilities to 'do no harm' when it comes to transcriptionist wellbeing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据