I wasn't going to buy into this thread but feel that I should.  I
recently had occasion to employ a number of transcribers in the UK in
order to get a fairly large data-set ready in very short time for
computer driven analysis.  Because of time constraints, I farmed out
the work to a series of transcribers and the standards of what they
delivered varied immensely.  Hence, in hindsight, I believe that I
learned a thing or four.

First, I remain convinced that there is considerable merit in the
researcher (or principal investigator) choosing to transcribe at
least key interviews.  Typically, if we have gathered the data, or if
we have listened to the interviews, we know which are likely to be
the most important episodes.  There is much merit, therefore, in
tackling the transcription of these interviews ourselves.  Doing this
sharpens our thinking, aligns us with potential themes for analysis,
identifies useful categories for managing our data and even provides
us with likely key words and synonyms that can be dredged for as our
analytical work unfolds. So in this instance, I am pleased that I
spent a number of evenings burning the laptop until the wee small
hours because those hours informed my subsequent thinking and
analyses.  I believe that the quality that emerged, more than
compensated for those hours of typing.  (As a matter of comment, in
this instance I transcribed seven out of twenty one in-depth
interviews which was a third of the total.  However, I think that
percentages are not the issue here - instead, the point is for the
researcher to undertake transcription of whichever interviews are
deemed to be seminal.)

Second, I developed a template that I gave to each of the
transcribers.  These detailed the protocols that I expected
transcribers to use and there is merit in these being carefully
developed rather than orally conveyed as I have found is often the
case. I found that the template I developed pretty much
collaboratively with a team of research colleagues, worked
wonderfully well even though some minor tinkering to that template is
now needed because of what we have learned.

Third, because data were farmed out, so to speak, it became a very
easy matter to sort out a good transcriber from a poor transcriber.
As it was, I identified some transcribers who should never work in
the field just as I identified some who should be engaged as often as
possible. Subsequently, I relayed those findings to people within the
organization at which I was based so that they could make informed
appointments in the future.  (I believe, by the way, that the amount
of time I put into correcting transcriptions correlated very strongly
indeed with the degree to which transcribers engaged, or did not
engage their capacity to think and make intelligent decisions.)

Fourth, I learned that by pre-prescribing the format in which I
wanted data returned to me, I was able to save myself from having to
complete this routine task.  In this instance, I specified, as a part
of the protocols, that all transcriptions should be sent to me as an
email attachment in the first instance, and that it should be in
Courier font for one copy and as Courier Text Only for the other
copy. And while that was a useful thing to have learned, a more
useful thing still would have been to have asked, very early on, that
each transcriber send just a few pages of sample transcription for
checking.   That would have enabled quality assurance to be vetted
prior to the final transcript being completed.  In other words, were
I to repeat this exercise in the future, I would make it a condition
that I should be able to complete a very early check on the quality
of transcription being achieved so that poor quality transcriptions
might at least be discovered at the outset; the transcriber might
then be guided into how to improve quality (e.g. use a spell check)
or, if the work being done was that appalling, the task could be
directed elsewhere.

I'm frankly staggered by the amounts of money that are paid for
transcription especially when the quality is so variable.  Hence, I
think that sorting out very early in the piece what is good work is
time-saving and money saving too.  Equally, developing protocols
beforehand is wise.  But tackling key interviews yourself is
fundamental.  And of course, you can avoid a sore neck, tired eyes
and stiff shoulders by making sure that the font size is much
enlarged on your screen so that you can comfortably see the stories
of informants emerge.

Cheers

Jens
___________________________________
Jens J. Hansen, Ph.D.(New England)
Senior Lecturer, Master of Educational Management,
UNITEC, Tomorrow's University, Te Kura Puukenga o Wairaka,
Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
UNITEC Phone:  64 9 815 4321 Ext. 8797  UNITEC Fax:  64 9 815 4310
UNITEC email: [log in to unmask]

Home Address: 91 Domain Cresent, Muriwai Beach,
RD 1 Waimauku, West Auckland, New Zealand
Home Phone: 64 9 411 7703
Home email:  [log in to unmask]