A follow up to John May's and Lyn Richard's comments on Georgina's earlier
message:
In my view, what you take in or leave out in transcribing an interview is
very much dependent on what your research questions are. There are
researchers (e.g. linguists, discourse analysts, psychologists) who are
interested particularly in those eeers.. and humms and pauses etc. These
are features of non verbal communication and they may be equally important
to speech. On the other hand, they may be just irrelevant to your study.
So, you may opt for (intuitively?) taking notes from the interviews instead
of transcribing, transcribe speech leaving out non-verbal communication or
do a full transcript of everything. Whichever solution you chose however
you should make explicit the reasons for your choice and how you maintain
rigour in your analysis (i.e. you can protect yourself from claims that in
taking notes from the interviews, you just picked up what suited your
research hypothesis, which IS IN FACT a bit problematic to me!)
I suppose in all three tasks software like Nudist, Atlasti and similar
packages can make your work easier to handle and save you time in reading,
re-reading and re-organising, and analysing your data.
Best,
Anna Triandafyllidou
---------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Anna Triandafyllidou
|
| Marie Curie Post-Doctoral Fellow
|
| Institute of Psychology
|
| Italian National Research Council (CNR)|
| viale Marx 15, Rome 00137, Italy
|
| tel. +39 06 86090220
|
| fax +39 06 824737
|
| email: [log in to unmask]
|
----------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|