We conducted a detailed audit of the impact of ITR that was incorporated into the methodology for a recent interview-based, qualitative research study. The purpose of this paper is to provide researchers with guidance about whether ITR should be incorporated into their study design. Perhaps most importantly, although ITR is regularly used, it is unclear what its actual impact is on qualitative research. ITR raises a number of interesting methodological issues.
#Full intervirw with google ai transcript verification#
While there is a large body of literature examining ways to improve methodological rigour in the collection and analysis of qualitative data, there is surprisingly limited guidance regarding the verification and review of interview transcripts before they are subjected to formal coding and analysis. In contrast to approaches for validating research findings, such as member checking or triangulation, we focus on ITR as a methodological approach for verifying the accuracy of the interview transcript before it is formally coded and analyzed. ITR can include requests for interviewees to identify and correct transcription errors or omissions, and in some cases, to clarify or provide additional information and insights directly linked to interview responses. We refer to this practice, in its various forms, as interviewee transcript review (ITR). Researchers are advised to carefully consider both the potential advantages and disadvantages of ITR outlined in this paper before deciding to incorporate the practice within their qualitative study designs.Īs part of the qualitative research process, researchers in a variety of fields, such as health, education, management and social theory, often invite interviewees to review transcripts of their interviews. While ITR is employed by many researchers across numerous fields, the advantages of its use may be relatively small in terms of verifying the accuracy of qualitative interview transcripts. The impact of ITR on the researcher was minimal in this study, but is again subject to specific circumstances of the research context. The impact of ITR on the interviewee may be both positive and negative, depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the study. There are also potential disadvantages, such as a bias created by inconsistent data sources or the loss of data when an interviewee chooses to remove valuable material. The advantages of ITR are that it allows interviewees the opportunity to edit or clarify information provided in the original interview, with many interviewees providing corrections, clarifications, and in some cases, adding new material to their transcripts. The study found that ITR added little to the accuracy of the transcript and may create complications if the goal of the researcher is to produce a transcript which reflects precisely what was said at the time of the interview. The changes made by interviewees to their transcripts were systematically tracked and categorized using a set of mutually exclusive categories. ITR was incorporated into a qualitative research study in which 51 key informant interviews were conducted with a range of senior stakeholders within the Canadian health care system. ITR, in various forms, is widely used among qualitative researchers, however there is limited methodological guidance on how it should be employed and little is known about its actual impact on the transcript, the data, the interviewee or the researcher. ITR is a process whereby interviewees are provided with verbatim transcripts of their interviews for the purposes of verifying accuracy, correcting errors or inaccuracies and providing clarifications.
This paper assesses interviewee transcript review (ITR) as a technique for improving the rigour of interview-based, qualitative research.
0 kommentar(er)
