Quality Issues of Court Reporters and Transcriptionists for Qualitative Research

Bibliographic Data

ID4724779
AuthorsMonique Hennink (0000-0002-5853-5791, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA), Mary Beth Weber (0000-0002-2804-3948, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA)
Year2013
Volume23
Issue5
Pages700-710
Publication date2013-05-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueQualitative Health Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1049-7323 • E-ISSN: 1552-7557
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/1049732313481502
PMID23512435
PMCIDPMC4465445
OpenAlexW2164569990
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited19

Transcription is central to qualitative research, yet few researchers identify the quality of different transcription methods. We explored the quality of verbatim transcripts from traditional transcriptionists and court reporters by reviewing 16 transcripts from 8 focus group discussions using four criteria: transcription errors, cost, time of transcription, and effect on study participants. Transcriptionists made fewer errors, captured colloquial dialogue, and errors were largely influenced by the quality of the recording. Court reporters made more errors, particularly in the omission of topical content and contextual detail, and were less able to produce a verbatim transcript; however, the potential immediacy of the transcript was advantageous. In terms of cost, shorter group discussions favored a transcriptionist and longer groups a court reporter. Study participants reported no effect by either method of recording. Understanding the benefits and limitations of each method of transcription can help researchers select an appropriate method for each study

Epistemology · Focus group · Immediacy · Linguistics · Qualitative research · Sociology · Computer Science · Health Policy Implementation Science · Psychology · Qualitative Research Methods and Applications · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub