For the textual sources (books, blogs, comments to online videos, web pages) there was no need to transcribe the content.
In order that the interviews though were also in the same textual format as the above sources, the interviews needed transcription.
I decided not to use a professional transcriber and do this work myself because, as Patton (2002, p. 441) states, ‘doing . . . your own interview transcriptions . . . provides an opportunity to get immersed in the data’.
As I transcribed the interviews, I started identifying patterns and emerging themes.
I gravitated towards what Oliver, Serovich and Mason (2005) call a ‘denaturalised transcription’, focusing on the content of the interview, rather than on non-verbal utterances.
The reason being that I decided not to employ a discourse analysis, but rather focus more broadly on the content of what was being said rather than on how it was said.
However, I transcribed some non-verbal vocalisations (such as hmm to express thinking time) and I made notes of moods (i.e. laughter) or body language, when they added meaning to the data.
Naturalism and Denaturalism
Hence, I decided to adopt an intermediate position between naturalism and denaturalism. Indeed, as Oliver (2005, p. 1273) et al. posit:
Transcription practices can be thought of in terms of a continuum with two dominant modes: naturalism, in which every utterance is transcribed in as much detail as possible, and denaturalism, in which idiosyncratic elements of speech (e.g., stutters, pauses, nonverbals, involuntary vocalizations) are removed. . . . Between these two methods are endless variations using elements of each to achieve certain analytical objectives and research goals.Oliver (2005)
Part of the reason why I did not choose a completely naturalised transcription was also due to clarity.
As Oliver at al consider, ‘one advantage of removing non-verbals and tokens is that transcripts become easier to read’ (2005, p. 1286).
Indeed, every ‘transcript is an interpretation’ (Lapadat and Lindsay, 1999, p. 81) and ‘even the most literal form of writing-up . . . represents a translation or even an interpretation’ (Bourdieu, 1996, p. 30).
Since, following the constructionist epistemology of my interpretivist paradigm, I assume that complete neutrality is not possible in transcription, I decided to strike a compromise between clarity and accuracy of representation.
The next section of this chapter focuses on the coding process and the creation of themes.
Next Page >> Coding and themes for the data analysis.