Quality Issues of Court Reporters and Transcriptionists for Qualitative Research

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Monique Hennink, Emory University; Mary Weber, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2013-05-01
• Publisher: SAGE Publications (UK and US)
• Publication Version: Author Accepted Manuscript (After Peer Review)
• Copyright Statement: © The Author(s) 2013.
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732313481502
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Qualitative Health Research
• ISSN: 1049-7323
• Volume: 23
• Issue: 5
• Start Page: 700
• End Page: 710
• Grant/Funding Information: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
• Keywords: FOCUS; data collection and management; Technology; Social Sciences - Other Topics; Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary; Science & Technology; research evaluation; research, qualitative; Information Science & Library Science; Biomedical Social Sciences; focus groups; qualitative analysis; Social Sciences, Biomedical; interviews; Social Sciences
• Research Categories: Sociology, Public and Social Welfare

Abstract

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.