Quality Issues of Court Reporters and Transcriptionists for Qualitative Research

• Authors: Monique Hennink, Emory University; Mary Weber, Emory University
• Journal Title: Qualitative Health Research
• Volume: Volume 23, Number 5
• Publisher: SAGE Publications (UK and US) | 2013-05-01, Pages 700-710
• Type of Work: Article | Post-print: After Peer Review
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313481502
• Subjects: Sociology, Public and Social Welfare
• Keywords: Science & Technology; Social Sciences; Technology; Information Science & Library Science; Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary; Social Sciences, Biomedical; Social Sciences - Other Topics; Biomedical Social Sciences; data collection and management; focus groups; interviews; qualitative analysis; research evaluation; research, qualitative; FOCUS

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.