20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Conducting in-depth interviews with and without voice recorders: a comparative analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The use of audio recordings has become a taken-for-granted approach to generating transcripts of in-depth interviewing and group discussions. In this paper we begin by describing circumstances where the use of a recorder is not, or may not be, possible, before sharing our comparative analysis of audio-recorded transcriptions and interview scripts made from notes taken during the interview (by experienced, well-trained interviewers). Our comparison shows that the data quality between audio-recorded transcripts and interview scripts written directly after the interview were comparable in the detail captured. The structures of the transcript and script were usually different because in the interview scripts, topics and ideas were grouped, rather than being in the more scattered order of the conversation in the transcripts. We suggest that in some circumstances not recording is the best approach, not ‘second best’.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Power relations in qualitative research.

          This article focuses on the tensions between the commitment to power redistribution of the qualitative paradigm and the ethical and methodological complexity inherent in clinical research. Qualitative inquiry, in general, though there are significant variations between its different paradigms and traditions, proposes to reduce power differences and encourages disclosure and authenticity between researchers and participants. It clearly departs from the traditional conception of quantitative research, whereby the researcher is the ultimate source of authority and promotes the participants' equal participation in the research process. But it is precisely this admirable desire to democratize the research process, and the tendency to question traditional role boundaries, that raises multiple ethical dilemmas and serious methodological challenges. In this article, we offer a conceptual frame for addressing questions of power distribution in qualitative research through a developmental analysis of power relations across the different stages of the research process. We discuss ethical and methodological issues.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Ensuring rigour in qualitative research

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sex work research: methodological and ethical challenges.

              The challenges involved in the design of ethical, nonexploitative research projects with sex workers or any other marginalized population are significant. First, the size and boundaries of the population are unknown, making it extremely difficult to get a representative sample. Second, because membership in hidden populations often involves stigmatized or illegal behavior, concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality are paramount and difficult to resolve. In addition, they often result in challenges to the validity of the data. Third, in spite of evidence to the contrary, associations between sex work and victimization are still strong, dichotomies remain prevalent, and sex workers are often represented as a homogeneous population. Drawing on three research projects in which the author has been involved-all grounded in a sex-as-work approach-as well as the work of others, this article provides several strategies for overcoming these challenges. Clear guidelines for ethical, nonexploitive methodologies are embedded in the solutions provided.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Qual Res
                Qual Res
                QRJ
                spqrj
                Qualitative Research
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1468-7941
                1741-3109
                7 November 2019
                October 2020
                : 20
                : 5
                : 565-581
                Affiliations
                [1-1468794119884806]MRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda
                [2-1468794119884806]MRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda
                [3-1468794119884806]School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia; Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
                [4-1468794119884806]MRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda
                [5-1468794119884806]MRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda
                [6-1468794119884806]MRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda; Child Health and Development Centre, Makerere University, Uganda
                [7-1468794119884806]MRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda; Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
                Author notes
                [*]Janet Seeley, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK. Email: janet.seeley@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk
                [*]

                The authors contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0583-5272
                Article
                10.1177_1468794119884806
                10.1177/1468794119884806
                7444018
                32903872
                592f49b8-3135-43ac-b8fe-5a9be8c43a68
                © The Author(s) 2019

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Medical Research Council, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000265;
                Award ID: 00
                Funded by: department for international development, uk government, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100002992;
                Funded by: UK MRC Public Health and Intervention Development Scheme, ;
                Award ID: MR/NO27515/1 [PI JS]
                Funded by: wellcome trust, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100004440;
                Award ID: 107742/Z/15/Z
                Funded by: government of the united kingdom, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100013986;
                Categories
                Articles
                Custom metadata
                ts1

                data collection,interviews,group discussions,audio recording,field notes,transcription,trustworthiness,rigour

                Comments

                Comment on this article