Comparing Interview Data Techniques
Post a response to the following prompts:
- Transcribe your first interview. Use a transcription service or do it yourself.
- For your second interview, use a summative technique (e.g., Halcomb & Davidson, 2006) of audio tape, interview notes, and journal notes to create a detailed summary.
- Provide your debriefing partner with the audio (if possible) and transcript of one interview.
- Write in your unique thread a statement in which you compare and contrast the two ways of turning interviews into data. Consider which approach gets you “closer” to the experience of the participant and which approach gets you “deeper” into seeing potential patterns and categories.
-
How do you transcribe your first interview?,
-
What method is used to summarize your second interview?,
-
What is included in the detailed summary process?,
-
How are the transcript and audio shared with your debriefing partner?,
-
How do the two approaches compare in terms of closeness to experience and depth of analysis?
Comparing Interview Data Techniques
Comprehensive Response:
For the first interview, I conducted a verbatim transcription by listening to the audio recording and typing it word-for-word. This labor-intensive process allowed me to capture every detail, including pauses, hesitations, and emphatic tones. The transcription provided a faithful, granular record of the participant’s language, structure, and emotions—valuable for analyzing how ideas were expressed, not just what was said.
For the second interview, I used a summative technique as described by Halcomb and Davidson (2006). I reviewed the audio recording while simultaneously referencing my interview notes and reflective journal. Rather than transcribing word-for-word, I synthesized the participant’s main themes, paraphrased key points, and noted contextual cues such as emotional tone or significant pauses. This summary was detailed and organized thematically, highlighting recurring patterns and noting important quotes verbatim where appropriate.
Both audio recordings and the full transcript of the first interview were shared with my debriefing partner, ensuring transparency and collaborative interpretation.
In comparing the two approaches, transcription gets me closer to the participant’s lived experience. It preserves the full nuance of their speech and allows repeated analysis of tone, pauses, and precise wording. It’s ideal for ensuring the participant’s voice remains intact throughout the analysis.
On the other hand, the summative method gets me deeper into analytical insight. It forces early synthesis and helps in recognizing broader patterns or categories across data, which supports theme development and theoretical framing.
In conclusion, transcription enhances fidelity and authenticity, while summarization fosters efficiency and conceptual depth. The ideal approach may depend on the research phase or aim—early exploration may benefit from transcription, while ongoing analysis may lean on summative methods.
Comparing Interview Data Techniques