Rutakumwa Rwamahe, Mugisha Joseph Okello, Bernays Sarah, Kabunga Elizabeth, Tumwekwase Grace, Mbonye Martin, Seeley Janet
MRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Uganda.
School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia; Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
Qual Res. 2020 Oct;20(5):565-581. doi: 10.1177/1468794119884806. Epub 2019 Nov 7.
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'.
使用录音已成为生成深度访谈和小组讨论文字记录的一种理所当然的方法。在本文中，我们首先描述在哪些情况下无法或可能无法使用录音机，然后再分享我们对录音转录本与访谈后根据笔记整理的访谈脚本（由经验丰富、训练有素的访谈者完成）的比较分析。我们的比较表明，录音转录本与访谈后直接撰写的访谈脚本在捕捉到的细节方面数据质量相当。转录本和脚本的结构通常不同，因为在访谈脚本中，主题和想法是分组的，而不是像转录本中那样按照对话中较为零散的顺序排列。我们建议，在某些情况下不进行录音是最佳方法，而非“次优方法”。
