To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.
The transition to Stage 2 of the deliberations is currently underway but will take some time to complete. In the meantime, we very much welcome additional contributions to the existing threads in this forum.
For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.
Univ of New Mexico
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:20 am
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:46 am
Franklin and Marshall College
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:03 pm
As one of the previous posters said, the time required to transcribe, translate, and explain interviews would easily double the time required to produce a manuscript, and probably add significantly to the cost (either in terms of research time or budgets, both of which are limited). Scanning archival materials used would have the same cost attached. There is no question that this will be a significant deterrent to doing this type of work: it either means spending hours transcribing/scanning rather than doing the kinds of work most of us are in the field to do, or somehow finding additional funding to get someone else to help us do it. Both are costly in different ways.
This also raises the question of whether interview notes actually confer "replicability". A scholar who doesn't have the context of a particular country/issue will often not be able to adequately interpret a transcript/notes in the same way that someone with years of experience in a region or on an issue can. The only way to create this interpretability on a reliable, consistent basis is for the scholar to write an explanatory document telling us not only the background of the country, issue, and research question, but enough about the *interviewee's* background to know how to evaluate and interpret their comments on a particular issue. In addition to the work required, there is often literally no way to provide that background without giving away a lot about the interviewee's identity, which in many cases we cannot ethically (and legally, via IRB requirements) do.
If posting interview notes/transcripts actually conferred replicability of findings, the costs might be worth considering, but I have yet to see a case where the value-added is clear enough to justify the enormous costs imposed on qualitative scholars across the field.