View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

example, Poland (1995) uses a comparison example of what was recorded on an audiotape
“…I think we were blessed with a really good investigative team” which in the transcript
was recorded as “… I think we-re a blast with a really good investigative team” (p. 294).
Therefore certain symbols are used to translate this audio into visual material.
Each interview was transcribed in its entirety by a professional transcriber. The
transcriber completed a confidentiality agreement (refer to appendix 5). Usually this was
done as soon as possible following the interview. This was to gauge the progress of the
interviews and access any problems that could be addressed in the following interviews
(Gorden, 1980).
Poland (1995) identified four common discrepancies in transcripts, sentence
structure, the use of full stops, comma, paraphrasing or mimicking, omission or words,
common where transcribers go back and forth to listen to a particular section of the
interview, and lastly mistaken words, usually due to similarity in sound structure. To
combat the issue of discrepancies the researcher listened to the audio while reading along to
the completed transcript. This also provided the researcher with the opportunity to check
the accuracy of the transcript and further immerse himself in the data.
3.5.1 Coding
Once transcripts had been checked for accuracy the coding of the data took place. In
line with advice provided by Miles and Huberman (1994), after each transcript was
received it was coded, as opposed to waiting until all interviews had been completed and
transcribed.
The first step involved the researcher sifting through the raw data and coding into
three predetermined categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These categories included the
46