Theoretical and Practical Reflections on Sharing Transcripts With Participants

Forbat, Liz; Henderson, Janice

doi:10.1177/1049732305279065

Cited by 72 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…MeroJaffe (2011) reflects how the minute detail of verbatim transcriptions has the potential to insult interviewees, who might feel that "natural features of their talk" (Pinter & Zandian, 2015, p. 242) were unrefined. Further, while certain authors reflect that it can be embarrassing for participants to read transcripts (Forbat & Henderson, 2005; Mero-Jaffe, 2011), we argue that it is important that this potential embarrassment occurs at the reviewing transcript stage, when it is possible to make changes to address any dissatisfaction, as opposed to seeing extracts from transcripts in published work. Thus, to ensure an equitable space in writing up, participants' views and feelings on the transcript must lead the researcher's decision-making about how to present data.…”

Section: (Re)presenting Speech Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Doing It Write: Representation and Responsibility in Writing Up Participatory Research Involving Young People

Wilkinson

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article adopts a reflexive stance as the authors look back on their doctoral research projects; the first author exploring young people's relationships with community radio, and the second author studying young people's alcohol consumption practices and experiences, both in the North West of England, UK. The authors discuss the methods of data collection they employed, which enabled young people the opportunity to participate in meaningful ways. However, drawing on snapshots from their PhD theses, the authors question whether decisions made when writing up related to protecting anonymity, (re)presenting speech characteristics, and editing, independently of participants, potentially undid some of the hard work exerted in creating an equitable space for young people's contributions, resultantly perpetuating the regulation of young people and keeping them 'in their place'. The authors propose some recommendations for facilitating the inclusion of young people in the writing up of participatory research.

show abstract

Section: (Re)presenting Speech Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Doing It Write: Representation and Responsibility in Writing Up Participatory Research Involving Young People

Wilkinson

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Engaging with researcher interpretations can catalyse for participants an emotionally-charged mix of ambivalent feelings about the value of, and gaps in, the analysis, particularly as it touches on their sense of self. Participants can feel invaded and exposed (Goldblatt et al, 2011), and merely sharing interview transcripts with participants can evoke shame (Forbat & Henderson, 2005). Tom's vulnerability raises issues of consent as a process that requires checking throughout the trajectory of research and publication with clear recognition that full anonymity cannot be guaranteed.…”

Section: But It's Different For Me Though ((Laughs))mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mirrors, portraits, and member checking: Managing difficult moments of knowledge exchange in the social sciences.

Madill

Sullivan

2018

Qualitative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consultation is an important feature of research and, increasingly, researchers are required to work in partnership with stakeholders to increase the impact of their work. Our aim is to demonstrate what can be learned from the scholarship on, and practice of, member checking to facilitate productive knowledge exchange. Using dialogical analysis we explore three member check interactions from three different qualitative psychology projects focusing our analysis on difficult moments between researchers and participants conceptualised here as 'sore spots'. We identify two major genres in these sequences: participant ambivalence and participant challenge.We then consider passages that allow us to explore a more theoretical understanding of these two genres in terms of the metaphor of portraits and mirrors. Overall, we outline how implicit epistemologies and theories of subjectivity (uncomplicated, blank, and complex) may be linked to the way in which stakeholders approach research. We also provide a map with regard to the theories within which member checks can be undertaken, associated research practices in terms of a range of researcher responses to stakeholder ambivalence and challenge, and implications of these moments for knowledge exchange for qualitative research but also for psychological science as a whole. We conclude that sore spots in knowledge exchange process can be productive opportunities of transformational validity.

show abstract

“…Sharing the transcripts with the participants and allowing them to participate in the discussions and conclusions of the study results contributes towards avoiding misunderstanding of participants'' narratives. Adopting individual checking methods is important in order to avoid reaching wrong generalization during the qualitative analysis [ 27,28,29], etc. The abovementioned strategies are utilized to overcome the power imbalance between the researcher and the participants.…”

Section: Whose Decisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can One Get Fish and Bear's Paws at the Same Time Ethical Dilemma of Qualitative Health Research in Chinese Culture

Yang¹,

Yang²,

Chen³

2013

Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on the Modern Development of Humanities and Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Ethical considerations of qualitative research are often likely to be ignored or downplayed. This article will follow bioethics principles to explore the dilemmas expressed in the Chinese proverb: One cannot get both fish and bear's paws simultaneously. This succinct expression relates to so many phases of a research, based on the ethical characteristics of qualitative research. Four specific ethical dilemmas will be examined in this paper: the dilemmas between "building trust and rapport" and "informed consent," finding the right balance between "providing benefit to participants" and "coercion through kindness," the trade-off between "burning out researcher" and "ending research relationship," and giving consideration to both "quoting comprehensive qualitative data" and "ensuring participant privacy." Furthermore, the paper explores the different interpretations of autonomy between Chinese culture and Western individualism and their impact on the ethics aspects of qualitative research.

show abstract

Theoretical and Practical Reflections on Sharing Transcripts With Participants

Cited by 72 publications

References 14 publications

Doing It Write: Representation and Responsibility in Writing Up Participatory Research Involving Young People

Doing It Write: Representation and Responsibility in Writing Up Participatory Research Involving Young People

Mirrors, portraits, and member checking: Managing difficult moments of knowledge exchange in the social sciences.

Can One Get Fish and Bear's Paws at the Same Time Ethical Dilemma of Qualitative Health Research in Chinese Culture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About