I have been rechecking my earlier transcriptions for errors before I send them to participants for triangulation. As I re-read them, I am worried about something. I tried to stay as faithful to the audio record as possible; this meant including all the natural hiccoughs of spoken language—filler words (“like,” “um,” “uh,” “and,” etc); run on sentences; fragments, etc, in order to get as close a record as possible to the participants’ natural speech patterns. However, I have several problems with this method. First, (and I didn’t think about this until I had emailed the interview transcription to each participant), I am worried that the participants will be upset that I included these things, even though I transcribed my own speech issues as well (apparently I say “um” or “okay” before every single sentence I speak!). I don’t want them to think that they sound silly or stupid, because they don’t—their speech is much more fluent than normal, due I think to their extended experiences in the academy. I am worried, however, that a participant will want me to not use their words or let their voice on the page out of an antipathy for their speech patterns. If that happens, I don’t know what I will do.
I also am not sure about whether or not I should record these speech quirks in my actual dissertation. Do I eliminate them so that all the participants sound polished? If I do this, I will take away their voice, the thousand ways that their idiosyncratic speech makes them unique. If I don’t, however, I risk alienating my participants, since they will see the dissertation drafts, and I also risk having my readers not understand how incredibly intelligent these teachers are. It is a conundrum that I haven’t decided yet how to solve.
