had a very small unobtrusive digital recorder with an easy to carry collapsible microphone.
Everything could easily be transported in a laptop case.
The analysis included the following steps in sequence; 1) Transcripts 2) Coding and 3)
This was the most time-intensive part of the dissertation. As I write this methodology, I
truly question why I did all the transcriptions myself. In terms of time and labor, it took
almost a year from start to finish, which includes approval from all the participants.
Initially, I had grant money to visit the participants. The next time I will write additional
funding into a budget for transcription. Lesson learned. I had a choice to either pay
someone to transcribe or do it myself. I had an inflated notion of my skills as a fast
keyboarder at 80 WPM. Well, transcribing also involves intense listening – and I had a total
of eleven participants. I overestimated my skills sets here.
The good news is that I learned the material in a very intimate fashion by listening
repeatedly to the conversations and often. This served as one of the early steps in analysis.
The bad news is that it took longer than expected since I was working a full-time job
teaching four classes a semester.
With long conversations about two-hours in length, I purchased a transcription program
called Dragon Naturally Speaking but soon discovered it works better in a monologue than
in dialogue. Eventually, I typed all the transcripts myself. I would consider getting a
professional service to transcribe the conversations. Although each 30 - 50 page
transcription took between 2 - 3 weeks, it also had to be approved. When I decided to
add subheads and a table of contents, then there was another set of approval hoops to
jump through. It adds up with eleven people.
Again, if I weren’t seeking participant signoff on the work – the time would have been cut in
half for the transcripts. However, the revisions allowed the participants’ to feel confident