Must be an expert in qualitative research. No exceptions. Work has been done, just have to proofread and make adjustments accordingly.
Transcribing
The first interview conducted was transcribed manually; a transcription service was not utilized. Memo notes were also conducted. Due to the fact that the interview was a phone interview, the observations of body language and nonverbal cues were not documented. However, occurences throughout the interview was conducted in the notes; this includes information on word usage, pauses during the interview, etc. The transcribing process was ensured for accuracy and was validated by a third party. During this interview, the weaknesses and strengths were thoroughly examined. Also, the potential for error was also conducted. According to Davidson (2009), transcription is a selective process in efforts to conquer goals, including theoretical goals. The lack of adequate transcription often is associated with the lack of documented empirical accounts. It is imperative to address the data collected in terms of analytical standpoint.
Summative Technique
Upon conducting the interview, it is imperative to review the transcription process, the interview itself, and the notes conducting during the interview. It is important to capture the interview and review the process from an in-depth perspective. Additionally, it is important to go through a reflective process in efforts to capture the core of the intended purpose. Summative assessments can generally be conducted. It is imperative to understand that a important component of the process is to find where patterns emerge after gathering all the essential data gathered (Taras, 2008). During this process, the transcription process was manually conducted and the core of the topic was captured. During the interview process, both interviewees expressed their experiences based regarding the misinterpretation of eye witness testimony. It was concluded that the experiences they had were similar in many instances as well as differences being ultimately noted. The questions that were successful were the ones that entailed a more detailed account. It was concluded that signs occur when deception is present. Additionally, it is important to note the interviewees had similar experiences when it comes to cross-examination and the ability to pinpoint discrepancies of the eye witness testimony. Also, it is important to note that it is always important to make sure that the testimony being compared with the circumstantial coupled with scientific evidence. Furthermore, it was established that memory can play a vital role when it comes to eye witness testimony in terms of accuracy and reliability. It is known that the misinterpreted of eye witness testimony can lead to wrongful convictions and wrongful acquitals, as stated in previous research. The interview reflected that is essential for the legal professionals to thoroughly understand the benefits of testimony interpretation. Patterns were subsequently noted in terms of the interview. Furthermore, the interviews confirmed the concern for reliability of eye witness testimony and the opportunities presented in order to understand the fallibility of eye witness testimony.
The conduction of my interview was to establish the experiences of legal professionals and to closely mimic the actual experiences as close as possible for the efforts of training purposes. In my opinion, I believe that the essential information was gathered, reaching saturation regarding training purposes. However, I believe that thick rich descriptions was limited during this particular interview. I believe that enough information was gathered in order to carry out the intended purposes of the interview in terms of training purposes. In order to improve the quality of the interview, there should have been more elaboration, more detail, etc. I believe that I established adequate rapport by starting off asking questions that brought the participant joy and induce the conversation into a more conversational flow. The interview was mainly a neutral conversation, yet there are some components that initiate some probbing and later had some elaboration regarding some questions. However, I believe the interivew "fell short" at times due to the participant not being specific enough during some questions. The approach that brought me closer during the interview where the questions started off with "Describe your experiences....." These questions entailed the descriptions of strengths and weaknesses, memory recall, and confidence levels. Furthermore, there were questions that prompted the participant to expand on details of memory recall and alleged criminal identifications. Upon comparing the interviews, patterns did emerge and was documented in the journal notes accordingly.
References
Davidson, C. (2009). Transcription: Imperatives for Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (2), 35-52.
Taras, M. (2008). Summative and Formative Assessment. Perceptions and Realities. Active Learning in Higher Education, (9) (2), 172-192
