The Debate Over Transcription: Arguments for Transcription
From OHA Wiki
James Fogerty discusses the current debate over transcription in his essay “Oral History and Archives: Documenting Context,” and states that “In this day of declining consumer patience and an Internet-fueled demand for instant gratification, production of interviews that cannot be accessed without listening to an audiotape is a waste of resources.”1 Transcribing an interview is not an expensive process and can be done with free software accessed from the internet and any type of word processing program. If the oral history project is large, there might be transcribers that need to be hired to produce the written records. This can be done by hiring volunteers at no cost to the organization. Carl Wilmsen wrote of three major reasons for transcription in 2001. The first of which is the ease of use by the audience. Secondly, he argues that creating a transcript of an interview can be helpful for future researchers as technology changes rapidly and the form of media may no longer be easily accessible. Additionally, Wilmsen argues that a written transcript can be helpful for efficiency and quick retrieval.2 If a researcher comes to an institution for a particular interview and the only copy is on outdated technology, such as reel-to-reel and eight track tapes, that the researcher does not have access to, the interview is essentially nonexistent. If there is no way to access an interview then the work of the interviewer and narrator truly are trapped within the confines of its medium.
Proponents of transcription think that edited versions of an interview ensure that constant verbal mistakes do not make the interviewee appear foolish. Written transcripts can also be edited, “eliminating elements (such as repetitive false starts and misstatement of names and locations) that are part and parcel to any conversation.”3 If the interview was never transcribed, there is no possibility to change the interview. For archival purposes, each edited transcript including the master copy should be saved to show the progression of changes that were made. In the past this was often not the case, as transcripts replaced original copies. If the interview was not transcribed, several copies of an audio or video interview might be difficult and time consuming to decipher.
Willa K. Baum notes in her book, Transcribing and Editing Oral History that the decision must be made about whether to transcribe or not, and that if an interview is not transcribed it will "never" be used. This is interesting because Baum continues by noting that "old-timers for which the greatest use will be in the sound and the feeling," because of a lack of new information, are "better done by the tape than be a bloodless transcript."4 This argument is interesting because it relates the logical difficulties faced by the pro-transcription side of this debate. On one hand she notes that tapes will not be used or ever seen again, but on the other hand she is aware that transcription will erase the stamp of time and place from the words of the interviewee as if their stories and information are bleached clean of their "blood" like bones in the sun. Supporters of transcription argue that an edited transcript is helpful when a researcher wants the main points of an interview.5 Baum argues, that topics of limited research value are recorded and left on the tape because in going that far as to record it, the interviewer has done their duty "for the few researchers who will ever want to hear it."6 Those in favor of transcription rarely note that information, like single topics that are left out of the transcript, cannot be extracted if only a recording exists. They also note that the listener will have to spend a great deal of time locating and listening to the desired portion of the interview. This argument is paradoxical because it implies the need for transcripts but then the author abhors universal inclusion.
Ease of use is another reason that is often cited in support of transcribing interviews. David Lance wrote in 1978 that “the average speed of reading is about three times as fast as the average rate of speaking…the value and importance of the transcript obviously lies in the convenience of access it permits.”7 Efficiency is important, especially when a researcher needs information quickly. Those in favor of transcription argue that it is often more time consuming to make a copy of an audio file than it is to print off a written transcript. If transcripts are available, it is widely believed that the audio or video files will never been seen or heard. There is also an educational aspect when it comes to transcription, and “the very act of transcription enhances [a historian’s] grasp of [the] content.”8 Gestures and other visual cues given in the interview can be added into the transcript to give a better picture for the listener. If there is no video file, those visual cues cannot be accessed if there is only an audio copy of the interview.
Continue this discussion here The Debate Over Transcription: Arguments Against Transcription
Related Pages
The Debate Over Transcription: Arguments for Transcription
The Debate Over Transcription: Arguments Against Transcription
Diffusion: Digital Media and the Internet's Effect on Oral History
Accessibility: Tools That Allow New Perspective
The Debate Over Transcription: Possible Conclusions
References
1 James Fogerty, “Oral History and Archives: Documenting Context,” in History of Oral History: Foundations and Methodology, ed. Thomas L. Charlton, Lois E. Myers, and Rebecca Sharpless (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2007), 206.
2 Maze, “The Uneasy Page: Transcribing and Editing Oral History,” 239.
3 Fogerty, “Oral History and Archives,” 207.
4 Willa K. Baum, Transcribing and Editing Oral History, (Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1977), 15.
5 Baum, Transcribing and Editing Oral History, 15.
6 Baum, Transcribing and Editing Oral History, 15.
7 David Lance, An Archive Approach to Oral History (London: Imperial War Museum, 1978), 22.
7 Maze, “The Uneasy Page,” 239.
