The Debate Over Transcription: Possible Conclusions
From OHA Wiki
The discussion over transcription developed around the level of diffusion and the accessibility of the material, therefore the debate must change as new avenues of transmission and accessibility are created. Oral history at one time was limited by these factors, but modern technology is rapidly removing the limitations that required transcription as a matter of necessity. When conducting an oral history, there are many decisions that must be made, from determining who will be interviewed to what will be done with the finished product. There is a great deal of research that is involved in the oral history process. Also, the interviewer needs to be aware of the surroundings of the interview as well as the equipment that will be used, and what forms should be filled out. The project director or interviewer should also decide what the purpose of the interview is and whether or not the interview will be transcribed and deposited into an institution’s archives.
Transcription has become an issue of great debate in the historical community, and there are compelling arguments to be made on each side. Written transcriptions are not an absolute necessity because there are a variety of ways to capture and access audio and video recordings, and to search within them. However, written versions of interviews are helpful as backup copies. While oral historians in the United States embrace transcribed interviews, historians in Canada and Europe emphasize utilizing the audio master file. Oral histories contain a rich tapestry of the human experience, whereas written transcripts of oral histories relate the stories without implication, fear, humor, candor, or anger. In an effort to clean up interviews many transcribers edit the content, thereby further reducing the interviewee's stamp on their own words. The issue of transcription is explicitly centered around the technology available for diffusion, but within this issue is an implicit issue of ownership. Interviewer and interviewee alike interact within the aural landscape, through questions and answers a dialogue is created that is as much a representation of their individual perceptions as it is a catharsis into the pages of historical remembrance.
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
