In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

          Transcribing an oral history can loom as a daunting task for anyone relatively new to collecting interviews. Anyone engaged in oral history needs to ask the question up front: to transcribe or not to transcribe?There are many reasons for not transcribing, including lack of time, lack of proper equipment, lack of money, or just plain disinterest.The decision to transcribe (or not) should be made fairly early, especially if the interviews are needed for a project, publication, or other public use.The goal of the program, budget, personnel, and needs should be the determining factors in the decision. Generally, researchers prefer to use the transcript rather than the interview itself for many reasons. Researchers are often working under time constraints, and it is much easier and faster to go through a transcript than to listen for hours to the actual interview.While some prefer to do just that or are engaged in research or a project in which they need the interview itself, the transcript is far easier to use as a document. In  Chapter Six Transcribing Oral History By Donna M. DeBlasio F the long run, despite the difficulties and issues surrounding transcribing, it is still the best way to reach the widest audience possible. Keep in mind that a transcript is easier to use than the original recording:The interviewee can correct and amplify what he or she said during the interview, and the project will have something to show for its efforts. In reality, if oral history does what it is supposed to do, the interviews should be transcribed. There are instances in which a bare-bones transcript should be done. Preparing audio or video oral history interviews for the media is one such instance. In this case, the interviews are done specifically for the final product; the only parts that need to be transcribed are those that may appear in the production. Remember, if money is the issue, you should conduct only as many interviews as you can reasonably transcribe.This helps you avoid the tricky situation of having to decide which interviews are most important, and therefore worthy of transcription , while relegating others to second-class status.The fact remains , however, that choosing not to transcribe at all is a good way to ensure that relatively few people will use the oral history collection. Prior to discussing the process of transcribing, there are several concepts that need to be defined and discussed.When oral interviews are transcribed, the finished product is usually referred to as a verbatim transcript.While the meaning of the term verbatim is clear, how it applies to a transcript is not.A verbatim transcript can run the gamut of including every single utterance ,crutch word,false start,stammer,and other verbal cues to one that is so heavily edited there is little of the flavor of the original interview. Indeed, one school of thought says the transcript itself is a separate source, different from the original spoken word.There is truth in this statement.After all, one of the transcriber’s jobs is to make the transcript readable, which, at the very least, means adding punctuation where necessary. To see the difference between the verbatim and transcribed Transcribing Oral History F  Why Transcribe? 1. Makes interviews more accessible to more people. 2. Makes interviews easier to use. 3. The interviewee can amplify or correct the original interview. 4. Despite changing technologies, a hard copy of the transcript will provide a permanent record of the interview. examples, check out item number one of the style sheet at the end of this chapter. Punctuation is necessary because it adds clarity to the transcript . Since most people do not verbally indicate punctuation , the transcriber has to use his or her judgment, based on knowledge of English grammar, about the type of punctuation mark and its correct placement. By doing this, the transcriber has already deviated from the original source, but there would be little point in doing the transcript without putting in punctuation . Indeed, some large oral history archives regard the transcript as the primary document, while others regard the recorded interview as the primary document. The other issue with transcriptions is that it is often difficult to capture the flavor of the interview. After all, the written word cannot convey accent, tone of voice, inflection, and the like. For some projects, how something is said is at least as important as what is said. In cases like this, the interview itself is...

Share