Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(5)
Of the 16 interviewees who submitted revisions to their transcripts, 12 did so by sending a revised transcript to the researcher by email with changes tracked using the word processor's "track changes" feature.
Finally, S.B. revised transcript coding again in light of the final codebook.
PhyloCSF showed that the revised transcript models strongly tend to have higher coding potential than the originals, confirming the quality of the proposed revisions (Rhind et al., in press).
Typically, however, these were relatively minor corrections and while all interviewees were offered the opportunity to revise their transcripts, only 16 (31%) interviewees returned a revised transcript, with some of these interviewees stating that they did not read their transcripts carefully because they found them to be too lengthy and/or cumbersome to review.
Of the 51 interviewees invited to review their interview transcripts, 22 (43%) responded either by returning a revised transcript (16) or by indicating that they had reviewed the transcript but had no revisions to make (6).
Similar(55)
For the 16 revised transcripts, 39 specific transcription errors were corrected (category 1), 11 specific details were added (category 2), and 6 specific transcription details were corrected (category 3).
Minor changes were necessary on three transcripts and these revised transcripts were returned to the respective interviewees for confirmation.
There were 204 instances in which an interviewee made grammatical changes and/or revised the transcript in an apparent effort to clarify or articulate better a point made in the interview (category 4).
As well, the majority of interviewees who revised their transcripts did so in such a way that the transcript no longer reflected accurately the verbal exchange during the interview.
One author (VH) reviewed all revised interview transcripts and classified all edits/additions/omissions into one of the six categories.
The emerging coding structure was revised after each transcript, with on-going review by CC.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com