Conducting in-depth interviews with and without voice recorders: a comparative analysis
Open accessAbstract
The use of audio recordings has become a taken-for-granted approach to generating transcripts of in-depth interviewing and group discussions. In this paper we begin by describing circumstances where the use of a recorder is not, or may not be, possible, before sharing our comparative analysis of audio-recorded transcriptions and interview scripts made from notes taken during the interview (by experienced, well-trained interviewers). Our comparison shows that the data quality between audio-recorded transcripts and interview scripts written directly after the interview were comparable in the detail captured. The structures of the transcript and script were usually different because in the interview scripts, topics and ideas were grouped, rather than being in the more scattered order of the conversation in the transcripts. We suggest that in some circumstances not recording is the best approach, not ‘second best’.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Detailed notes were taken during the interviews, which have been found to provide comparable data quality to recorded interview transcripts.
“Detailed notes were taken during the interviews which have been found to provide comparable data quality to recorded interview transcripts (Rutakumwa et al. 2020).”
From S-LCA of lithium mining in Chile and its potential impacts on water and the local community (2025) · cites this paper as Rutakumwa et al. 2020
The Discussion and conclusion reports comparable detail in audio-recorded transcripts and interview scripts written directly after interviews. But the scripts were produced by trained interviewers from brief notes and memory; the paper does not establish that detailed notes taken during an interview, on their own, provide comparable data quality. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredInterviews were not recorded because the local indigenous communities are often hesitant to participate in interviews with external researchers, and using a recorder was not appropriate as its presence can influence what information the interviewee shares.
“Interviews were not recorded because the local indigenous communities are often hesitant to participate in interviews with external researchers (Pampus et al. 2023) and using a recorder was not appropriate in this context as the presence of a recorder during interviews can influence what information the interviewee shares (Rutakumwa et al. 2020).”
From S-LCA of lithium mining in Chile and its potential impacts on water and the local community (2025) · cites this paper as Rutakumwa et al. 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 378
- Authors
- Rutakumwa, R., Mugisha, J. O., Bernays, S., Kabunga, E., Tumwekwase, G., Mbonye, M., & Seeley, J.
- Affiliations
- MRC/UVRI & LSHTM Uganda Research Unit (UG)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Seeley, Janet
- Venue
- Qualitative Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-11-07
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 565-581
- ISSN
- 1468-7941 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3109
- PMC
- PMC7444018
- OpenAlex
- W2984604743
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 7
- FWCI
- 50.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Qualitative Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council (00)
- department for international development, uk government
- UK MRC Public Health and Intervention Development Scheme (MR/NO27515/1 [PI JS])
- wellcome trust (107742/Z/15/Z)
- government of the united kingdom
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- in-depth interviews, audio recordings, voice recorder, interview transcripts, interview script, transcription, data quality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
