Transcription of interviews Sample Clauses

Transcription of interviews. For interviews, the transcription was done verbatim in order to capture the original interaction as closely as possible; the conversation was transcribed in the form of a dialog (Xxxxxxx 2006,487–488). Interviews were conducted in Spanish, as this was the native language of most of the interviewees. The transcription of the interviews conducted in their native language allowed for the analysis of other nuances of meaning. The transcription also permitted a thematic analysis (Xxxxx and Xxxxxx 2006), which helped identify patterns in the responses from which themes could be derived (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 2000). The thematic analysis done involved the organization of information according to the topic of each question. An analysis of keywords used by the interviewees throughout the responses was also conducted, as well as the words used by different interviewees to respond to the same questions. These words were used to create codes of related patterns in the answers and were later compiled in broader categories of information that permitted the organization of the codes in broader and more relatable terms. As the interview protocol promised anonymity for the participants in the study, codes were assigned to each respondent of the interview questions. The coding of the participants’ names were assigned based on the chronological order in which the interviews took place, or in the order the written answers were received as well as to the type of relationship each participant had with heritage area: - Participants 1 through 14: Public heritage officials with current or former posts in a governmental position; - Participants 15 and 16: Heritage managers; - Participants 17 through 19: Private collectors with collections open to the public; - Participants 20 through 22: Private collectors with collections closed to the public. Notes were regularly taken during the course of the research. Both note-writing and constant comparative analysis helped to minimize bias because both activities are reflective, which aided objectivity throughout the study. Field notes, in particular, served as reminders to separate personal thoughts that might impose on the theory from the information that emerged from the data (Xxxxx and Xxxxx 2014). Field notes included topics such as thoughts or concerns related to the study, the interpretation of relevant activities in participant observation, reflections on the quality of the process, and thoughts on emerging codes and categories.