Audiorecording

Audiorecording in Data Collection

The data captured by audiorecording lie somewhere between the lower level of detail provided by field-notes or simple recall and the higher level of detail provided by videorecording. In addition to the greater accuracy in comparison with a lack of any recording, audiorecording also provides additional detail by capturing elements of tonality and emphasis. Going beyond audiorecording, videorecording provides even more detail, especially in terms of nonverbal communication.

A common question in qualitative interviewing is whether to use any form of recording at all. The issue here is essentially a trade-off between the advantages of audiorecording and videorecording as tools in data collection and analysis and their potential intrusion in ways that will significantly alter the conversation. Inevitably, the presence of a recording device will have some effect on both the participant and the researcher; thus, the key issue is the degree to which recording will alter the otherwise “naturalistic observation” in a manner that has a substantial effect on either the concept or quality of the data. Qualitative researchers frequently favor audiorecording in this trade-off due to its combination of providing a relatively high level of detail while creating only a minimal intrusion in the interview setting.

The most common way in which audiorecording affects data collection is by inhibiting the research participants from saying things they might reveal if they were not being recorded. For example, audiorecording during interviews with graduate students on the general topic of satisfaction with their program is not likely to have a notable effect on their responses. Alternatively, recording interviews with the same students regarding their satisfaction with the teaching in their graduate program may create concerns that faculty members will learn what specific participants said about them, leading the students to carefully monitor what they do and do not say.

In considering the potentially intrusive effects of how data are captured in qualitative interviewing, it should also be noted that note taking can have its own set of effects. In particular, note taking will almost always reduce eye contact with research participants. In addition, participants may become sensitive to when the researcher takes notes or not—especially when long portions of their conversation do not generate any notes. In contrast, most participants quickly adjust to the presence of audiorecording equipment, leading to the claim that audiorecording can be less intrusive than note taking in terms of its effects on interviewing dynamics.

On a more technical note, the choice of equipment can be an important element of audiorecording. In this regard, the limiting factor is most likely to be the microphone because most audiorecorders (especially digital recorders) are capable of producing high-quality recordings in the range matching the human voice. This is especially important for focus groups because recording devices seldom come with the kind of “omnidirectional” microphone that is best suited to recording groups. How well the builtin microphone in a recording device will work for one-on-one interviews can be determined only by testing the equipment in an appropriate range of settings. That kind of testing is necessary in any event so that the researcher can familiarize himself or herself with the equipment prior to using it. Even when the researcher is quite familiar with the recording equipment, on-site “live testing” of the microphone and recorder prior to the interview is still essential because a blank tape at the end of an interview represents a severe loss of data.

...