Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recording and transcribing interviews in qualitative social research is a vital but time-consuming and resource-intensive task. To tackle this challenge, researchers have explored various alternative approaches; automatic transcription utilising speech recognition algorithms has emerged as a promising solution. The question of whether automated transcripts can match the quality of transcripts produced by humans remains unanswered. In this paper we systematically compare multiple automatic transcription tools: Amberscript, Dragon, F4x, Happy Scribe, NVivo, Sonix, Trint, Otter, and Whisper. We evaluate aspects of data protection, accuracy, time efficiency, and costs for an English and a German interview. Based on the analysis, we conclude that Whisper performs best overall and that similar local-automatic transcription tools are likely to become more relevant. For any type of transcription, we recommend reviewing the text to ensure accuracy. We hope to shed light on the effectiveness of automatic transcription services and provide a comparative frame for others interested in automatic transcription.

Visual communication of romantic partners on social network sites (SNSs) is tied to normative discourses addressing different reference groups. By sharing pictures of the couple (relationship visibility), partners legitimize their romantic bond, increase relationship satisfaction, or discourage alternative partners. Nevertheless, injunctive norms of visual communication on SNSs often emerge from individual-focused SNS affordances, encouraging self-centered visual sharing. Generally, SNSs are understood as sites of networked individualism where individuals relate to others while remaining focused on themselves. We examined the injunctive norms governing relationship visibility on SNSs, discussing how partners navigate the tensions between norms stemming from individual-focused SNS affordances and relational norms. We conducted 63 semi-structured pair and individual interviews with romantic partners (42 participants, 21 couples), using participatory visual elicitation techniques. In the attempt to balance individual autonomy with relational and audience expectations, we found that partners develop practices to navigate contrasting norms. Key norms concern the extent of shared visual cues, timing and selection of SNS spaces for couple pictures, volume of sharing, and rules for sensitive pictures to maintain privacy. We provide insights into the complex negotiations between individual-focused norms and relational norms of visual communication on SNSs.

Sociologists commonly record interviews; however, most coding and analysis is done from transcriptions rather than from the audio recording itself. Transcribing sound into text is an often unquestioned and almost hallowed step in qualitative research. Yet, the question of what is lost in transcription is worth revisiting given advances in artificial intelligence, ethics, and new conceptual concerns that challenge processes of knowledge production. In this article, I aim to offer inspiration for listening to interviews-data that can be heard-in qualitative research. I discuss practical, ethical, and conceptual considerations that may come with analyzing interview recordings, tracking the reasons why scholars have come to rely on transcripts and the possible shortcomings of doing so. I argue that by adhering to a tradition of working with only the transcript, researchers miss rich layers of sensory, emotional, and embodied data. Instead, I suggest the use of listening as one of the key methods in analyzing the constitutive role of emotions and atmospheres in qualitative interview research.

Social egg freezing (SEF) is the process of freezing a woman’s eggs for non‐medical reasons to preserve her ability to become pregnant in the future. SEF is both praised as a procedure that every woman should consider to prolong fertility, and criticized for medicalizing social problems, making unrealistic promises, trivializing risks, and having a poor cost–benefit ratio. This article explores the debate surrounding SEF and societal attitudes towards it in Austria, a country currently discussing the legalization of the procedure. Ten qualitative interviews were conducted with individuals involved in the public debate on medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Thematic analysis revealed three groups of respondents—advocates, ambivalents, and one opponent—who held different views on several key themes. All groups perceived SEF as not being “the” solution to the underlying problem of balancing parenthood and work. Interviewees demanded comprehensive counseling before SEF, including information about the technical procedure and medical risks. Many interviewees characterized the Austrian debate on MAR as polarized, describing policymakers as frequently uninformed and the political system as stagnant and reluctant to reform. They also expressed a need for more public debate in an open and dialogue‐driven spirit. This article contributes to existing research by investigating the Austrian discourse on SEF, a topic that has rarely been explored. It shows that the regulation of SEF remains controversial in Austria, with attitudes towards it being based not only on the right to reproductive autonomy, but also on a wide range of broader social issues in contemporary societies.

Emotions play an important role in the qualitative research process. They can both hinder and facilitate scientific inquiry. Scholars rooted in different traditions of qualitative interpretative methods have emphasized the need to reflect on researchers' subjectivity. Thus, we argue that reflexive approaches can offer a starting point for exploring emotions in the qualitative research process. In this article, we introduce the special issue on \"Emotions in the Qualitative Research Process.\" We provide a brief insight into the topic and discuss different theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. By focusing on the qualitative interview methods, we underline the importance of considering emotional reflexivity as a central element of interactive field research.

Good survey research depends on asking the right questions; it is the only way to ensure that the information collected from respondents is suitable for providing good answers to our research questions. The article discusses and advocates a comprehensive consideration of qualitative-interpretive methodology in open forms of pretesting for the evaluation of draft survey questionnaires. We outline an approach we call Qualitative Pretest Interview (QPI). It transfers the idea of negotiated common understanding in everyday communication to the clarification of meaning in draft survey questions and similar stimuli. The QPI involves ascribing interview partners the role of co-experts in this process and employing methodically integrated communication strategies. This paper focusses on how QPIs are conducted. Using an example interview, we illustrate how the particular way of qualitative pretest interviewing aims at a dialogic clarification of meaning in order to reach intersubjective understanding between participant and interviewer. In the process, we gain detailed insights into how and why a certain questionnaire might not work as intended, and ideally how this might be alleviated. QPIs pursue similar goals as Cognitive Interviews but rely more systematically on qualitative-interpretive methodology.

Forschungsdesigns erfordern Flexibilität. Wichtig ist aber, dass Anpassungen nicht immer ausschließlich mit Nachteilen verbunden sein müssen. In dieser Forschungsnotiz möchten wir unsere Überlegungen zu den Auswirkungen von COVID-19 auf die Durchführung von qualitativen Interviews mit irregulären Migrant*innen veranschaulichen. Die Ausführungen wurden in Anlehnung an eines unserer eigenen Projekte entwickelt, bei dem sich die Feldarbeit derzeit in der Planungsphase befindet. Aufgrund ihrer möglichen Relevanz für ähnliche Projekte möchten wir unsere methodischen Überlegungen teilen. Wir liefern Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Situation irregulärer Migrant*innen in verschiedenen (europäischen) Ländern sowie eine Einschätzung der methodischen Durchführbarkeit von qualitativen Face-to-Face-Interviews mit irregulären Migrant*innen und möglicher Alternativen zu dieser Methode (insbesondere verschiedener Formen von Ferninterviews). Abschließend kommen wir auf unsere Entscheidung zu sprechen, mit einem Mixed-Mode-Ansatz zu arbeiten, der es uns erlaubt, verschiedene Fernbefragungsmodi zu nutzen, und damit die nötige Flexibilität zur Anpassung an den Verlauf derartiger gesundheitlicher und gesellschaftlicher Krisen bietet.

Within various African cultures, discussion of sexuality is typically secretive and reticent. Because of the multiple and sometimes contradictory narratives about sexuality, researching it in this context remains a very sensitive and knitted terrain, requiring careful navigation of historical, sociocultural and religious factors. The state of such scholarship in Nigeria is here explored critically, drawing on my experience of studying traditional aphrodisiacs in llorín. In this article, I present a reflection on the epistemological grounding of that work, my positionality and fieldwork experience, as well as the dilemmas, challenges and the politics of researching sexuality in Nigeria. I argue that the complexity of a researcher's identity and embodiments is not to be treated as redundant; instead, it needs to be taken into account in legitimate and productive ways. Focusing on these elements and experiences during fieldwork revealed how researchers can have the opportunity to contour, compound and contribute to a qualitative study. Investigators must be selfaware and constantly reflexive through this process.

Qualitative health services research often relies on semistructured or in-depth interviews to develop a deeper understanding of patient experiences, motivations, and perspectives. The quality of data gathered is contingent upon a patient's recall capacity; yet, studies have shown that recall of medical information is low. Threats to generating rich and detailed interview data may be more prevalent when interviewing older adults. We developed and studied the feasibility of using a tool, Remembering Healthcare Encounters Visually and Interactively (REVISIT), which has been created to aid the recall of a specific telemedicine encounter to provide health services research teams with a visual tool, to improve qualitative interviews with older adults. The REVISIT visual appointment summary was developed to facilitate web-based interviews with our participants as part of an evaluation of a geriatric telemedicine program. Our primary aims were to aid participant recall, maintain focus on the index visit, and establish a shared understanding of the visit between participants and interviewers. The authors' experiences and observations developing REVISIT and using it during videoconference interviews (N=16) were systematically documented and synthesized. We discuss these experiences with REVISIT and suggest considerations for broader implementation and future research to expand upon this preliminary work. REVISIT enhanced the interview process by providing a focus and catalyst for discussion and supporting rapport-building with participants. REVISIT appeared to support older patients' and caregivers' recollection of a clinical visit, helping them to share additional details about their experience. REVISIT was difficult to read for some participants, however, and could not be used for phone interviews. REVISIT is a promising tool to enhance the quality of data collected during interviews with older, rural adults and caregivers about a health care encounter. This novel tool may aid recall of health care experiences for those groups for whom it may be more challenging to collect accurate, rich qualitative data (eg, those with cognitive impairment or complex medical care), allowing health services research to include more diverse patient experiences.

Background Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields. Methods A systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques. Results Our findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly – and often without justification – characterised as insufficient (i.e., ‘small’) and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies’ results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms. Conclusions We recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy . Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting.