Transcript format and conventions

The challenge in the current study lies in the multi-party nature of the interaction requiring transcription. Metzger (1999: 44) recommends the use of a musical-score format for representing signed language interaction, thus allowing for ‘the

simultaneous and overlapping nature of interactive discourse’. This is an essential

element when considering transcription of signed language interaction, due to the simultaneous nature inherent in the interpreting process. Because SLIs are working between two modalities (signing and speaking), as well as two languages, their contributions will almost always overlap with that of the primary participants.

Representing participant overlap is also a prime consideration when attempting to adequately represent spoken language multi-party talk. Edelsky (1983), for example, discusses extensively the challenges in transcribing interaction within a collaborative floor. Following Coates (2007) the transcription format in the current study is produced in stave notation, allowing all participants’ contributions to be read simultaneously, like instruments in a musical stave. Words or portions of words that appear vertically above or below any other word should be read as occurring at the same time as that word. Relevant non-verbal behaviour is recorded in the line above the transcription. My decision to use a musical-score style of transcription was heavily influenced by the work of Metzger. However, I have made some adaptations to this format in order to make it more accessible for the reader. Metzger (1999), for example, lists all participants in a particular stave, regardless of whether they have made a contribution during that section or not. In the case of my transcription, where some of the data is from team meetings compromising of five to eight participants, this would clearly be both unwieldy and potentially confusing. I have therefore only listed the participants contributing within each specific stave.

I have again deviated from Metzger in that I have represented participants by name (pseudonym) rather than by participant role. This is for a combination of reasons. On a practical level, the multi-party nature of the interaction being transcribed means that representing each participant according to their participant role could be potentially confusing. In one meeting for example, there are four senior support workers present. I could have referred to them as ‘Senior Support 1’ etc. but this brings me to the second reason for not using participant roles to identify interlocutors. Although Metzger argues that referring to individuals according to their participant status is not intended to dehumanise them, this is nonetheless an effect that is conveyed through this practice. This was made explicit when I presented a brief data extract to colleagues on the Ethnography, Language and Communication training course, with their feedback indicating that using roles to define participants as opposed to their name depersonalised the nature of the interaction that I was attempting to convey. Given that I am trying to represent the collegial and collaborative nature of workplace discourse, I feel it is important to make transcripts as naturalistic as possible within the recognised constraints. This is particularly true in the case of humour and small talk, where I feel the human element of the interaction would be lost if role status were the sole descriptor used. My approach to this aspect is in line with the majority

of the transcripts produced by Janet Holmes and the Language in the Workplace

Project12 team, although I am not aware if this was a conscious decision on their part.

I of course recognise that the participants’ roles and status are important to the interaction under investigation, and for this reason I have contextualised relationships in terms of role and responsibilities within the introduction to the transcripts.

As with Metzger (1999) I have not included myself as researcher in the transcriptions. I was present throughout all of the interpreted events filmed for the current study, operating the camera and observing the interaction. On a number of occasions I was addressed directly by both deaf and hearing participants involved in the meetings. However, none of the samples selected for analysis include my personal contributions and I have therefore not allowed a line within the staves for researcher utterances. The choices I have made regarding transcription conventions for the notation of interactional features have been influenced by the nature of the languages requiring analysis (e.g. spoken and signed languages), and the focus of the current study (i.e. an examination of collaborative and collegial interaction). I have therefore drawn on the conventions used by Wadensjö (1998) and Napier (2002), as well as utilising conventions outlined by Vine et al. (2002) for the Language in the Workplace project (see Appendix N for full list).

It should be noted that the transcripts are not as fine-grained as those produced for a Conversation Analytical approach to discourse analysis. My transcript has not included detailed information about the length of pauses, or prosodic features such as intonation patterns, rhythm, word stresses etc. Detailed comprehensive transcriptions are valuable for their potential contribution to the discovery and documentation of various communication functions (Duncan 1972) and all features such as those outlined above add to the meaning of the interaction. Decisions to include or exclude certain aspects of spontaneous talk all have ‘significant consequences for the ensuing

analysis’ (Coates 1996: x). However, the selection of the transcription system is

informed by the purposes of the research, and the specific features of the spoken discourse intended by the researcher for analysis (O’Connell & Kowal 1999),

therefore in line with Wadensjö (1998), my stance has been to only render features such as emphasis, laughter etc. when they are of importance to the current analysis. 4.6.5 Transcription of video playback interviews

The video playback interviews have been transcribed in a different format to that of the video excerpts from the workplace sites. The interviews were all recorded on video, although this was only strictly necessary in relation to the deaf participant, Derek. The interviews have been described in their entirety, but I have ‘tidied up’ the transcripts, i.e. I have not included all the ums, ahhs and repetitions inherent in natural speech. These aspects of discourse can undoubtedly ‘perform delicate interactional

tasks’ (Wooffitt 2005), but as discussed in the previous section, decisions about

transcription style have been driven by the purpose for which the data has been described. The decision to omit these items was based on the fact that I would not be using the transcripts for a discourse analytical purpose but rather to reproduce participant views and experiences (Arksey & Knight 1999).

4.7 Summary

This chapter has detailed the various methodological approaches employed in collecting data for the current study. The challenges in gaining access to authentic naturally occurring interpreted interaction have been opened up, drawing attention to the importance of gaining trust and rapport with research participants. This is of particular importance in relation to deaf participants, as there are a number of complexities that exist in research involving a community which has been traditionally oppressed by hearing people. These complexities have been explored through some of the tensions discussed in my positioning as a practitioner-researcher. Having provided a detailed description of the data collection process the following chapters (Five and Six) draw on the research findings to illustrate the SLI’s role in the workplace setting. Chapter Five exemplifies the multifaceted nature of their position in workplace discourse, whilst in Chapter Six the SLI’s impact and influence on the interaction between deaf and hearing employees is explored.

Chapter Five: Thematic Analysis of Questionnaire Responses and