I am editing a thesis and the writer has quoted from many interviews with non-native English speakers. I'm wondering whether it is correct practice to leave the quotations as is, or perhaps use (sic), or to edit them in correct English? Thanks in advance.
3
-
4I would use (sic). If there is a need to quote interviews, than it should be what the interviewed person said. Moreover, using the original material add context.– AlchimistaCommented Jan 16, 2019 at 13:38
-
That depends on the type of interview. Ideally, interview quotations can go from newspaper-like editing that smoothes all edges while preserving the meaning to very fine-grained reproduction of what has been said, down to the level of individual inflections, pauses, interjections, etc. Best to leave the decision to the author.– henning no longer feeds AICommented Jan 16, 2019 at 13:40
-
@henning and there was me thinking that "newspaper"or "journalist version" was to loose the meaning... Given some examples of what we were shown:L two ships collided and the tonnages varied by a factor of 100, depending on which paper you looked at, the collision was in the Atlantic, Pacific or Antartic...– Solar MikeCommented Jan 16, 2019 at 13:52
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
In qualitative social research, two main methods of transcription are applied: naturalized transcription and denaturalized transcription.
Naturalized transcription is a detailed and less filtered transcription. It is as detailed as possible and focuses on the details of the discourse, such as breaks in speech, laughter, mumbling, involuntary sounds, gestures, body language, etc. as well as content [...] Denaturalized transcription is flowing, presenting ‘laundered’ data which removes the slightest socio-cultural characteristics of the data or even information that could shed light on the results of the study. It accurately describes the discourse, but limits dealing with the description of accent or involuntary sounds (Mero-Jaffe 2011, 232, emphasis added).
To what extent interview transcriptions ("quotations") can be altered is a methodological choice, which must be informed by the purpose of the study, and which is sometimes controlled by explicit transcription rules. It should therefore be left to the author, not to the editor.
As editor, I would leave all quotations as they are, and point this out to the author.
Mero-Jaffe, I. (2011). ‘Is that what I Said?’ Interview Transcript Approval by Participants: An Aspect of Ethics in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000304
answered Jan 16, 2019 at 14:42
henning no longer feeds AIhenning no longer feeds AI
35.3k10 gold badges122 silver badges151 bronze badges
Quotes should be included verbatim, so don't edit. Instead, insert or alter words using square brackets. E.g., "I'm wondering whether it is [okay] to leave the quotations as is..." Alternatively, replace direct quotes with a summary of what was said. Finally, use "[sic]" sparingly: Using sic "may be defensive, but its overuse is offensive" and "[in] truly minor matters it's usually better [to quietly] correct the original" (source: The Columbia Guide to Standard American English).
-
And possibly use
(sic)as Alchimista suggests in the comments on your question, so that people know it's not your writing that's at fault.– Peter K.Commented Jan 16, 2019 at 14:21