[ARSCLIST] Ethnographic/oral history archival access was [ARSCLIST] voice recorders with speech-to-text software

[andy kolovos <akolovos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi--

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but for the general reading
public and other list-lurkers out there who deal with audio but aren't
familiar with the work done by most oral history/ethnographic archives, I
just want to present a counterpoint to Mr. Hoffman's comments on archival
access to interview recordings and interview transcripts from the
perspective of an ethnographic/oral history archive and archivist.

>The best thing to do in my view is to use a
>typist to transcribe them although most people don't read these days --
and also to

99% of our access is first undertaken through transcripts.  Transcripts are
the easiest way for researchers to access the intellectual content of an
interview.  In contrast to what is stated above, at least when they come
here, people do indeed read, and when using our collection, they tend to
read quite a bit.

>From transcripts, researchers occasionally, but infrequently, move on to
the audio.  I always encourage them to listen to the recording to get a
feel for the actual interview-event that one cannot get through typescript.

>use and audio editor to immediately edit down each interview to reasonable
>highlights that most folks will want to hear.  Then transcribing those
highlights
>probably will be more useful most of the time.

We consider the audio recording of an interview to be the primary
document--the "record" of the interview-event, so to speak.  It is our
mission to preserve the record of the interview-event in its entirety.  We
generally do not edit interview recordings in anyway unless we are
specifically asked by the interviewee to remove statements he or she has
made.  In line with our ethical commitments to interviewees, we do this
without question.  Any change to the original sound recording made after
the fact to facilitate access: boosting amplitude, noise reduction, etc. is
noted on the access copy so we have a clear indication of how it differs
from the original field recording.

We view transcripts as a "sketch" of the record of the interview-event.  As
such we treat it as a "record of the record."  Just as the conversation
documented through an audio recording is mediated by the guidance of the
interviewer, the presence of recording equipment and other technical,
social and cultural factors that are present in an interview context, the
transcript is further mediated though the transcriptionist and the
limitations of written text to capture spoken words and other sound.  While
we acknowledge mediation on all these levels, we strive preserve the
fullest record of the interview (the recording itself) and the textual
record of the record (the transcripts), and provide access to these "full"
records.

This stated, we--and all oral history/ethnographic archives I'm in touch
with--are not in the business of deciding what a researcher might find
interesting or useful.  We preserve the "document" in its entirety and
allow them to decide what information they need from it.

I am not sure if Mr. Hoffman is advocating the destructive editing of
original recordings or the destructive editing of copies, but in either
case this is not something any oral history/ethnographic archive I am in
touch with would advocate.

We are not in the business of preserving and/or providing access simply to
"great stories"--although we do have many great stories in our collection.
Rather, like any archive--textual document-based or audio recording-based
or what have you--we are in the business of preserving and providing access
to elements of the everyday lives of our informants and those who donate
recordings to us.

When we use our archival material to create audio documentaries for radio,
we certainly do edit out "great," compelling or particularly relevant bits
from interviews and string them together to create a narrative.
Additionally, when we publish textual materials we do the same thing. This
publication function of the Vermont Folklife Center is very different from
our archival mission.  When researchers come to use the archive, they
access and use the raw, unedited field recordings and the transcripts
derived from them.

As a documentary maker, Mr. Hoffman has a different set of criteria, which
are as valid for his applications as are our criteria are to what we do.
His perspective on providing access to field recorded interviews, as I
interpreted it through his previous email, differs greatly from the
approaches used by the vast majority of oral history and ethnographic
archives out there, the Vermont Folklife Center included.

Best,

andy

*********************************
Andy Kolovos
Archivist/Folklorist
Vermont Folklife Center
P.O. Box 442
Middlebury, VT 05753
(802) 388-4964
akolovos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.vermontfolklifecenter.org