If collecting centres do not have the resources to transcribe their recordings, effective cataloguing and indexing (see Chapter 7) is of paramount importance, as it provides the sole facility for retrieving information which has been recorded. Other institutions either may not have the means to transcribe all the recorded interviews they collect, or they may feel that not all of their recordings merit this costly process. In all cases where a measure of selection is necessary, the following criteria can be used. Transcription may be recommended when:

1. The fame or historical Significance of the informants suggest that there will probably be a demand for access to their interviews.
2. More than 50% of the content of a particular interview is informative as opposed to impressionistic in character.
3. There are clearly outstanding parts, though amounting to less than 50% of the whole interview, in an otherwise unexceptional recording (then the appropriate reels may be specifically recommended for transcription).
4. The quality of the interview, as a sound recording, is sufficiently lively and interesting to indicate that it has potential value for use in, for example, educational or broadcasting programmes.

It does not follow from the above that the lack of a transcript necessarily indicates a poor interview. Interviews which are not selected for transcription may be those which contain a higher degree of general than specific information; those in which there is more opinion than illustration; and those where the informant is less articulate or overly discursive. Such interviews may well contain extremely valuable information even though - for one reason or another - it is not well enough presented by the informant to justify the cost of transcribing.

One major factor which affects transcribing policy is the relative status which the particular institution gives to its recordings and transcripts. The Department on whose methods An Archive Approach to Oral History is based unequivocally takes the position that the sound recording is the primary oral history document. In application, the main consequence of this viewpoint is that the resultant transcripts contain the facts of the interviews but are not overly concerned with their 'flavour'. Many conversational characteristics are deliberately excluded from the transcript and those users who seek or need the verbal idiosyncrasies of oral history are directed to the sound recordings.

Each collecting centre must take its own decision on this general principle and, following from it, what scale of its resources tp allocate to the transcribing programme. The investment in this work -if it is undertaken at all -will, however, always be substantial because transcribing is by its nature time consuming, labour intensive and therefore costly. Thus the area for individual choice lies not in whether transcribing may be done cheaply or expensively, but in making the programme more or less expensive. What then are the relevant considerations? The most fundamental one is implicit in the previous paragraph, but there are many others. Should the first typescript be the final product? If corrections are made to it should they be made in manuscript or must they be in typescript? If in typescript, should the corrections be made on the original transcript or should this be retyped? Should you permit informants to amend their original statements and, if you do, should the entire text be retyped to accommodate them? If common subjects are discussed in different parts of the interview should these be brought together in the transcript? By answering all such questions collecting institutions will eventually find the balance between what they prefer and what they can afford.

When the collecting centre has formulated its policy it is important that the preferred practices are laid down in the form of detailed written directions to which the typists can refer. This provides a clear basis for their work: the most economic means of achieving consistency: and, above all, it ensures that extremely important decisions are taken by the historian and not by the typist. In this lies the best guarantee that the content and construction of the interview will be faithfully reproduced.
 

The task of the typist is to produce an accurate typescript of the interview and by the appropriate use of sentences, paragraphs and punctuation - to make it as literate a document as possible without altering the words or sense of the speakers. Thus the informant's choice of words should always be retained; 'I were' should not be changed to 'I was' or 'don't' replaced by 'do not'. Similarly, certain conventions of the written word, such as not beginning sentences with conjunctions, need not be observed when typing the spoken word. The most loyal printed facsimile of an oral record would contain phonetic spellings and, by this and other means, take account of unusual words or forms of words which are due to dialect or accent. For purely historical research, however, such methods are unnecessary and, in most cases, known words are best given their conventional spellings.

Although the object is to transcribe the interview as accurately as possible, there are certain conversational characteristics which can be excluded from the transcript. False starts, such as 'it was in ... no it wasn't ... I remember now ... it was in the autumn of 1916', may be ignored and only the informative section of the recording need be transcribed. Repetitions may often be left out of the transcript, while 'ums' and 'errs', slips of the tongue, insignificant mistakes, and uninformative interjections are among the features of normal speech that may appear on the recording but can also be ignored as they would add nothing of substance to the typescript of the interview.

As there are aspects of a recorded interview which need not be carried over onto the typescript, there are also additions to it which may be usefully made in order to clarify the meaning or structure of what has been said. If, for example, there is a distinct pause in mid-sentence it may be helpful to indicate the speaker's hesitation by some clear convention such as three spaced dots. Suitable linking words may be added to the text where the recording is inaudible to the typist and either the informant or the interviewer feels able to provide the sense of the missing piece. In such cases, however, the readers should be warned that the inserted words are additions by placing them in square brackets. A similar situation sometimes occurs when the informant anticipates the interviewer's meaning and starts answering a question before he has completed it. The response can lose much of its pertinence if the reader is not also given the full question and, again, the interviewer should provide at least the sense of what the typist may not be able to hear.

In their general construction, transcripts should conform to the accepted rules and conventions of written language. These, however, may be variously applied in processing oral history interviews and a great many detailed decisions therefore have to be taken in order to establish a clear house-style (in this process consistency is usually more important than any particular practice). For example, should the speaker's qualifications or parentheses be indicated by placing them within brackets or by inserting hyphens before and after the appropriate piece? Should pauses in speech or unconc1uded sentences be represented by dots or by dashes? When direct speech has to be indicated are single or double inverted commas to be preferred and how do you then distinguish between direct speech and quotations? If magazines, bocks, newspapers or song titles are referred to, which of the conventions among the various possibilities (underlining, inverted commas, capitalisation) are to be employed in each case? When numbers are mentioned, are they to be typed in full or in numerals and where numerals are preferred are there occasions when Arabic or Roman figures might be used to distinctive advantage?

It will be clear from such examples that many transcribing conventions will not be based on absolute rules but, often, on preferences between equally serviceable alternatives. It will also be noted that the written representation of the spoken word makes considerable demands on the number of available conventions and that this necessitates very careful consideration and selection among the options for each case. This should under1ine the need for a set of formal transcribing rules which the typists should consistently app1y. To give one more example, all the possible cases where complete words or first letters might be capitalised should be prescribed. Without clear guidelines imagine the various forms in which the following piece might be typed: 'Life aboard HMS TIGER (Tiger) was my worst experience of navy (Navy) discipline and in the Engine Room Branch (engine room branch) the petty officers (Petty Officers) really ruled it over the stokers (Stokers). There was a Chief Petty Officer (chief petty officer) Jones in Number 2 Boiler Room (number two boiler room) who wielded a real rod of iron. This sort of thing could make you hate the service (Service)! The list of questions which have to be considered and answered in order to regularise transcribing practice is not endless but it is certainly long and cannot - or at least should not - be avoided.

The layout of the transcript also raises important considerations. Presentation and format not only have a bearing on the good appearance of a document which is produced at considerable cost; they are also instrumental in making the text as clear as possible and the typescript convenient to use. The options in this field are again quite numerous. Margins (on all Sides), page numbers (and - for correlation - reel or cassette numbers), informant's and interviewer's names (or initials), overleaf keywords, spacing and alignment should therefore all be standardised.

The main purpose of this chapter is to identify some of the main problems and pitfalls which arise in the process of transcribing oral history recordings. A specific code of practice has not been laid down because it is to be expected that collecting institutions will formulate their own conventions in the light of individual preference and resources. But although practice may vary the problems are common. Every transcribing programme therefore needs to be based on a detailed set of rules which are consistently applied if the programme is to be systematically effective. For detailed instructions based on the preferred (and exacting) transcription methods of one experienced centre, reference may be made to Transcribing and Editing Oral History by Willa Baum (Nashville: American Association for State and Local History; 1977).