Speaker-labeled transcripts in seconds, not hours

Interview transcript — appendix-ready
Speaker key: I = Speaker 0 / interviewer; P1, P2… = subsequent diarized speakers. Explicit names are preserved.
Citation: quote by line numbers (e.g. ll. 012–014) and locate audio with timestamps.

001  I   [00:18:44]
     Earlier you mentioned feeling somewhat “between” disciplines. Could you say a bit more about how that shows up in supervision—if it does?

002  P1  [00:19:02]
     Mm. I think… I’m not sure I would frame it as a conflict, exactly. It’s more that my supervisor reads me as a methods person, whereas I still experience myself as closer to the archival side. So when we talk about “progress,” we’re often talking past each other a little.

003  I   [00:19:41]
     When you say “talking past each other,” what does that sound like in a typical meeting?

004  P1  [00:19:55]
     She’ll ask whether I’ve “closed the coding frame,” and I hear that as a request to stop collecting. But I’m usually trying to explain why another tranche of material might complicate the categories I’ve already used. It isn’t resistance, I don’t think—more a different sense of when the claim is ready.

005  P1  [00:20:40]
     And I notice I hedge a lot in those conversations. I’ll say “perhaps” or “it might be premature,” which… looking back, is also me managing the relationship, not only the epistemology.

006  I   [00:21:15]
     That’s helpful. How do you decide, then, what counts as enough evidence for a chapter claim?

007  P1  [00:21:31]
     I wish I had a tidy answer. In practice I write until the argument stops needing an extra example to feel honest. That isn’t a formal saturation criterion, I know. But for this project, “honest” has meant I can still hear the dissonant cases in the text.

008  I   [00:22:18]
     And has that standard shifted since your prospectus, or is it continuous with how you thought then?

009  P1  [00:22:32]
     It has shifted. Early on I was more anxious about looking incomplete to the committee. Now I’m more wary of over-smoothing. So the revision process has become… less about adding polish, more about leaving the seams visible where the data push back.

010  P1  [00:23:12]
     Which is ironic, because the polished version is what often travels better in a draft circulated for feedback. I’m still negotiating that tension.

011  I   [00:23:42]
     One last question for this stretch: how do you describe your research identity to peers outside the department?

012  P1  [00:23:58]
     I usually say I’m a qualitative researcher interested in how scholars learn to authorize their own claims. That feels truer than the field label on my office door—though I still use the door label when it opens a door, so to speak.