“…All interviews were professionally transcribed in order to enable analysis to begin as soon as possible after each interview. - Immediately following each interview, the first audio listening resulted in written case notes and researcher reflections, primarily on the interview content.
- Upon completion of each transcript, a second listening with observation of participant video (hands only) resulted in a two‐column document, comprising interpersonal process recall, participant's embodied and vocal markers (Sorsoli and Tolman, ) and researcher's inner conversation (Rober, ).
- A third listening and observation, this time of the researcher video (whole body), sought to highlight the ‘actual spokenness’ of language (Buber, ). Elements of the interview were highlighted in terms of poetic elements in moments that included the appearance of (i) possibly important quotes, including strong or evocative terms; (ii) emotive words or moments including tone, pace, silence; (iii) moments of doubts, not‐yet‐said, broken speech, questioning or third person speech; (iv) words or phrases including repetition, metaphor; (iv) moments of reflection, including wondering, pause; (v) moments of shift in the quality of the interview.
- These listenings and observations led to a heightened sense of the quality of the interview, particularly any shift towards intersubjectivity, which suggested the presence of a dialogical process and the possible emergence of dialogical knowing.
- Further confirmation of the dialogical process and dialogical knowing was sought in the triangulation of a fourth reading, listening, observation of relevant intersubjective portions of the transcript, participant video and researcher video (split screen), with particular attention to verbal, affective and embodied processes.
- If a dialogical process and dialogical knowing was confirmed, these specific portions of transcript were taken into the first layer of the Buberian intersubjective analysis.
…”