By: Yoyo Rita
There are a variety of approaches for notetaking in investigations, all of which enjoy their share of proponents (as well as some fierce detractors). What are the most commonly used notetaking methods in workplace inquiries, and in what context are they best utilized?
- Audio recording & AI transcription: With the rise of fast and increasingly accurate AI transcription services, converting audio recordings of interviews into readable transcripts has never been easier, or more efficient. However, AI transcripts are fall from infallible, so any important elements of an interview should be cross-checked and verified by the investigator using the original audio. Items like names, unclear answers such as “mm-hm,” and the like must be verified. Furthermore, transcripts do not reflect nonverbal cues, like laughter, pauses, crossed arms, or other body language, which could result in a loss of meaning.
- Pros: Affordable, highly detailed, allows the investigator to focus on questions and not take notes. Transcripts can be directly copied into reports when quoting witnesses. Ideal for statement analysis.
- Cons: Not all companies or witnesses allow for audio recording. Transcripts do not capture nonverbal cues and body language. AI transcription can lead to important mistakes, thus creating the added work of cross-referencing the original audio in some critical passages.
- Audio recording & human transcription: Human-made and -proofed transcriptions are a gold standard for copying verbatim witness statements into a report. While there still exists a margin for error, especially with proper nouns and names, human-made transcripts are generally more reliable. They are, naturally, more labor-intensive and thus more expensive to produce. These transcripts are best used for high-impact investigations, where every word counts.
- Pros: Gold standard for high-impact investigations requiring detailed, verbatim witness quotes. Ideal for statement analysis.
- Cons: Human-made transcripts are costly and time-consuming. Similar to above, not all companies or witnesses allow for audio recording. Transcripts do not capture nonverbal cues and body language.
- Investigator notetaking: The “old fashioned” way for most workplace investigators entails typing along with your witness as they respond to your questions. Indeed, this tried-and-true method requires a high degree of multitasking ability (i.e., engaging with your witness while also jotting down the most important aspects of their testimony), but it has the added benefit of allowing you to note both their verbal and non-verbal responses. This helps to achieve a well-rounded statement analysis and solid credibility assessment.
- Pros: Allows investigator to capture testimony subtleties, both verbal and non-verbal. Serves as a general outline of testimony, which can speed up the data analysis process versus reviewing lengthy transcripts. Also helps to refresh the memory of a witness’s general statements.
- Cons: Investigator notes do not equate to verbatim testimony, and can lead to missing some important aspects of a witness’s testimony. Is ideally accompanied by an audio recording. Physically and mentally draining to take notes, and has the potential to be distracting.
- Analyst notetaking: When staffing allows, having a data analyst (or Junior Investigator, whatever the case may be) take notes can allow the investigator to focus their efforts on engaging a witness. The analyst can thus dedicate their efforts to capturing a witness’s statement without worrying about posing questions.
- Pros: Analysts can assist investigator with notes and identifying follow-up questions. Decreased effort by the investigator and allows for two expert opinions to contribute to statement analysis and credibility assessment.
- Cons: Having two people interview a witness can be intimidating, thus decreasing innate rapport with witnesses. Analyst notes are just as fallible as investigator notes. Is ideally accompanied by an audio recording. Physically and mentally draining to take notes.
These methods are by far the most commonly employed strategies to capture a witness’s testimony. Each method has its own downfalls, which leads many experienced investigators to the same conclusion: context is key. These modes can be mixed and employed simultaneously, depending on a client’s needs and policies. It is important to be skilled in each notetaking method, should your client’s needs precipitate them.