Research and sources
Make interview notes useful without identifying participants
Remove direct identifiers before sharing notes for review. Use participant codes and keep the context needed for the research. Then inspect combinations such as a rare job, small town and exact date: they may identify someone even after a name is removed. Treat the result as a draft requiring review.
Participant code: [ ] Direct identifiers removed before review: [ ] Relevant context to preserve: [ ] Observation: [ ] Quotation, if permitted for this review: [ ] Detail or combination to reconsider: [ ] How it could identify someone: [ ] Proposed removal or generalization: [ ] Meaning that might change: [ ] Repeat for each concern. Applicable consent and handling instructions: [ ] Authorized reviewer and decision: [ ] Unresolved recognition concerns: [ ]
Combinations that still identify
Examine combinations of details as well as individual names. A specific role in a small team or a rare event may make someone recognizable. Check quotations for references to colleagues and places. Remove or generalize details only after considering their relevance and the participant's agreement about use. Keep any key linking codes to people in the study's approved restricted location. Have the person responsible for the research review uncertain cases; an AI review cannot establish that nobody could identify a participant.
Read the cleaned notes as an outsider who knows this workplace or community. Find combinations of details, such as role, location, timing and unusual events, that could still identify a participant. List each combination and say what to generalize or remove.
Confirm the handling rules
Check your organization's rules and the consent given to participants on storage, sharing and quotation, since those decide what you may keep. Share the cleaned notes only with people who need them. Ask a colleague to read them cold and say whether anyone seems recognizable.