Describe interaction patterns
A two-person interview can contain long alternating monologues; a panel may have frequent interjections and unresolved overlap. Speaker count alone does not capture that difference. Request a description of turn lengths, moderation style, and participant continuity. Use these observations to choose material suited to the downstream task rather than relying only on program format labels.
Adapt the review plan
For panels, inspect short acknowledgments, crosstalk, and speaker changes more heavily. For interviews, check whether long answers were edited or stitched from multiple takes. Define how uncertain attributions are recorded. A shared annotation format is useful, but the review examples should reflect the actual interaction patterns present in each kind of recording.
Put the decision in the brief
For interviews and panels need different dataset specifications, make the expected treatment visible in the written project brief. Include one acceptable example and one case that needs a decision. Ask the source owner which supporting records exist and mark missing information explicitly. Review the assumptions before applying a rule to an entire archive.
Keep a reviewable handoff
Carry the agreed policy, source identifiers, and unresolved questions into the delivery manifest. A later recipient should be able to connect a finding about interviews versus panels to the exact file and version reviewed. Discuss project fit with Fiund before sending source recordings or sensitive contributor information.
Review checklist
- Define the project decision: interviews versus panels.
- Identify the exact source files and recording edition.
- Document accepted treatment and unresolved exceptions.
- Agree on review evidence before preparing the full collection.