The first step in transcribing a case is, of course, reading it. You'll save yourself a fair amount of time later if you read the case with the intent of transcribing it foremost in your mind, and keep your eye on the things you will be transcribing.
As you gain more experience transcribing, it may be faster to transcribe and read simultaneously. In the beginning, it will be more instructive to read the case first and begin transcribing once you have all of the information ready.
All of the cases available for transcription are located in the Reference Shelf area of this web site. For this tutorial, you will be reading and transcribing Case 83-1.
During this tutorial, it will be helpful for you to have this case open in another browser window. If your browser supports multiple windows open the case in a new window and keep that window open for the duration of this tutorial. If your browser does not support multiple windows, or if you cannot run multiple browsers, you may wish to visit Case 83-1 now, print it, and return to this point.
When trying to find cases in the index to all cases, you can use your browser's search function to search for cases by number or name. Choosing a case from the list will display that case in your browser, with a reference frame beside the case.
First, read the "Facts" section of Case 83-1. The facts section relates the scenario as it was brought to the attention of the board of ethical review (BER). As you read, identify the events, actors, and objects relevant to the scenario. Determine in what order the events happened. Determine what people were involved. Determine what objects were involved. Pay attention to the relationships between all these things, e.g. who did what to whom.
Some of these things, will be obvious. For instance, you can see right away that two people (Engineers A and B) are involved.
Some facts are not explicitly stated in the text, but will need to be inferred. For instance, in Case 83-1, it is explicitly stated that "Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B," but it may not be obvious that this fact also implies that Engineer B had clients. Look for these implied and important facts.
You should also notice that the facts of the case are laid out logically, and fairly sequentially. In most cases, the sentences are short and contain one event or fact per sentence. Also in most cases, events are presented in the order they occurred.
Lastly, try to identify if any of the facts are not really relevant to the case. The board may record some facts that, although perhaps interesting, have no real bearing on the case. You do not want to transcribe these extraneous facts.
Following the facts of the case is a list of the actual questions that were brought before the board. Make sure that you can identify each questioned action as a fact in the chronology, and which actor's actions are being questioned.
In this section, the board lists specific sections of the NSPE code of ethics that they believe have bearing on this case. The text of each code is included, but if you need a more detailed breakdown of how the code works, you can select the code number in the transcript to display a full representation of the code in the "reference frame", the upper right pane of the window.
The board will discuss how these codes relate to the matter at hand, but as you gain more experience transcribing cases, you may begin to anticipate their arguments.
In the "discussion" section of the case, the board members lay out the arguments that lead to a decision regarding the questioned facts. Make note of where the board is absolutely sure of something, and where they are making assumptions and judgment calls. Pay attention to which codes and cases are cited, how they relate to each other, and how they are being used.
It may be useful to refer back to the "Questions" section, and also make note of which parts of the discussion relate to which questioned facts.
There may also be additional discussion following the conclusion of the board. You are not responsible for transcribing this additional material. Sometimes this material clarifies the board's decision, so you may wish to read it anyway. You may also find it interesting.
There will be one conclusion for each questioned fact. In your transcript, you will need to note these decisions, and who has been judged to be at fault or not at fault. At this point it may be useful to refer back to the discussion and determine which arguments were used to support specific conclusions, which arguments conflict with specific conclusions, and which were used informationally and neither support nor conflict with specific conclusions.