This paper discusses the complexities of interview transcription in qualitative research. While often seen as a behind-the-scenes task, transcription is a powerful act of representation. Transcription can be practiced in multiple ways, including naturalism, where every utterance is captured in as much detail as possible, and denaturalism, where grammar is corrected, interview noise is removed, and nonstandard accents are standardized. The authors argue that researchers should incorporate reflection into their research design by interrogating their transcription decisions and the possible impact these decisions may have on participants and research outcomes. The paper discusses the constraints and opportunities of transcription practices in the context of a mixed-methods study examining the disclosure decisions of HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM). The qualitative portion of the study involved semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 57 participants. Due to the sensitive nature of the data, the researchers faced challenges in maintaining participant confidentiality and avoiding assumptions based on ethnic or class identity. The paper highlights the importance of transcription in qualitative research, noting that it can significantly affect how participants are understood, the information they share, and the conclusions drawn. It discusses the two dominant modes of transcription: naturalism, which captures speech in detail, and denaturalism, which aims to present speech in a more standardized form. The authors suggest that researchers should reflect on their transcription choices to ensure that they align with their research objectives and that they do not compromise participant confidentiality or the integrity of the research. The paper also discusses the challenges of transcription, including the representation of non-standard speech, the interpretation of vocalizations and non-verbal cues, and the handling of grammatical errors. The authors argue that transcription decisions should be made with care, considering the potential impact on participants and the research outcomes. They suggest that researchers should consider using two versions of the transcript: a naturalized version for in-depth analysis and a denaturalized version for member-checking and other types of analysis. In conclusion, the paper emphasizes the importance of reflection in transcription practices and the need for researchers to carefully consider their transcription decisions to ensure that they are both ethically and methodologically sound. The authors argue that transcription is a critical aspect of qualitative research and that researchers should be mindful of the potential impact of their transcription choices on participants and the research outcomes.This paper discusses the complexities of interview transcription in qualitative research. While often seen as a behind-the-scenes task, transcription is a powerful act of representation. Transcription can be practiced in multiple ways, including naturalism, where every utterance is captured in as much detail as possible, and denaturalism, where grammar is corrected, interview noise is removed, and nonstandard accents are standardized. The authors argue that researchers should incorporate reflection into their research design by interrogating their transcription decisions and the possible impact these decisions may have on participants and research outcomes. The paper discusses the constraints and opportunities of transcription practices in the context of a mixed-methods study examining the disclosure decisions of HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM). The qualitative portion of the study involved semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 57 participants. Due to the sensitive nature of the data, the researchers faced challenges in maintaining participant confidentiality and avoiding assumptions based on ethnic or class identity. The paper highlights the importance of transcription in qualitative research, noting that it can significantly affect how participants are understood, the information they share, and the conclusions drawn. It discusses the two dominant modes of transcription: naturalism, which captures speech in detail, and denaturalism, which aims to present speech in a more standardized form. The authors suggest that researchers should reflect on their transcription choices to ensure that they align with their research objectives and that they do not compromise participant confidentiality or the integrity of the research. The paper also discusses the challenges of transcription, including the representation of non-standard speech, the interpretation of vocalizations and non-verbal cues, and the handling of grammatical errors. The authors argue that transcription decisions should be made with care, considering the potential impact on participants and the research outcomes. They suggest that researchers should consider using two versions of the transcript: a naturalized version for in-depth analysis and a denaturalized version for member-checking and other types of analysis. In conclusion, the paper emphasizes the importance of reflection in transcription practices and the need for researchers to carefully consider their transcription decisions to ensure that they are both ethically and methodologically sound. The authors argue that transcription is a critical aspect of qualitative research and that researchers should be mindful of the potential impact of their transcription choices on participants and the research outcomes.