halp

>>17991299

You fess up and throw yourself before the mercy of the Academic Affairs Committee. If you keep lyibg tgey will keep digging and they will find more problems with your story. There is no way this ends well, no sense in making it worse.

File: 1485286184362.jpg (24KB, 547x540px)

24KB, 547x540px

>>17991299
Tell her that you had it all recorded and partially transcribed. But you lost your recordings through some accident and had to build from what you imperfectly recalled. If she asks why you didn't come forwar earlier just say you are stressed and panicked, play it humble and apologetic she will melt at most or give you a pass.

>>17991304
I like the idea.
so I say, I had it recorded and partially transcribed.
and then I lost those files so I rebuilt the interview based on that imperfectly..

does it sound good?

>>17991320
Your explanation is such obvious bullshit that the prof will be insulted that you think it would work.. Either follow the first advice of confessing and asking for an Incomplete and the chance to do it for real, or partly confess that you based the paper on fewer and shorter interviews than you claimed, and hope that's enough for a D or C-

OP do you realize that this is fraud? And not the kind of grey area where it might be misquoting, but really willful fraud? If the university you attend is a self-respecting institution they will kick out your ass so hard that you see stars.

Either way, no, what the other anon mentioned is probably your best bet but EXTREMELY flimsy. If you actually had transcriptions for an hour of interviewing (which is easily 15-25 pages of text, btw), you would never have sent her a tiny part without any explanation as it would immediately be apparent that it does nothing to back up your claim.

What's more, it seems to escape you but it's not that easy to write down a transcription exactly as people talk. Written and spoken language are entirely different - even apart from the fact that as your grader there's even a chance she instantly recognizes it's your work from your word choice and spelling/grammar, even if she can't there's a good chance that your transcription is way too neat to be a literal conversation. It's the difference between;

"So then I started up this company and had a source of my own income."
And
"So I guess that... well not immediately, but somewhere around that time I thought, I have to get my own money. But- and I was, or well, I was going to try something with a colleague but that kind of... it petered out but it made me realize I just wanted my own thing."

Can't even make it as fumbly as it should be because English isn't my first language so I'm not 100% in tune with informally spoken English. But you get the idea.

>tl;dr you're fucked

>>17991802
Still forgot to include, chances are she wasn't so much thrown off by the length of the interviews but by the neat results that came out of it. Virtually any study done as a college assignment has no significant correlation whatsoever because there's way too few respondents and what not. Even if there's a very linear correlation, if you only speak a handful of people then the chances of them exactly mirroring what is to be expected from the theory is incredibly unlikely.

>>17991320
No. In an academic context, someone entrusting you with their thoughts so you can use them as data is pretty much sacred. The idea that you want to argue that you just paraphrased it from memory and brought it down to a fourth of the original material...

No. It does not sound good.

>>17991299
>nothing serious but help appreciated

Your best option is to tell her what you did. She already knows. The more you lie, the more she'll push for an expulsion. If she's merciful, she may let you redo the project at a reduced grade. Hell making you retake the class would be merciful, seeing as you should be thrown out of the school.

>>17991802
Shit, just reread >>17991304 and didn't realize he wanted you to reconstruct it. No that's terrible. I thought it was just about pretending that a part had gone lost.

Then I fully agree with >>17991841, just fess up. Also I doubt that you included enough questions that don't lead anywhere, being vague or beating around the bush... if your "transcript" shows the quickest way to get all the information from the respondent to you then no professor will have any doubt that it's entirely fabricated.