Prerequisites and Methodology for Compiling Oral History

Written by Hassan Beheshtipoor
Translated by Kianoush Borzouei

2025-10-20

Introduction

Within the realm of knowledge and intellectual inquiry, a subtle boundary distinguishes imagination from reality. Imagination, when situated within the domains of literature and art, serves as a driving force of creation, generating worlds of greater beauty and aesthetic depth. However, when this force encroaches upon historical narrative, it transforms into a destructive affliction, undermining the foundations of collective memory. This passage from reality to imagination represents a constant and potentially lethal risk, particularly in oral history, which takes the direct accounts of event witnesses as its foundational core.

In literature and storytelling, the writer’s imagination is regarded as an added value; even the narrator’s illusions may deepen the work’s resonance. History, however, as a discipline grounded in evidence and facts, operates according to the opposite principle. When historiography is built upon the memories of narrators, individual subjectivities, and oral accounts, a fundamental question emerges: where is the boundary between the objective reality of what occurred and the mental representation of the narrator? In other words, how can historical facts be separated from the inadvertent or deliberate errors of the narrator?

This issue becomes more complex and dangerous when the eyewitness themselves becomes the ultimate author of the work. In such circumstances, the three roles of eyewitness, narrative memory, and author converge within a single individual. No neutral third party exists to interrogate, correct, or critically examine the narrative. Imagination unconsciously intervenes to fill memory gaps, and, in some cases, forgetfulness induced by the passage of time may replace the present reality—without the narrator even noticing this transformation. The resulting work is no longer a verified historical document but rather a form of memoir masquerading as history.

The central question, therefore, is: how does this great affliction—which, in some cases, pollutes our true history with distorted personal narratives—arise? More importantly, through which mechanisms and methodologies can it be addressed, ensuring that the authenticity and credibility of oral history are not sacrificed to the allure of imagination or illusion?

The present paper seeks to propose a practical model for transforming individual narratives into collective historical records and to describe the prerequisites and methodological measures necessary for compiling an oral history that is committed, systematic, and credible.

1. Origins of Distortion in Oral History

Before proposing solutions, it is essential to accurately identify the “disease.” Distortion in oral history primarily manifests through four channels:

1.1. Unconscious Distortion (Memory Errors)

Unintentional distortion, arising from the passage of time and forgetfulness, constitutes a natural cognitive error. Memory does not function as a faithful recorder but as an active reconstructive system. Over time, details fade, and the brain unconsciously fills gaps with general information, personal logic, or even others’ narratives. This reconstructed memory gradually consolidates in the narrator’s mind as reality.

1.2. Intentional Distortion (Personal Bias)

This major affliction includes deliberate alterations motivated by pride, self-censorship, or resentment. The narrator intentionally modifies facts, often driven by one of the following motives:

• Self-heroization: exaggerating one’s own role and downplaying failures.
• Face-saving: concealing mistakes or controversial actions.
• Personal or ideological vendettas: casting opponents in a negative light or belittling rivals.
• Group loyalty: distorting the narrative to protect the “honor” of a group, party, or institution.

1.3. Distortion of the Narrative Itself (Audience Consideration)

Here, the narrator shapes their account not based on what they witnessed but based on what they believe the audience—whether the government, publisher, international community, or younger generation—wants to hear. This represents a form of memory marketing, aimed at gaining approval, legitimacy, or avoiding trouble.

1.4. Analytical Distortion (Presentist Judgment)

Arguably the most complex and dangerous form of distortion occurs when the narrator interprets past events not in the historical context and limitations of the time but through the lens of contemporary knowledge, values, and perspectives. This updating of the past often leads to unjust judgments and a lack of true understanding of historical circumstances. Additionally, knowing the ultimate outcome of an event (hindsight knowledge) may unconsciously direct the narrative so as to make it seem inevitable.

2. separating Reality from Imagination: Methodological Imperatives

To address the aforementioned challenges, interventions must be implemented at three levels: pre-interview, during the interview, and post-interview.

2.1. Stage One: Training the Interviewer-Researcher and Narrator (Prevention)

It is crucial to recognize that a successful interviewer is not merely a sound recorder but a researcher combining multiple skills. The interviewer should not be a passive listener; they must, through prior study, construct a framework of reality regarding the event and employ precise, detailed, and challenging questions to elicit more accurate recollections. Photographs, documents, and maps should be presented during the interview to revive the narrator’s memories.

A. Human Skills: the ability to establish trust, empathy, and a secure environment for the narrator.
B. Technical Skills: mastery over open-ended, detailed, sequential, and inquiry questions. Questions regarding “who, where, when, and how” take precedence over interpretive questions such as “why.”
C. Research Skills: prior familiarity with the historical period, main figures, and macro-events is essential to develop an initial truth framework to facilitate verification.
D. Creating a “Self-Assessment Checklist”: the interviewer/author can develop a checklist, for instance:

• Have I cross-checked this part of the narrative with at least three independent sources (archival documents, period press, or other memoirs)?
• Have I highlighted sections where the narrator’s account conflicts with other sources or relies on fragile memory using notes like “I recall that…” or “I presume…”?
• Are my questions focused primarily on “what, where, when, how” rather than “why”? (The “why” questions tend to be analytical, while the descriptive four-question set is reality-oriented.)
• Asking “why” after each claim encourages the narrator to consider deeper layers of motivation and action, moving beyond generalizations.

2.2. Training the Narrator

Potential narrators, often elderly, should understand that the core value of their work lies in honesty, not heroization. They must be aware of common memory errors (e.g., interference and reconstruction).

• Social Responsibility: the narrator must understand that they are providing a piece of the puzzle, not the final word in history. Their honesty guarantees the historical integrity of their generation.
• The narrator should also be informed that oral history is an exceptional but highly significant source for reconstructing contemporary history faithfully, and they must make every effort to report events accurately.

2.3. Stage Two: Conducting Group-Comparative Interviews (Real-Time Correction)

Instead of relying on a single narrator, collecting multiple narratives of a single event is an effective strategy. Here, several narrators who participated in a shared event are interviewed collectively.

A. Advantages:

1. Memory Synergy: one person’s memory sparks recollections in others, reviving forgotten details.
2. Collective Error Correction: discrepancies in dates, locations, sequences, or roles can be corrected immediately by other narrators, functioning as a real-time quality-control mechanism.
3. Polyphonic Narrative: this method captures a range of perspectives, enhancing the historical richness of the account.
4. Improved Verification: cross-checking becomes easier and more precise.
5. Increased Audience Trust: credibility is strengthened.

B. Operational and Psychological Considerations:

1. Achieving consensus on a core narrative is crucial. The interviewer can summarize key points agreed upon and meticulously record points of disagreement, which themselves may become subjects for historical research.
2. A dominant or strong-willed narrator may monopolize the narrative, silencing quieter participants. The interviewer must ensure equitable participation and prevent any single voice from dominating the session.
3. Some personal or painful memories may not be suitable for group discussion. Combining group interviews (for public events) with individual interviews (for personal aspects) is recommended.
4. Even if the interviewer/author intends to produce a narrative book, complete audio/video recordings must be archived in a reputable institution (e.g., national library or university) to guarantee transparency and allow future review by researchers.

2.4. Stage Three: Post-Interview Verification (Final Safeguard)

After transcription, the text must undergo three diligent verification stages:

1. Documentary Fact-Checking: all objective data (dates, places, individuals, and events) are compared with reliable sources, including archives, contemporary press, and other accounts. Discrepancies should be noted in footnotes. A preface should clarify the book’s position between mere memoir and oral history. The historian’s commentary can also highlight contradictions or presentist interpretations. This transforms the work from a one-sided narrative into a dialogue-based text.
2. Internal Consistency: the narrative’s internal logic is examined carefully. Are there contradictions? Are the sequences of events chronologically plausible? Are descriptions socially and physically credible in their historical context? Highlighting instances where “hindsight” replaces “in-the-moment” narration is essential.
3. Peer Review: the manuscript should be reviewed by a small panel: a specialist historian of the relevant period, a neutral contemporary witness (if possible), and an oral history methodology expert. Their written feedback informs final revisions. Acknowledgment of reviewers in the preface (with permission) adds credibility.

Conclusion

Oral history, despite its value, is inherently fragile and prone to deviation—from document to myth, from constructive reality to destructive imagination. Preventing such divergence requires implementing a rigorous methodology. While memory errors cannot be eliminated entirely, a systematic, multi-perspective, and transparent approach can minimize their effects and prevent this treasure from becoming mere imagination.

The goal is not to exclude narrators or authors but to arm them—and their audience—with tools for critical evaluation. The proposed framework, based on three pillars—interviewer-researcher, group interviews, and final verification—offers a practical method for institutionalizing honesty and credibility. Applying this methodology allows oral history to reclaim its rightful place as a vital component of contemporary historiography and ensures a reliable legacy for future generations.

Finally, no narrative should be accepted as absolute truth. Oral history is credible when multiple, even contradictory, accounts of a single event are collected, compared, and analyzed. This polyphonic approach itself constitutes a methodological standard for writing oral history.^[1]