Experts Answer Oral History Questions

100 Questions/ 1

Translated by Mandana Karimi

2025-10-22

We asked several researchers and practitioners in the field of oral history to share their views on key questions in this field. The name of each participant appears at the beginning of their response. All responses will be published on this portal by the end of the week. The goal of this project is to open new perspectives on a shared issue and to promote academic dialogue in the field of oral history.

In this project, a new question is posed every Saturday, and experts are invited to express their views in a short text (around 100 words) by the end of the week. All responses are published together so that readers can compare and analyze different viewpoints.

The views expressed belong to the contributors and do not necessarily represent the stance of the Oral History website. Although the responses are expected to be around 100 words, longer ones are accepted when needed for politeness or completeness of discussion.

Question 1:
Is the involvement of government organizations in the production of oral history, an opportunity or a threat?

Hassan Beheshtipour:

The involvement of governmental institutions in producing oral history content is both an opportunity and a threat.
It is a threat because researchers may align their narratives with the official state perspective to please authorities, thereby distorting historical truth.
On the other hand, it is an opportunity since government institutions, with their authority and resources, can fund large projects and provide credible, well-documented accounts that resist distortion of Iran’s history by its enemies.
Moreover, oral historians gain easier access to archives and documents for verification through such institutions.
Nevertheless, it is vital to prevent monopolization and ensure that independent researchers can also operate freely and creatively. Healthy competition among various institutions helps avoid clichés, prevent waste of funds, and ensure that projects do not drag on unnecessarily.

Gholamreza Azari Khakestar:

The entry of government centers into oral history is a two-sided phenomenon — both an opportunity and a threat.
On one side, it is an opportunity because it allows for the recording and preservation of parts of the nation’s oral heritage. Government institutions, within their mandates, collect and publish a variety of narratives. Though these often reflect specific orientations, if researchers gain access to unpublished data, such archives could serve as valuable resources for oral history research.
However, there are also threats. First, interviews are often conducted with particular goals in mind, rather than with an open and neutral perspective. Second, less important aspects of history may be exaggerated, while narratives that align with institutional policies are promoted. Many government-produced oral histories show signs of censorship and expediency, with editors avoiding full disclosure of reality. This leads to selective history-making and diminishes the professional independence of researchers.
In sum, while state institutions can help preserve parts of national memory, without intellectual independence and neutrality, their involvement risks distorting and one-siding historical narratives.

Abolfazl Hasan Abadi:

The development of oral history worldwide shows that it began in universities and research centers. This was due to its novelty, limited public awareness, and the lack of public involvement in producing and using oral history.
Initially, such projects depended on institutional support. Gradually, with the emergence of professional associations, research centers, specialized archives, and new technologies, oral history became more democratized and extended beyond academia into fields like industry, medicine, education, culture, and sociology.
In Iran, oral history developed mainly through two domains: the Islamic Revolution and the Holy Defense (Iran–Iraq war). However, Iran’s oral history structure remains one of the most state-dependent. Since oral history is expensive, large, and methodical projects require funding — which in many countries comes from private institutions — this dependency brings both advantages and disadvantages, such as subjectivity, emphasis on publication over archiving, limited access for researchers, and lack of diversity in content.
Ultimately, the expansion and privatization of oral history must not confine national memory solely to written works, depriving audiences of oral expression and research potential.

Mohammad Mahdi Abdollahzadeh:

After the Islamic Revolution and the Iran–Iraq War, the need to document these two monumental events highlighted the necessity of entering a new field called oral history, a concept then unfamiliar in Iran.
This prompted several government organizations to take the initiative by organizing and training interested individuals. Through national conferences and educational courses, they recruited capable participants, trained them, and provided ongoing support. These efforts led to the production of numerous works, which, over time and through evaluation, achieved higher professional standards.
Although such institutional activity had limitations, one cannot overlook its foundational role in shaping Iran’s oral history. Without these initial governmental efforts, the discipline’s growth and consolidation in Iran would have been far slower.

Mohammad Mahdi Behdarvand:

Government involvement in oral history is a double-edged phenomenon. On one side, official institutions, with their budgets, staff, and access to national archives, can enable extensive and systematic documentation of memories. On the other, structural dependence on political power risks biasing narratives, silencing independent voices, and turning history into a tool of legitimacy. Oral history retains its authenticity only when honesty, plurality, and narrative freedom are preserved.

Ali Tattari:

Over the past five decades, governmental activity in historical and oral history research has presented both opportunities and threats. When competent experts lead such institutions, their actions can advance national and scholarly goals. However, unqualified leadership yields short- and long-term harm.
Although state involvement has somewhat reduced academic credibility, the absence of financial support from these bodies would stagnate or even prevent serious research projects.

Shafigheh Niknafs:

Modern historians have criticized traditional historiography for being overly tied to state institutions and interests, as court historians often could not reflect realities contrary to rulers’ wishes.
This critique also applies to oral history, where researchers collecting historical data through interviews are often influenced by the sponsoring institutions and sometimes fail to maintain neutrality — especially when funded or employed by the state.
In Iran, oral history largely grew within state-supported organizations. This increases the risk of bias but also provides the structural and financial backing needed for extensive projects.
It should be noted that even universities and research centers, which also rely on public funding, are not entirely free from institutional constraints.
Thus, while government participation has been crucial to the growth of oral history in Iran, using this opportunity wisely remains a challenge.

Hamid Ghazvini:

Oral history in Iran has been most influenced by research into the two major phenomena of the Islamic Revolution and the Sacred Defense — areas that would have been impossible to study without official support. Hence, such backing was vital for establishing and advancing the field.
Given ongoing sensitivities around some historical topics, state involvement still plays a facilitative role. However, many subjects lie beyond the interests of government institutions, so they should encourage greater participation by independent and private sectors under a broader national vision.

Hossein Zanjani:

This initial question is broad and could be examined generally or through specific cases. Oral history, as a research method, gathers documents, observations, and experiences of individuals about specific events or periods, complementing written sources, images, and chronicles.
Since historical research is costly and often under government jurisdiction, state support for defining major projects, funding, archiving, and publishing is desirable and even necessary.
However, when state interference distorts facts, manipulates narratives, or selectively highlights certain aspects of history, it damages the credibility and integrity of oral history itself.

Seyed Mohammad Sadegh Feyz:

Overall, the presence of official institutions in oral history represents both opportunity and threat.
The opportunity lies in the fact that many organizations recognize the unique value of their archives and strive to document their history — sometimes without expert help. Even if imperfect, such efforts expose hidden aspects of institutional memory and can open paths for independent researchers to build upon these findings.
Yet, the threat arises when such institutions restrict access or refuse collaboration, forcing researchers to rely on incomplete or secondary data — “the spoiled pears of the market,” as the saying goes — producing biased or inadequate results.
Ultimately, oral history, like any craft, must be practiced by skilled specialists, just as not everyone is qualified to wield a weapon in self-defense.

Jafar Golshan Roghani:

If we accept that oral history, as a method of historical research and writing, seeks to explore and explain Iran’s contemporary history, we are faced with a vast, largely untapped ocean of topics.
Therefore, participation by any individual, organization, or institution — governmental or otherwise — is fundamentally valuable, provided the resulting works meet professional research standards.
State institutions enjoy advantages such as financial and technical resources, organizational discipline, and access to influential figures, which can greatly aid in data collection and documentation.
If these institutions produce high-quality, scientifically grounded works, their contribution to oral history is highly beneficial. But if their works are biased or propagandistic, their involvement becomes harmful, as governments often seek to impose their preferred version of history and suppress alternative narratives.
Hence, the determining factor is quality. When official institutions consciously strive for excellence, their participation can reveal hidden layers of Iran’s modern history and deepen public historical understanding.

Gholamreza Azizi:

Government involvement in oral history simultaneously offers valuable opportunities and potential risks.

  Opportunities:
– Partial or full funding of projects, especially those requiring expensive audiovisual equipment.
– Greater trust from interviewees due to institutional credibility.
– Support for organizing, archiving, and preserving interviews.

Threats:
– Politicization: Some institutions pursue political gain, emphasizing what benefits them and downplaying what doesn’t.
– Superficial mass production: When quantity replaces quality, projects lose depth and rigor, often being rushed and handled by non-specialists due to budget constraints.