A critique of research in oral History

Obstacles, Limitations, and New Horizons

Fazel Shirzad

2025-12-30

Oral history is an engaging branch of historical and sociological studies that opens a pathway into the world of lived experiences, memories, and individual narratives. This approach is particularly significant for understanding social, cultural, and identity history, as many layers of people’s lives remain silent in official and written documents. By centering on personal and collective memories, everyday experiences, marginal perspectives, and lesser-seen narratives, oral history presents a vivid and human image of the past. Nevertheless, this method faces serious challenges and critiques that have continually been the subject of reflection and debate at the theoretical, methodological, and practical levels.

One of the most fundamental critiques concerns researchers’ excessive reliance on individual memory and the recollections of interviewees.[1] Some argue that human memory is influenced by various factors such as the passage of time, subsequent experiences, and social pressure. Even the researcher’s interests and expectations may lead to the distortion or reconstruction of memories.[2] Consequently, many researchers who assume that individual memories directly reflect objective truth may arrive at unrealistic or incomplete conclusions. For example, in examining the memories of veterans of the Iran–Iraq War, it has been observed that many details related to time and place have changed or have been aligned with official narratives in order to conform to collective memory and the dominant discourse[3].

At the theoretical level, another critique has been directed at oral history. Some researchers analyze individual experience in an overly conceptual or symbolic manner, thereby increasing the distance between personal narratives and the realities of everyday life.[4] This approach may lead researchers to focus on extracting general patterns or meanings from memories while neglecting the direct observation of lived realities and tangible experiences. Moreover, accepting memories as absolute truth without analyzing their social, cultural, and political contexts can oversimplify historical complexities.  [5]

Political and ideological critique constitutes another major axis of criticism. Oral history is always intertwined with collective memory and the politics of memory. Researchers sometimes fail to adequately consider the fact that interviewees’ memories are shaped under the influence of power, censorship, and official narratives. This neglect can result in research that reproduces official and national narratives while marginal or dissenting accounts remain less visible. For instance, in many studies related to the revolution and war, the memories of women or ethnic minorities have been less frequently recorded and analyzed due to dominant memory politics.  [6]

Serious critiques have also been raised at the practical and ethical levels. Failure to respect the rights of interviewees, the absence of precise consent forms, and a lack of attention to the psychological and social impacts of interviews constitute major challenges in oral history research. Researchers who focus solely on data collection and disregard the effects of their work on the memories and mental well-being of interviewees may cause harm to individuals’ experiences. For example, some oral history projects in Iran that have dealt with the memories of war survivors, due to the absence of appropriate ethical methods, have led to the reactivation of painful memories and the creation of anxiety among interviewees.[7]

Another critique relates to topic selection and research focus. Some scholars have noted that oral history sometimes concentrates excessively on heroic, tragic, or major historical events, while neglecting everyday experiences, marginal narratives, and the ordinary lives of people.[8] This limited focus results in an unbalanced and idealized portrayal of the past and prevents the full representation of the richness of human experiences. In fact, a large portion of social and cultural history that is formed within people’s daily lives may be omitted in traditional oral history research[9].

Despite these critiques, oral history remains a valuable tool for uncovering the hidden dimensions of history. To improve the quality of research, it is essential that scholars:

• adopt a critical analysis of narratives and examine individual memories within their social, political, and cultural contexts;
• consider the influence of politics and power on historical memory and pay attention to marginal and dissenting narratives;
• observe ethical considerations and the psychological and social impacts of interviews on participants;
• broaden the range of topics and experiences studied and avoid limiting research solely to tragic or heroic narratives.[[10]]

By adopting these approaches, oral history can move beyond its methodological and theoretical limitations and provide a more comprehensive and realistic understanding of human historical experience. Furthermore, combining oral history with interdisciplinary methods such as sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies can open new horizons in the analysis of individual and collective history, enabling researchers to record and interpret memories with greater precision and sensitivity.