Validation: Challenges and Necessities

Hamid Qazvini
Translated by Fazel Shirzad

2026-5-19

Where does truth stand in oral history? How can the correctness of a narrative be recognized? Does fact-checking matter? If there is exaggeration in the reporting of some accounts, how can it be detected? Is it possible to record an event accurately through the recording of a narrative?

Readers and users of oral history works are often faced with these questions, and sometimes encounter doubts about some oral history works.

It has been said many times that oral history is the product of a purposeful dialogue with individuals about the past, and because narratives are subject to the knowledge, perception, judgment, and inclinations of the narrators, they can be mixed with flaws. After all, human memory does not have a stable condition and, due to various reasons, suffers from weakness and changes in the form and content of narratives. Memory makes mistakes, especially about details. It is quite possible that some memories are completely erased from memory, and over time other narratives replace the original memories and observations, and the narrator mistakenly thinks these are his memories. So error and mistake in narration are natural. Even exaggeration can happen unconsciously. Of course, lying and fabrication, which are done intentionally, are of a different kind.

To enter into this discussion of how and from what point the validation of oral history begins, we must clarify what we expect from the interviewee and his narrative. What is he supposed to talk about? Is he to tell the facts of his life, or to reflect on his lived experience? Is he to tell every single detail, or take a cursory look at the past? Perhaps some want to know his overall understanding or analysis of his life. So, we must ask, whose perspective and about what is the truth we seek? From the narrator's perspective, or the readers', or the one for whom the narrative is being shaped? For example, someone recounts memories for the sake of a father, mother, or anyone they love, and this very issue causes them not to tell their full narrative. In any case, everyone's narrative is nothing but a theory of their life, in which, perhaps against their will, many parts have been forgotten or misunderstood.[1]

These very points show the degree of diversity we face when dealing with oral history. Some believe that whatever a narrator says about their life, no matter how incorrect, whether they know it or not, reveals a truth. Every utterance, even if brief, even if inaccurate or distorted, is a description of some aspect of the narrator's personality. Therefore, it can neither be fully confirmed nor doubted in its validity. It is we who must compare our expectations with other narratives from the same person and other sources.[2]

Thus, the truth of the narrative lies in the exchange between the narrator and the audience, so that a shared understanding of the past is created. The multi-faceted nature of such texts, instead of a single, unchanging truth, creates a polyphonic and multiform focal point in which the individual cannot disclose a single, final truth; but he can create an interpretable text in which the audience participates in its interpretation.[3]

With regard to the above, it seems that the narratives resulting from oral history interviews should be assessed not within a fixed framework but through critical and, of course, methodical evaluation. This will be done by cross-referencing with other sources, critiquing the narrative, examining the narrator's position, and analyzing the interview process. In this part, the researcher must ask numerous questions about the interview and the process of conducting it.[4]

For the critical and methodical evaluation of oral history, the following criteria can be used:

1. Internal Validity: In this section, the internal validity of the narrative is assessed. The components and variables of the narrative should be viewed in a logical order. No part of the narrative and the reasons for its formation should contradict another part. Also, attention should be paid to whether the narrator provides a consistent narrative across different interviews or whether their narrative changes according to the situation or any other factor. An important point in this section is assessing the narrator's memory. If the interviewee has forgotten many events and makes significant errors, they cannot provide a valid and reliable narrative.

2) External Validity: At this stage, the narrator's position and their narrative are measured against external components. What narrative do other individuals, written sources, and images provide? Of course, alignment with written documents, although it lends credibility, should not be fully trusted either, because some written documents also contain errors, such as SAVAK documents, which are not always reliable and trustworthy.

3) Criteria Related to the Narrator: In this section, the tendencies, presuppositions, and assumptions that influence the narrator's perspective must be considered. Family background, religious beliefs, value system, personal experiences, age, time period, location, ethnicity, relation (to events), education, and social class are among the influential factors.[5] In this section, the narrator's position should be assessed. Was he in a position to play a direct role in the event or observe it without intermediaries? Was his role direct, peripheral, or at a great (spatial and temporal) distance? Also, what political, personal, or emotional motives does he have in presenting the narrative? Could these motives influence his narrative? In this narrative, does he present himself as a hero, victim, or innocent? How do his class, ethnic, political, or gender position affect his perspective? Furthermore, what is the relationship between his physical, mental, emotional condition or his knowledge of the event and the narrative? To what extent did he have freedom and agency in presenting the narrative? How much command and awareness did he have over the details of the event?

On the other hand, what is the narrator's tone? With what kind of language does he view the subject? Is he angry? Does he speak logically or sarcastically? Calm? Judgmental? Dominant? Thoughtful? Conversational? Emotional? Sentimental? Excited? Happy? Sad? Does a single tone dominate the interview, or does the tone differ from one section to another? In any case, language carries its own specific meaning, and often the vocabulary and each mode of expression belong to a specific period. Words may have had a specific meaning in one era with a different usage than today.[6]

4) Criteria Related to the Interviewer and the Interview Process: In analyzing any type of narrative, understanding the researcher's purpose is essential. For what purpose was the narrative created, and why has it survived until now? Some interviews have organizational goals; such interviews are usually within a specific framework and do not go beyond it.[7] What background factors might have influenced the author's perspective? Was there any reason for misrepresentation or exaggeration?[8] Obviously, factors such as the quality of the questions, how they were posed, and the interviewer's competence are important. Due to the interviewer's role in formulating questions and directing the interview process, a clear evaluation of their role is necessary. Did they have sufficient knowledge of the narrator before the interview? Were the questions leading, biased, or suggestive? Was the interview under the interviewer's control, or did the interviewee direct it? Also, what was the relationship between the interviewer and the narrator like? Did the parties trust each other, or was an atmosphere of mistrust and fear dominant in the interview? Did the interviewer fully record the interview, obtain supplementary details, and were they all transcribed accurately? In what setting was the interview conducted? Freely or under pressure? What were the temporal and spatial conditions of the narrative? Did they explain how the interviews were conducted and the challenges faced? Undoubtedly, if the interviewer and editor possess adequate scientific and professional competence, they will be more capable of identifying ambiguities, contradictions, errors, exaggerations, and lies at the stage of narrative formation.

5) Criteria Related to the Audience: Every oral history work is prepared for an audience, or in other words, the author of the source has a specific audience in mind. The audience can significantly influence the author's work: why, how, to what extent, and with what characteristics they write. Naturally, in evaluations, one must distinguish between two types of audience: first, the specific, anticipated audience for whom the author has tailored the narrative from the beginning, which has a limited scope, such as organizational audiences, members of cultural and educational projects, or a limited group of researchers. Second, the unspecified, unanticipated audience, which has a broad scope and may be of lesser importance. In any case, whichever of these two groups is involved will likely have an impact on the quality of the narrative.

Thus, the validation of oral history works is a multifaceted and fluid matter, the responsibility of which does not rest on just one or two individuals, and it can be discussed and examined in the interaction between the narrator, the researcher, the text, and the audience.