Which priority?
Receipt of memories or truth discovery
Hamid Qazvini
Translated by Natalie Haghverdian
2018-1-16
Targeted interview within the framework of a specific subject is one of the prominent features of oral history. Accordingly, the oral history scholars are requested to maintain respect towards the narrator, open their mind and patiently listen to the narrator and ask questions in due time within the limits defined.
Acknowledging this features raises a question: “Is the only task of the interviewer, steering and directing the interview towards the goal of receiving memories?” or “The interviewer is tasked to maintain a parallel dialogue with the narrator to discover the truth?”
This question is highlighted in discourses around the interview where the necessity of building and maintaining dialogue and its requirements with the narrator are analyzed.
In order to find a proper answer to this question we have to acknowledge that the main objective of oral history in the first place is to receive memories and record observations of the narrator as an historical document. In fact, the scholar meets with the narrator in order to add a new narrative to the existing ones and record new truths to complement and modify the existing literature. Subsequently, in such settings, recording memories is of highest priority.
However, the dialogue formed during an oral history interview might be challenging and critical and the scholar engages not as a passive audience but an active researcher, but this dialogue is not of the same quality of the classic dialogues in political and cultural and social arenas which occurs in between the experts and elites of the field.
The most important point is that in other dialogues the parties to the discourse try to share and transfer their ideas and thoughts maintaining and equal status and receive the discourse of others with flexibility and open might; however, in oral history, one party (the interviewer), despite all the information they might have over the subject (sometimes even more than the narrator) does not enjoy an equal status with the narrator. Equal status would not necessitate a discourse and record of memories. Originally, the narrator has not agreed to an interview in order to listen to what the interviewer has to say but the narrator is willing to receive and respond to the interviewers questions in a targeted and challenging interview.
In fact, the interviewer, based on information available and identified gaps, makes the effort to build a dialogue and receive the narrator’s unique information. Hence, the discourse differs in type from any other customary dialogues in other fields.
Accordingly, it has to be stated that the oral history scholar is mainly tasked to record memories however his/her mere task is not searching for the memoirs and recording the preferred stories of the narrator but builds and maintains a conducive and mutual interaction through a targeted dialogue to create a new and verifiable chapter in the history so truth discovery is a priority.
Number of Visits: 6602
The latest
- Oral History and Social Resilience in Hard Times
- 100 Questions/ 34
- Third Regiment: Memoirs of an Iraqi Prisoner of War Doctor – 34
- A Review of Scientific and Operational Strategies for Overcoming the Erosion of Narrators’ Memory
- 100 Questions/ 33
- Expert Panel Session on Oral History of the Country – (Part 2)
- Memoirs of Ahmad Nabavi
- Third Regiment: Memoirs of an Iraqi Prisoner of War Doctor – 33
Most visited
- Expert Panel Session on Oral History of the Country – (Part 1)
- Oral History News/April–May 2026
- Memoirs of Majid Yousefzadeh
- Third Regiment: Memoirs of an Iraqi Prisoner of War Doctor – 33
- Expert Panel Session on Oral History of the Country – (Part 2)
- 100 Questions/ 33
- Memoirs of Ahmad Nabavi
- A Review of Scientific and Operational Strategies for Overcoming the Erosion of Narrators’ Memory
Validation: Challenges and Necessities
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.From Revolutionary Circles to the Military Arm of the Islamic Government
In those days, it became clear that certain institutions had to be established very quickly—institutions suited to the temperament, expectations, and lingering aspirations of the younger generation; young people who had been politically active before the Revolution and, in some cases, had been directly entangled in arrests, imprisonment, ...Authenticating Oral History: From Possibility to Necessity
The use of oral history as one of the historical sources has long been one of the principal challenges facing oral historians and those who employ it in contemporary historiography. The development of international standards for oral history, as well as IRIB standards, was intended to address the criticisms raised in this regard. The relationship between Diplomatics in written records and oral history is reciprocal.100 Questions/27
What is the place of research ethics in compiling oral history?We asked several researchers and activists in the field of oral history to express their views on oral history questions. The names of each participant are listed at the beginning of their answers, and the text of all answers will be published on this portal by the end of the week.
