The Importance of Pre-Publication Critique of Oral History Works
Compiled by Maryam Asadi Jafari
Translated by Fazel Shirzad
2025-11-27
Note: According to the Oral History website, a meeting for critique and review of the book “Oral History: Essence and Method” was held on Monday morning, November 10, 2025, with the attendance of the book’s author, Hamid Qazvini, and the critics Mohammad Qasemipour and Yahya Niazi, at the Ghasr-e Shirin Hall of the National Museum of the Islamic Revolution and Sacred Defense.
At the beginning of the session, Yahya Niazi stated: “The presence of works such as ‘Oral History: Essence and Method’ has long been lacking in the field of oral history. The introduction clearly and explicitly defines the book’s direction and purpose. More importantly, the author states in the introduction that he welcomes criticism and does not claim the book to be complete, and that this session can enrich future editions. In some parts, the author could have used a chart or figure to make the content more visually appealing. If we could institutionalize the practice of pre-publication critique, many issues that arise after publication would not occur.”
Following this, Mohammad Qasemipour, after criticizing the binding quality of the book “Oral History: Essence and Reason”, pointed out the necessity of redefining some oral history concepts in the first chapter of the work. He said:
“If we view oral history as an emerging and interdisciplinary science, we lack unified and standardized definitions of key terms in the field. The overlapping boundaries of oral history and memoir have caused confusion between these two concepts. Mr. Qazvini has intentionally avoided delving into deep academic definitions of oral history, but to bless the work and familiarize readers, he has offered some definitions that are largely simple and accessible, and the reader can engage with them without an instructor. However, in the concepts section and throughout the book, there are concerns within the text that I do not approve of. By nature, the scientific essence of oral history is not to produce a polished literary work. Oral history is primarily for preservation, documentation, archiving, and protecting memories from the harm of time. Even in the concepts section, before the reader learns about interviewing and compilation, the author is already concerned about the potential harms of editing and final output. My preference would have been to present the concepts first without entering the realm of writing. Specifically, the section titled ‘Form,’ which appears in the concepts chapter, and the subsequent discussion of balance in the work, are completely outside the central definitions of oral history.”
Qasemipour added: “Then the book enters an extensive discussion on the history of thought and the prerequisites for interviewing in the field of intellectual history. We have not yet fully familiarized ourselves with oral history, and suddenly this topic appears, which is an independent discussion and outside the scope of this educational book. In fact, in the concepts section, the book somewhat enters the realm of damage assessment. However, useful points have been mentioned under the title ‘Legal Framework,’ both of which are missing in the educational sphere. It would have been better if Mr. Qazvini had elaborated more on this topic, and this section has strengthened the concepts chapter.”
A Work Seeking to Correct the Output of Oral History
Continuing the critique session, Yahya Niazi, confirming Qasemipour’s remarks, said: “The perspective of the book in the concepts chapter is oriented toward text production. That is, the step-by-step training in the book emphasizes the output. In oral history, we are not primarily seeking to produce a final work; rather, we are more focused on producing documents. Oral history produces 7 to 8 types of reliable documents—from audio and video to transcribed verbatim texts, edited texts, and annotated texts. In the seventh stage, we reach published documents, and those texts that are intended to have certain features and appeal fall into derivative documents—materials that a novelist or screenwriter may later draw upon. Another point concerns the legal discussion, where Mr. Qazvini refers to protocols. However, the coherence of the text here becomes even more crucial so that our starting and ending point becomes clear. These protocols constitute part of the legal foundations for which we lack civil law. At least four foundations are considered legal pillars in oral history: first, legal texts; second, opinions of scholars in the field; third, existing customs and norms; and fourth, precedents established by experts, which continue to be followed and which, in specific legal matters, are known as judicial precedents. In authorship and research, these precedents are also valid. For example, something happens in the domain of oral history, and a group of experts take a particular approach; if no law is established, you can refer to these precedents.”
The advisor to the Center for Sacred Defense Documents and Research then referred to the differences between “science,” “school,” “knowledge,” and “method,” saying: “It appears that oral history is a method or tool for qualitative research. It may be too early to call oral history a science, although it is considered interdisciplinary. The task of science is to uncover the relationships between phenomena and to explain and interpret these relationships. From this perspective, we are still in the exploratory phase, but within the framework of qualitative research—meaning that through structured or semi-structured interviews, we reach certain truths.”
A Brief Overview of Oral History Topics: The Book’s Weak Point
Regarding the next two chapters, Mohammad Qasemipour believed that the structure and aim of the book improved the reader’s intellectual development. He said:
“It has been proven that oral history is an effective method for historical research and is widely used in Iran. The summaries and excerpts, compiled using sources, are mainly arranged in the academic framework of the 2000s and 2010s. That is, even those original works are open to debate. I agree that a cursory dialectical reference is fine, but for learners who want to use oral history as a tool and method, it will not be practical. I believe the main investment of the book should have focused on training capable individuals for conducting oral history. However, in some parts of the book, concerns related to the text and the narrators’ states and conditions are discussed. But the narrators are not the intended audience of this educational book. The interviewer is the one present and reading this book. We want to tell the interviewer what abilities and skills they must develop in oral history. In my view, the text should have remained faithful to this point.”
Then Yahya Niazi defended Hamid Qazvini’s book, saying: “We must remember that we cannot address all oral history issues in a 180-page book. Qazvini’s accomplishment lies in opening a gateway—and that is why we are gathered here. Critiquing is easy, but writing and publishing a book is itself an immensely valuable task. Any remarks pointed out here are only out of respect for the author’s efforts, so that in future editions, if he sees fit, he may revise certain sections. Perhaps each concept in oral history has several major subtopics that require multiple volumes. Mr. Qasemipour also said that in some parts the discussion is brief and left incomplete—such as the distinction between memory and history, or in page 44 the important issue of memory and the discovery of truth. In oral history, the roles of the narrator, the topic, and the researcher must be clearly defined. I just want to mention that this book is a valuable work but naturally cannot present all dimensions of oral history. Therefore, expectations should be moderated.”
The Lack of a Critical Environment in Oral History
Later, Hamid Qazvini discussed how the book “Oral History: Essence and Method” came into being: “This book emerged from within a media outlet—the Oral History website. The questions were derived from the needs of the website, and after drafting the texts, I would discuss them with colleagues and then publish them. After some time, it was proposed that due to the positive reception of these materials on the website, they should be published together in book form. The second part of the book, which deals with interviewing, reflects my experiences over the past three decades—from interviewing political activists before and after the Revolution to Sacred Defense participants and even those involved in Lebanon’s resistance. I felt it necessary to share these interview experiences with others so they may benefit. My assumption was that this book would serve as a manual for oral history practitioners. While writing, I always imagined myself in their place. I knew they might face similar challenges. Some have said that the book focuses on the publication stage. This also arose from what I observed in society: a strong desire to produce finished works, often hastily, which has sometimes caused harm. Mr. Niazi mentioned that we should critique works before publication. If such an attitude were institutionalized, the quality of works would improve. Unfortunately, many active individuals in oral history have little tolerance for critique. For example, someone interviewed several people about the encounters of the late Dr. Shariati and Dr. Motahhari, while he had read none of their books, yet entered the discussion of intellectual history. This could happen with many pre- and post-revolutionary figures. When writing these texts, I wanted to remind colleagues what points must be considered when entering oral history.”
Then Yahya Niazi evaluated the book as suitable for both general and specialized audiences and said: “Everyone conducts oral history from their own perspective. Oral history has certain features that Mr. Qazvini has tried to address as much as possible, though some areas needed more attention. For example, he mentions the narrator’s tone in only one paragraph. Yet the narrator’s tone carries great significance, and we have many examples. Based on hours of oral history interviews I have conducted, I can say what features each narrator’s tone has and what it means. These points should have been included in the book. Likewise, the difference between memory and oral history is passed over very briefly. On page 130, the relationship between the era and the interview is mentioned. For example, an event that occurred 30 years ago cannot be compared to something that happened today. The intellectual climate of the 1980s and 1990s differs greatly from today. This must be discussed with examples. Examples keep the reader engaged. The book could have achieved more richness in this regard.”
Restrictions on Presenting Examples Limit the Author
In response to the question of whether the book fosters insight and perspective in the reader about oral history, Hamid Qazvini asserted: “How much I have achieved depends on the audience. My assumption was first to create a clear and unambiguous familiarity with oral history in the reader’s mind, and second to explain how to approach and navigate oral history. I also want to say something about examples in the book. Presenting examples is very difficult because sometimes examples create misunderstandings, which prevents one from mentioning certain cases. I recall writing a critique of two books about one of the Sacred Defense commanders, but the authors did not tolerate the critique. Unfortunately, a culture of criticism does not exist. While my aim in critiquing those books was to improve the work and assist the narrator and publisher. For this reason, I tried to handle such matters more cautiously. The same applies to the narrator’s tone. There are many examples, but some colleagues may become upset. Restrictions on presenting certain examples limit the author.”
Qasemipour also praised Qazvini’s brief entry into the discussion of artificial intelligence and oral history, saying: “Today, artificial intelligence has taken control of the most critical part of interviewing—transcription—and if we do not reflect on this, it will create serious issues. Sometimes the fate of an interview file is determined by the transcriber. In another section, the author states that interview questions must be thoughtfully structured. However, he does not deeply examine the types of questions. He only refers to good and bad questions. He does not mention other types such as macro and micro questions, simple and compound questions, and avoids defining terms like ‘open question’ before using them. Nor does he define ‘closed question’ as its opposite. In another part, he refers to “light questions” at the end of the interview, which I do not find conceptually appropriate and requires discussion.”
In the end, Qasemipour concluded: “Verification and fact-checking of the narrator’s statements during the interview is one of the most serious tasks, which reduces the burden of the editing process. Through detailed questions, one can determine whether the narrator actually experienced an event. Apart from a brief mention of this issue, I did not see anything else in the book.”
Number of Visits: 9
http://oral-history.ir/?page=post&id=12937