The Necessity of Receiving Feedback in Oral History

Written by MohammadMahdi Abdollahzadeh
Translated by Kianoush Borzouei

2025-5-19

Whenever we engage in a task, we naturally seek ways to evaluate our performance — to correct shortcomings and enhance strengths. Such refinement is only possible through the feedback we receive from others. Consider, for instance, a basketball player whose shots are consistently accurate; should he begin shooting blindfolded, his success rate would rapidly decline, as he would be deprived of essential feedback from each attempt.

The same principle applies within the realm of oral history. Accurate and principled feedback is crucial if we are to achieve success in this field. If an interviewer does not receive critical input from interviewees, peers, and experts, they may continue for years along an incorrect path. However, if audio or video recordings of a selection of sessions are assessed by qualified individuals and the findings communicated to the interviewer, it is likely they will try to eliminate their shortcomings and adopt more effective techniques.

Such evaluations must be conducted objectively and based on established criteria that enclose all aspects of a quality interview. These include the location and timing of the session, the interviewer’s attire and appearance, their command of the subject, adherence to scholarly principles in posing questions, body language, composure, the systematic recording of the interview, and so on.

The transcription of oral interviews is another critical stage, carried out by individuals tasked with converting speech into written text. These transcribers also require appropriate feedback to improve their work. It is sufficient for qualified reviewers to randomly listen to portions of recorded interviews and compare them with the written transcripts. This reveals the extent to which transcription standards have been upheld and allows feedback to be relayed to the transcribers. Without such quality control, many oral history interviews risk becoming valueless due to years of unmonitored transcription efforts that lacked any constructive feedback.

Once transcription is complete, the text must be edited — either by the interviewer or another individual — to prepare it for publication. unnecassary content, filler words, offensive language, and the like should be eliminated. Unfamiliar terms or expressions should be explained via footnotes, in accordance with the intended audience. The editor is also responsible for arranging the content into a coherent historical narrative and imposing a suitable structure on the material.

Neglecting the principles of editing has led to the publication of numerous costly volumes labeled as oral history, which in fact bear little resemblance to the genre. In the absence of proper evaluation and feedback, producers see no reason to revise their approach — indeed, they may not even perceive the need. If such books were assessed against widely accepted oral history standards, they would undoubtedly contribute to the qualitative improvement of future works. Key criteria include the credibility of the content, loyalty to the narrator’s tone, adherence to Persian orthography, clarity of prose, appropriate contextualization, grammatical accuracy, avoidance of repetition, removal of filler phrases, content relevance, book format, cover design, paper quality, and more.

Organizing regular and serious book review sessions — both at central and provincial levels — can ensure that creators of oral history works receive meaningful feedback, ultimately enhancing the quality of their output.

Feedback becomes even more critical in the context of oral history conferences. Over several months, experts are invited to submit papers on specific themes, following clearly defined scholarly standards. Eventually, a select group is informed that their submissions have been accepted — yet no explanation is provided regarding the scoring of their papers or the areas where they fell short.

Worse still, those whose submissions are rejected receive no constructive feedback to help them understand the deficiencies in their work. While it is entirely reasonable for not all papers to be accepted, those who have devoted considerable time and effort deserve at the very least a basic expression of gratitude, along with clear information about their paper’s weaknesses.

Failing to provide appropriate feedback can undermine the self-esteem and positive self-image of contributors — and may even discourage some from ever participating again.

To ensure that academic authors receive meaningful feedback and are confident that their papers have undergone precise and objective evaluation, it is essential to share the assessment results with them. This can be achieved through the creation of a standardized evaluation form by the conference organizers. Such a form should incorporate key criteria, including:

• Is the topic of the paper novel and original?
• Is the abstract accurate?
• Does the abstract provide a faithful overview of the paper?
• Are the keywords appropriately selected?
• Is the introduction academically sound and relevant to the title?
• Is the problem statement clearly articulated?
• Are the objectives of the paper well-defined?
• Is the literature review thorough and well-contextualized?
• Does the content align with the title?
• Are the in-text citations and references formatted correctly?
• Is the overall structure of the paper sound?
• Has the paper been properly edited?
• Is the research methodology appropriate?
• Is the content clear and comprehensible?
• Are the discussion and conclusion well-founded and methodical?