Comparison of Official (Institutional) Oral History with Unofficial (Popular/Personal) Oral History

Mohammad Mehdi Behdarvand
Translated by Fazel Shirzad

2026-2-3

Oral history, as an immediate and human method for recording historical events and experiences, has gained increasing importance in recent decades. This method allows researchers to hear the voices of those who have had little place in official history or whose narratives have been overlooked. In Iran, oral history can be broadly divided into two main categories, which are examined in this note under the title "Comparison of Official (Institutional) Oral History with Unofficial (Popular/Personal) Oral History": first, official oral history, which is collected and published by institutions, organizations, and governmental or research institutes; and second, unofficial oral history, which is prepared and recorded by individuals, families, or popular groups.

Official oral history is generally structured and based on scientific standards. Interviews are conducted with specific frameworks, precise questionnaires, and research protocols, and data is combined with supplementary sources, official documents, and documented analyses. This type of oral history mainly reflects the narratives of managers, commanders, and influential figures, focusing on decision-making, strategies, and major events. Such sources have high credibility and provide researchers and academics with the possibility for scientific analysis and the production of reliable knowledge, but they less often reflect the daily life, human emotions, and personal experiences of ordinary people.

In contrast, unofficial oral history, with its focus on personal experiences, daily life, and human emotions, presents a vivid and tangible image of history. The memories of ordinary combatants, women behind the front lines, families of martyrs and veterans are examples of such sources. These narratives have more freedom of expression and sometimes record details and human emotions not found in official history. The language of the narratives is simple and natural, allowing the reader to directly sense individual and emotional experiences. However, popular sources are often scattered, lack standard frameworks, and are less accessible, requiring researchers to cross-reference them with other documents and sources for analysis.

To clarify the differences, real examples can be cited. Official memoirs such as "The Narrative of Operations Dawn and Kheibar" and "The Logbooks of Headquarters Commanders" meticulously record decision-making details, operation timelines, and outcome analyses. These sources are very useful for historical analysis and scientific research but seldom address the emotions, longings, and daily lives of combatants. In contrast, unofficial memoirs like "Da"/دا/ and "The Foot That Remained" depict the individual and human lives of combatants and families, allowing the reader to experience joy, fear, hope, and love for homeland and family from a personal perspective. These differences show that each type of oral history has its own strengths and weaknesses.

The social and psychological impact of each type of narrative also differs. Official oral history teaches students and researchers analytical and scientific skills. They learn to cross-reference data with official documents, analyze the causes and consequences of events, and understand the strategic dimensions of war and society. This scientific analysis enables the production of reliable knowledge and academic research. Meanwhile, unofficial oral history has a higher emotional and human impact, helping the new generation understand empathy, resilience, sacrifice, and national identity. A teenager or student reading the memories of an ordinary combatant can experience a sense of belonging to the community and a deep understanding of the human experience of war, something that official sources alone cannot convey.

The educational and cultural functions of these two types of narratives are also noteworthy. In schools and universities, combining official and unofficial narratives enables students to develop both analytical skills and human sensitivity. Programs like the "Rahian-e Noor" (pilgrimage trips), interdisciplinary workshops, and book review sessions are examples of this application. A student learns strategic analysis of war by reading commanders' memoirs and experiences daily life, longings, and human emotions by studying popular memories. This combined experience makes learning real and profound.

However, there are also serious challenges. Official oral history is sometimes published with institutional bias, political limitations, or an emphasis on a favorable image, superficially reflecting complex human and social narratives. Unofficial oral history may lack scientific validation, be scattered, or carry personal bias. Additionally, access to popular sources is limited, and the language and terminology of past decades may be unfamiliar to the new generation. These issues require the creation of digital databases, the development of collection and analysis standards, and training in oral history skills for researchers and students.

Successful experiences show that combining official and unofficial oral history enhances educational, research, and cultural impact. Students can learn strategic analyses and decision-making through official sources while simultaneously experiencing daily life, emotions, and human resilience by studying popular memories. This connection between structure and feeling, between analysis and human experience, makes history real, tangible, and instructive, serving as a guiding light for future generations.

Strategies to increase the combined impact of official and unofficial oral history include:

• Creating a comprehensive digital database and archive with open access for researchers and the new generation.

• Training students and researchers in oral history methodology and source analysis.

• Designing interdisciplinary projects that examine both official narratives and popular memories.

• Organizing review sessions, conferences, and educational exhibitions for direct interaction with memories and narrators.

• Utilizing modern technologies such as textual and multimedia data analysis for a deeper understanding of memories and pattern extraction.

In conclusion, comparing official (institutional) oral history with unofficial (popular/personal) oral history shows that neither can provide a complete picture of history alone. Official oral history brings precision and scientific framework, while unofficial oral history brings human life and experience to life. Integrating these two approaches not only enriches research and education but also exposes the new generation to real history, values, and human experiences, enabling a deep understanding and internalization of national and social identity.