Authenticating Oral History: From Possibility to Necessity

Abolfazl Hasanabadi (PhD)
Translated by Kianoush Borzouei

2026-5-4

Introduction

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. Diplomatics plays a vital role in the recognition and analysis of records; in fact, its components constitute the external key to examining documents and confirming their authenticity and reliability. Research on records requires a proper understanding and examination of the various dimensions of a document, both in terms of form and content.

The discipline that enables the study of the external form of a document is called Diplomatics. Diplomatics is the study of being and becoming in records, the analysis of the internal and external roots and structure of documents. Herde defines Diplomatics as the science of studying records (Herde, 2017). The essence of Diplomatics lies in uncovering the internal relationships of documents, thereby transforming it into a valuable tool for organizing, comprehending, and interpreting records through an understanding of diplomatic principles, concepts, and pattern recognition; especially where the process of creation cannot be controlled or directed. By identifying the internal patterns of documents, it provides the basis for understanding the character and internal message of the record and clarifies its relation to the physical structure and external form of documents (Duranti, 1991).

The question is whether oral history can be subjected to Diplomatics in the process of authenticating it. If so, what are its internal and external components? What do authenticity and reliability mean in oral history? Can a standard be defined for them? Authenticity and reliability in written and unwritten records differ. In written records, elements such as the origin of the document, the creator of the record, place, time, and scientific content are important in authentication and verification for documentation, as they make it possible to examine forgery, falsification, accuracy, and completeness (Hasanabadi, 2022).

The issue of authenticity and reliability in oral history is somewhat different. The process of establishing authenticity and conferring credibility on oral history content includes stages through which the conditions for conducting the oral history interview, its organization, accessibility, and publication are provided. Some of these processes are tangible, objective, examinable, and measurable; others are merely assessable, and include both the external and internal layers of oral history. Oral history can be regarded as a structure formed from diverse components and elements shaped by various economic, cultural, and social relations (Kazemi et al, 2021). In this formation, internal and external components are influential in its validation.

External Components of Authenticating Oral History Content

The external components of oral history may be categorized among the elements that are assessable and examinable. These components enable the oral historian to define the task at hand precisely and, insofar as possible, help ensure the authenticity and reliability of the data produced in oral history. Such stages include defining the oral history project, selecting the subject, choosing the interviewer and providing proper training, selecting the

interviewee appropriately and briefing them, determining the method of conducting the interview, the recording method, transcription procedures, re-listening, archival registration and preservation of interviews, and the manner of editing and publication.

For each of the above, specific standards may be established. In international oral history standards, certain key aspects—such as project definition and the conduct of interviews—have to some extent been addressed (Hasanabadi, 2006). A review of oral history centers around the world indicates that each, in accordance with its duties and functions, has established oral history standards with largely similar purposes. Most of these standards focus on interview procedures and archival processes in oral history, and less on project design and editing. In Iran, oral history centers such as the National Library and Archives Organization and the Astan Quds Razavi Documents Center have archival standards for conducting oral history. Some institutions that publish oral history, such as the Foundation for the Preservation of Works, have issued guidelines for interviewing and editing in order to ensure uniform publication of oral history interviews nationwide (Azizi, 2018). Observance of each of these components is important in authenticating interviews and validating the resulting content, and it can provide a suitable foundation for enriching oral history interviews.

Internal Components of Authenticating Oral History Content

The internal components of oral history consist of elements that are less tangible and less readily assessable. More than being tied to predefined standards, they are related to the inner intention and disposition of individuals in the roles of narrator, interviewer, commissioner, and editor—factors that are not directly observable but have a decisive effect on the final output. One of the key internal components in oral history is narrative coherence. Enhancing narrative coherence in oral history is a “designed” process, not a random one. Coherence means the temporal, causal, and semantic continuity of the narrative, such that the narrator’s lived experience is represented in a comprehensible and orderly structure. To strengthen this coherence, purposeful measures may be taken both during the interview and in the editing stage. The stability of the narrative over time (reliability), the temporal and causal coherence of events, consistency between mental image and verbal description, and the narrator’s awareness of possible errors in reporting information are among the factors affecting narrative coherence in oral history.

Narrative coherence arises from the stability of the narrative’s central core in oral history; if the main idea or message remains constant across different versions, it contributes to internal credibility. An examination of the relationship between memory and narrative coherence, and its connection to validation in oral history, shows that autobiographical memory has an “organized structure.” The interviewer’s task is to discover and reinforce this structure, not to impose an external order upon it, so that narrative coherence may be preserved.

Another important factor in internal credibility in oral history is the repetition of content and its corroboration with other historical propositions. In oral history, this is achieved through collective projects, repeated informational content, and comparison with other data. Structural consistency in repeated retellings, in Diplomatics terms, means that the content of oral history should not differ fundamentally across interviews. This structural stability indicates that the narrative is not the product of momentary reconstruction, but rather part of the interviewer’s “archival memory,” in which identity-forming memories are selectively preserved. Such organization is itself an indicator of internal credibility.

The distinction between observation and the narrator’s mental reconstruction is another important internal component of oral history, to which the interviewer must remain attentive. This issue may be formulated as follows: does the narrator distinguish between “seeing” and “assuming”? Does the narrator distinguish between fact and truth in recounting events? Does the interviewee differentiate between mere narration and their own subjective interpretation of the subject? Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to discern, in the information provided by the narrator, the difference between the original event and the interpretation formed in the mind, since the narrator, often unintentionally, is influenced by inclinations, tastes, interests, and family background in presenting the narrative; this is something the interviewer must constantly remain vigilant about (Qanavati, 2021).

If a systematic comparison between the internal components of oral history and Diplomatics is desired, the following may be noted:

Comparative analysis shows that internal credibility in oral history is conceptually equivalent to internal criticism in Diplomatics. This credibility rests not on correspondence with external documents, but on narrative coherence, structural stability, experiential logic, the distinction between observation and interpretation, the organization of memory, and emotional appropriateness. Therefore, oral history may be regarded as a living document that, like written texts, is subject to internal criticism. The conclusion is that the problem of credibility in oral history does not lie in the denial of memory, but in its structured analysis; an analysis that makes possible the scholarly use of lived experience in historical studies.

Conclusion

Authenticity and credibility in oral history result from a proper articulation of the internal and external components of Diplomatics in oral history and the relationship between them. Internal credibility in oral history is achieved through the evaluation of narrative coherence, the structural logic of the interview, and the integrity of the representation of experience. Within this framework, oral history is not merely “personal memory,” but rather a kind of “living document” that, like historical texts, must be subjected to internal criticism.

In internal criticism, particular attention is paid to narrative coherence in oral history, which results from the interaction of three factors: the structure of the narrator’s memory, the skill of the interviewer, and the method of scholarly editing, so that the narrator’s fragmented memories may be transformed into a coherent historical narrative without distorting lived experience. In the external components of oral history, emphasis is likewise placed on structuring the requirements of conducting an oral history project from multiple dimensions, so as to provide an appropriate setting for conducting standardized oral history interviews. Validation and authentication in oral history are the result of the interaction of its internal and external components within a codified framework, so that, as far as possible, a refined historical text may be produced.

References

Hasanabadi, Abolfazl (2006). Oral History in Iran. Mashhad: Astan Quds Razavi Library, Museums, and Documents Center. 

Hasanabadi, Abolfazl (2023). An Introduction to Diplomatics and Record Studies in Archival Sources. Tehran: Samt. 

Azizi, Gholamreza (2018). Guidelines for Reading, Rewriting, and Publishing Sacred Defense Documents. Tehran: Foundation for the Preservation of Sacred Defense Values and Works. 

Qanavati, Mehdi (2021). “Validation of Oral History Data,” Tarikhnameh-ye Enqelab, Year 5, Spring–Winter. 

Kazemi, Mohsen; Noraei, Morteza; Shabani Samghabadi, Reza (2021). “Analysis and Explanation of the Scope and Various Approaches in Oral History,” Historical Studies, Year 13, No. 3, Autumn. 

Herde,Peter(2017)" Diplomatics " Encyclopedia Britannica, inc, https://www.britannica.com/topic/ Diplomatics, September 29, 2019.

Duranti,Luciana(1991) Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science, Part V, Archivaria 32, Summer.