Experts’ Answers to Oral History Questions

100 Questions/5

Translated by Mandana Karimi

2025-11-21

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. The goal of this project is to open new doors to an issue and promote scientific discussions in the field of oral history.

In this project, a question is asked every Saturday, and we ask experts to present their views in the form of a short text (about 100 words) by the end of the week. All answers will be published together so that the audience can compare and analyze the views.

The content is the opinions of the senders and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Oral History website. Although the answers are supposed to be based on about 100 words, in order to be polite and not to leave the discussion incomplete, in some cases, answers longer than this are also accepted.

This time, we asked experts to submit their answers by Sunday night so that all answers can be published on Tuesday.

Question 5:

Is oral history a primary source in historical research?

____________________________________________

Answer to Question 5:

Mohammad Mehdi Behdarvand:

Oral history is a primary source in historical research because it is obtained from conversations with people who were present at the events or witnessed them directly. This method provides living, human information and part of the real text of events that is usually not found in official documents. However, because narratives rely on personal memory and perception, there is the possibility of error, forgetfulness or subjective bias. Therefore, the researcher must assess the validity of the narratives by measuring and comparing them with written sources. The value of oral history lies in revealing the human, emotional and social aspects of events; layers that remain hidden from the view of official historiography. Therefore, by observing scientific principles, this method is considered a reliable, dynamic and essential source for historical research.

Hassan Beheshtipour:

Oral history at first glance seems to be a first-hand source, because it is the result of conversations with those who have witnessed or participated in an event. However, its status is more complicated than other documents due to the nature of the conversation and the role of the narrator and interviewer's mentality. If interviews are recorded and verified immediately after the event and with a scientific method, they can be considered part of first-hand sources, along with letters, documents, audio and video tapes. However, whenever a large time gap, the narrator's bias or the interviewer's intervention in compiling the narrative increases, its credibility decreases and it distances itself from the status of a first-hand source. Therefore, oral history is a source on the border between first and second-hand, whose value is achieved through careful criticism and analysis of the method.

Mohammad Mehdi Abdollahzadeh:

It is said that primary sources are evidence that is obtained directly from a specific historical period or event and that its compilers were direct witnesses or listeners of the event. Accordingly, oral history can also be considered a primary document and a primary source in historical research. However, in another approach, the position of oral history findings is divided into primary and secondary sources depending on their type of use. For example, regarding the incident of 8 September 1978 in Jaleh Square, Tehran, if there are many written documents and reports, oral history in this field is a secondary source that helps to explain and complete the primary sources.

Seyyed Mohammad Sadeq Faiz:

Because oral history interviews are taken directly from the witness and observer source, and if they are expressed without interpretation and analysis, it will be worth considering even despite the narrator's personal feelings. This is if the passage of time brings about forgetfulness and even distortion of the intended course of events, and the narrator, influenced by changing social and political conditions, etc., may state the opposite of the truth, and it is even possible that everything stated is a single piece of news and cannot be compared with other similar narratives.

Shafiqeh Niknafs:

Sources that are produced at the same time as an event or during a specific period are primary sources and provide information from within that event. Reports, documents, letters, notes, interviews, photographs, and statistical data are among these sources. Oral history, despite its reliance on memory, which changes over time, is also considered a primary source because it is formed in the individual's mind at the same time as the event and usually provides information that is not found in other sources. Narrator's narratives reflect his experience, observation or action in historical events and for this reason, like other reliable documents, they are considered primary sources.

Hamid Qazvini:

In historical studies, any reliable information that provides more knowledge about the subject is considered a historical source, and the sources that are closest to the subject are primary sources. Documents such as stone inscriptions, paintings, administrative documents, manuscripts and the like are primary sources that can provide historians with more knowledge about the active person and the period in question. Accordingly, the narrative of a person with intelligence, understanding and will, who had been a direct actor in the event is of great importance in historical study. If this narrative is the product of a targeted historical interview, it is more important and is considered primary sources.

Gholamreza Azari Khaksatar:

If the narrator is an unmediated narrator, meaning he is an eyewitness or influential person in historical and social events, his narrative is undoubtedly a primary source in historical research. Sometimes, however, narratives are quoted or mediated, or the speakers do not have a direct role in the event and only recount their personal perception of the past; in this case, they can be considered secondary sources. However, all oral history narratives, whether direct or indirect, have a special place alongside written and visual documents and provide a deeper understanding of the human and social dimensions of historical events.