Systemic Approach in Oral History

Mohammad Mehdi Abdolahzadeh
Translated by Natalie Haghverdian

2017-5-24

Some say that theoretic discussions on oral history suit the academic elite and consider themselves the man of action. These individuals believe that it shall suffice to operate a recorder and a camera and be good in communication to become an oral history interviewer. This group argue that theoretic content of oral history belongs to academic studies or shall be presented as a scientific article in seminars and conferences or design science magazines! However, theoretic competence and believe in them is where oral history interviewers or oral history historiographers originate from.

Considering that theoretic and practical aspects are integral parts of oral history, it is imperative for those involved in the practical aspects to be well competent of the theoretic concepts; on the other hand, professors dealing mostly with training and the theoretic aspects shall get involved in the practical aspect as well to recognize the issues and problems of oral history in our country and application of theories in practice.

On the importance of theoretic concepts in practice, Mr. Rafipour says: “Some believe that a study might be conducted outside a theoretic framework. These studies in exceptional cases might lead to the truth; however, competence on theoretic concepts enables the individual to deal with the research subject properly. Theory assists us to have a systematic understanding of our surrounding and make a targeted discovery and define issues in a wide scope that is a wide net of causal relations.[1]

Systemic Approach

Approach is our perspective towards a concept. The scientists’ approach to science was initially analytical or mechanisms and general or systemic approach has developed in recent years. Systemic approach involved a network perspective to the concepts and review and study of incidents in connection with internal and external components and variables. The turning point of systemic approach is the concept of universality. The generalities of every incident form the basis since in this perspective general recognition and understanding is not derived from understanding the nature and characteristics of the components and elements. Systemic approach is a general overview of interconnected components which result in processing and production in a complex and through interaction.[2]

Human thought has had a developmental trend. Some consider three stages for this development: A- Aristotelian logic stage, B- Empirical logic stage, C- System Logic stage.[3]

Bertalanffy defines system as a set of interacting or interdependent component parts forming a complex or intricate whole. Mr. Farshad quotes: Though definitions of system vary, all share two common aspects. One is that, a system, as a symbol of integrity is distinct of an entity that is not a system and merely involves a number of components. Second, the interaction between components shall be included for any definition of a system.[4]

A system is composed of components that carry similar activities. These components affect and are influenced by their surrounding environment. Inputs of a system are effects received from the environment which transform into outcomes through various processes.[5]

Some have focused on the target-orientation of a system. Robert McKellar says: A system is a set of interacting or interdependent component parts forming a complex or intricate whole to achieve a goal.[6] In general, it is to be said that a system or network is composed of components that interact towards realization of a goal.[7]

Every system is composed of the following components:

1. Input: anything put in a system which makes the system function possible. Obviously without inputs system, survival or function of a system is not possible. For instance, in oral history the inputs include knowledge, skills, the attitude of the interviewer and the interviewee, recording devices, interview environment, documents, etc.
2. Process: the inputs in a system experiences changes and transformation through the process and the process causes change in the inputs. Mr. Mohammad Ali Naeli argues: process is operation of a system on the inputs which adds to their value and efficiency.[8]

David Berlow defines process as: an incident which indicates change in a period of time or a continuous action.[9] Each process has four major characteristics: A) process is not static but dynamic. B) There is no start and end point in a process. C) Components of a process are interactive and each affect another or is affected by it. D) There are no set line of components in a process.[10]

1. Outcome: Inputs undergoing change in the process, according to the structure and organization governing the system are exported in the form of product from the system to the environment. The content provided through oral history might be perceived as outcome.
2. Feedback: It is an internal process in which a portion of output is feedback in the form of data which makes the system “self-controlled”.  Feedback plays a crucial role in systemic thinking. Feedback, is the information sent to the original source of the data to facilitate actions. Systems maintain their stability through settings and based on feedbacks.

Feedback might be positive or negative. The negative type includes those set of data deviating from the main target of system which require modification and maintain the system in line with its original target. Positive feedback indicates that there is no deviation in the outcome.[11] Those who order or consume the products of oral history in the form of produced evidence and documents expect a type of feedback.

1. System environment: each system is within an environment. The system is affected by environmental factors and surpasses them; such as natural, cultural and ideological environments, etc.[12] The system and its environment have interactive actions and reactions. Accordingly, the environment of a system is composed of components which are not part of the system; however change in each one might result changes in the system. Hence, the system environment is composed of the variables that are effective in it or the system is effected by them. Systems separate from their environment in the “system border”. System border is a set of system components in which the internal components of a system and other components (external environment) determine its behavior; of course there is an interactive reaction between the system border components and the external environment.[13]

Interview Process in Oral History

Though interview is a type of communication, it is integrated with face to face communication. Combination of these two types of communication is the distinction between interview and any other type of communication. Oral history is a type of human and inter personal communication and more than anything, it is a process.

In this communication, one party is in pursuit of a specific goal achieved through questions and answers and is based on questions asked and reactions received. This is far beyond daily communication. Interviews shall have set goals and prior planning and result in a specific outcome. In fact, it might be said that: “Interview is a designed, targeted, face to face communication which needs decision-making.”[14]

Mr. Mohssenianrad says that Watson has quoted Renee Hart that upon review of 126 definitions of communications it was concluded that despite significant differences there was one common element in all and that is “communication is a process”.[15]

Mr. Hassan Abadi has quoted Curl Ronald: “oral history is a designed processing process to assist the historical concept and understanding of the public to know their past.” He also quotes: “oral history is conduct of a more comprehensive and better interview; an interview with a specific internal system and structure.”[16]

Oral history is a data process through interview and as defined by Maggie Smith – in defining her communication model- based on transfer of memories which says: “Communication is the process of transferring data, emotion, memory and thoughts among people.”[17]

In an interview, the process of remembering is formed through the communication method between the interviewer and the interviewee. If the interviewer promotes his status to a historian and creates such notion in the interviewee then the interview transforms into a news interview and eventually recount of oral memories in the form of a dialogue and historical story.

When the goal of oral history interview is oral historiography, the nature of the interview transforms from conversation, dialogue, discussion, debate, negotiation, and dispute into a dialogue; a dialogue on a historical concept or incident which forms a historical narrative. In such a dialogue questions are not merely interrogative and are based on an active and competence interaction of the interviewer according to previous knowledge (from books and narratives), available documents and high understanding and perception.

In this dialogue, the reader receives not only the information and memories of the narrator but the interpretations and analyses of both parties and obtains a multi-faceted understanding beyond the narrator’s perspective (which is sort of a weakness in oral history).

In the perspective where interview is perceived as discovery of the truths and interview is of a dialogue nature, balance of power in the parties and narration of incidents in the whole interview process which is one of the prominent features of oral history interview.

Considering the crucial and determinative role of interview in oral history it seems that it should be considered a system since it is composed of all the components involved in a system. Such approach promotes our insight towards interview and its functions.

According to the content above the following diagram might be designed to define the systemic approach to oral history:

Requirements of Systemic Approach to Oral History

• Consideration of Meta-systems: Each system entails a number of micro-systems and meta-systems. Micro-systems are surpassed by meta-systems. This applies to oral history as well. For instance, the narrative, perception and analysis of informed individuals concerning People’s Mujahedin of Iran before the Islamic Revolution was different from his response after the incidents of 1981 and explosion in the Center of Islamic Republic Party and when Mujahedin were armed. In this instance, the role of meta-system is obvious in the system which is applicable to almost every concept in oral history.
• Input assessment: in systemic approach to oral history, due consideration of incoming elements including knowledge, cognitive, psychomotor and affective skills of the interviewer and the interviewee, the documents and evidence used, equipment and recorders employed is vital. In this perspective, interview and input processes are reviewed by stage assessment (feedbacks) continuously to compensate weaknesses.
• Continuous evaluation: of other factors to be considered in systemic approach to oral history are preliminary, evolutionary and end evaluations. First the inputs should be assessed and during the process the interviewer shall conduct another assessment and eventually the outcome (oral history) is assessed by the interviewer, the client and the end user and the results of all such assessment shall be employed to modify weaknesses in due time.

It is worth mentioning that in our beloved country, funds are spent annually to provide oral history books; however, whether these books are reviewed and assessed against scientific standards is to be questioned. Once this expectation is realized we might have quality books in this field so that the trainees might use them as a reference which will in turn promote the quality of oral history process.