"Interview for interview" is not authentic

Hamid Ghazvini
Translated by: Fazel Shirzad


The development of mass media and the rise of what is called public literacy has led everyone to tend towards writing. It's not important for writers to know whether someone reads their writings or not; they are satisfied with opportunity and possibility to express their insights and individuality.

Along with the large amount of writings, there are also lots of interviews. These days, the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution and the 30th anniversary of the end of sacred defense, Sometimes, because of the anniversary of these two important historical events, and sometimes with the claim of answering some doubts and questions in the context of society, we are encountered with the publications in the field of oral history or reminiscence that there are no new points and contents from the beginning to the end of it; they are like a promotional  and topical works.

Sometimes a book or magazine (written or cyber one), with its headlines and attractive titles, is kind of oratory and play with words. Indeed, these writings try to show themselves in a good way, but in reality they are not. It seems that its purpose is simply to increase production statistics.

Because hearsay is an independent and clear narration from the different people in a single subject, which, despite some differences, can have a large overlap. While some interviews are basically not an independent narrative, nor a truth finder. Indeed, why should a readers in such case receive a low value and worthless things?

"What is the benefit of interviewing with so-and-so?" A while ago, I asked to a respectable colleague. "This person is a prominent figure; Interviewing with him is important in itself, it's enough for us that he accepted to be interviewed!" He replied with a proudly look.

That is, some people consider the interview to be authentic on their own, and such interviews are kind of "interview for interview", just as a group believes in "art for art". The art is a great and supreme issue and is authentic, whereas the interview does not have such a position. If there is authentic for Interviews, it is a methodological one. That is, because it is a method for discovering the truth, it can be authentic, and it is for this reason that the interview and its authentic should be considered in the methodology of research.

Number of Visits: 90


Full Name:

Introducing the Best Oral History Books of Sacred Defense

According to Iranian Oral History Website, the introduction of best books of active provinces in the field of oral history of sacred defense is based on the review of 100 books published by general offices for the Protection of Works and Publishing of Sacred Defense Values and Irans Islamic Revolutionary Guards (Sepah) throughout country, during years 2017 and 2018.

This Lady Called the "Captive", "Freedman"

As reported by Oral History Website of Iran Behjat Afraz died on January 12, 2019. According to notification provided by the organization in which he worked, "The late was invited by Dr. Seifollah Vahid Dastjerdi, the current head of Red Crescent Society of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to work as the officer in charge of the bureau for captives and missing of the imposed war. She worked from the beginning of ...
Two hundred and ninety-eighth night of reminiscences

Shrine Defenders like Sacred Defense Warriors

According to Iranian oral history website, Two hundred and ninety eighth night of reminiscences of sacred defense was held at Art Center Andisheh Hall on Thursday, December 27th 2019. Masoud Nouri, Abbas Boostani, Hassan Arabi and Mohsen Safai spoke about their memories of shrine and sacred defense defenders.
Biannual Journal of Oral History

We Have Not Yet Approached a Common Expression in Oral History Practice

Gholamreza Azizi, director of NLAI Research Institute, talked to the Iranian Oral History Website correspondent about some weaknesses that oral history field faces, "books which are published in field of oral history show that we have not still reached a common language in oral history practice and there has not been still a common understanding. The reason for this is that oral history has not yet been accepted as a scientific discipline in universities.