Which priority?
Receipt of memories or truth discovery
Hamid Qazvini
Translated by Natalie Haghverdian
2018-1-16
Targeted interview within the framework of a specific subject is one of the prominent features of oral history. Accordingly, the oral history scholars are requested to maintain respect towards the narrator, open their mind and patiently listen to the narrator and ask questions in due time within the limits defined.
Acknowledging this features raises a question: “Is the only task of the interviewer, steering and directing the interview towards the goal of receiving memories?” or “The interviewer is tasked to maintain a parallel dialogue with the narrator to discover the truth?”
This question is highlighted in discourses around the interview where the necessity of building and maintaining dialogue and its requirements with the narrator are analyzed.
In order to find a proper answer to this question we have to acknowledge that the main objective of oral history in the first place is to receive memories and record observations of the narrator as an historical document. In fact, the scholar meets with the narrator in order to add a new narrative to the existing ones and record new truths to complement and modify the existing literature. Subsequently, in such settings, recording memories is of highest priority.
However, the dialogue formed during an oral history interview might be challenging and critical and the scholar engages not as a passive audience but an active researcher, but this dialogue is not of the same quality of the classic dialogues in political and cultural and social arenas which occurs in between the experts and elites of the field.
The most important point is that in other dialogues the parties to the discourse try to share and transfer their ideas and thoughts maintaining and equal status and receive the discourse of others with flexibility and open might; however, in oral history, one party (the interviewer), despite all the information they might have over the subject (sometimes even more than the narrator) does not enjoy an equal status with the narrator. Equal status would not necessitate a discourse and record of memories. Originally, the narrator has not agreed to an interview in order to listen to what the interviewer has to say but the narrator is willing to receive and respond to the interviewers questions in a targeted and challenging interview.
In fact, the interviewer, based on information available and identified gaps, makes the effort to build a dialogue and receive the narrator’s unique information. Hence, the discourse differs in type from any other customary dialogues in other fields.
Accordingly, it has to be stated that the oral history scholar is mainly tasked to record memories however his/her mere task is not searching for the memoirs and recording the preferred stories of the narrator but builds and maintains a conducive and mutual interaction through a targeted dialogue to create a new and verifiable chapter in the history so truth discovery is a priority.
Number of Visits: 6835
The latest
- The Third Regiment: Memoirs of an Iraqi Prisoner of War - 46
- Theory Six: The Inevitability of Perspective
- Memoirs of Behzad Rastegari
- 100 Questions/ 45
- 374th Night of Remembrance - 2
- The Third Regiment: Memoirs of an Iraqi Prisoner of War - 45
- War Health
- Oral history News for Mordad 1405 (July 23rd to August 22nd 2026)
Most visited
Documentary Pathology of the US Embassy Documents
The Necessity of Scientific Rereading and Content Analysis of DocumentsMore than four decades have passed since the publication of the first collections of documents from the US Embassy in Tehran. However, despite the relatively easy access to this treasure trove of documents, systematic research exploitation of it has not been adequate. We still do not have a “comprehensive picture” of the content of these 11,000 documents.
100 Questions / 42
What is the importance of the narrator and interviewers shared understanding of the past in oral history?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 the answers will be published on this portal by the end of the week.
Validation: Challenges and Necessities
Where does truth stand in oral history? How can the correctness of a narrative be recognized? Does fact-checking matter? If there is exaggeration in the reporting of some accounts, how can it be detected? Is it possible to record an event accurately through the recording of a narrative? Readers and users of oral history works are often faced with these questions, and sometimes encounter doubts about some oral history works.From Revolutionary Circles to the Military Arm of the Islamic Government
In those days, it became clear that certain institutions had to be established very quickly—institutions suited to the temperament, expectations, and lingering aspirations of the younger generation; young people who had been politically active before the Revolution and, in some cases, had been directly entangled in arrests, imprisonment, ...
