Experts’ Answers to Oral History Questions

100 Questions/35

Does the Interviewer’s Empathy with the Narrator Harm the impartiality of Historical Research?

Machine Translation edited by Mandana Karimi

2026-6-24

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 around 100 words, in order to be polite and not to leave the discussion incomplete, in some cases, more than this number of answers are also accepted.

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

From the intertwining of these answers, using artificial intelligence, we have arrived at theories about oral history that will be published in the near future.

Question 35:

Does the interviewer's empathy with the narrator harm the impartiality of historical research?

____________________________________________

Answers to Question 35:

Gholamreza Azari Khaksatar

In oral history interviews (unlike other interviews that are usually dry and formal), verbal communication and sometimes empathy arise between the interviewer and the interviewee. This is because interview sessions are often long and multiple. After the interviewee trusts and we get to the point, the interviewer unconsciously empathizes with the narrator. This is an important part of oral history interviews. Because of mutual trust, this empathy helps the narrative to be told completely and without omissions. Therefore, empathy with the narrator not only does not harm oral history research, but also allows the narrative to be told comprehensively and completely.

Hassan Beheshtipour

First of all, it should be clarified what is meant by empathy? If the meaning is to understand the narrator’s mental world and life experience, empathy between the narrator and the interviewer does not harm the impartiality of oral history research; in fact, in many cases it is a necessary condition for achieving a deep, honest, and uncensored narrative. Because in oral history, methodological empathy helps the interviewer to create an atmosphere of trust, ask more appropriate questions, and avoid hasty judgments. Such empathy not only does not conflict with impartiality, but also helps to understand the narrative more accurately. However, if it means unquestioning acceptance of the narrator’s views by the interviewer or the final compiler of the oral history, it severely damages the documentation of the narrative. Another important point is that neither in oral history nor in any other scientific activity can it be claimed to be impartial in practice. The narrator, along with the interviewer and the final compiler, can only remain committed to observing the professional principles of historiography - the most important of which is fairness. For many years, proponents of positivism have reduced the issue of impartiality in science to transparency in research, because they have accepted that it is not possible for a researcher to remain impartial in practice.

Gholamreza Azizi

The interviewer’s empathy with the narrator undoubtedly damages the impartiality of historical research. In an empathetic interview, the interviewer willy-nilly takes a position and the questions become leading, biased, or negative. The risk of a tendency to exaggerate, minimize, and trivialize increases. In contrast, pretending to be empathetic does not entail the harms of empathy (bias and favoring or opposing a person and a trend). Perhaps it is from this perspective that interviewers are sometimes advised to participate better in the interview (and so that the narrator does not think that he is talking to a wall), while showing a willingness to listen, by making verbal reactions from time to time, using body movements and even taking notes, to show empathy.

Mohammad Mehdi Abdollahzadeh

Appropriate human relations between the interviewer and the narrator are a necessary condition for success in the various stages of oral history, and excessiveness in it has negative effects on the process of its implementation. If empathy goes beyond a certain limit, it is likely to cause psychological dependence for both parties or one party on the other, which is a distancing from the goals and at each stage of oral history causes the interviewer not to act within the framework of the job description. On the other hand, pessimism, bad manners, looking down on others, arguments, and the like cause the narrator to refrain from expressing some memories or their details for some reasons. Therefore, empathy with the narrator is a necessary condition for success in oral history, and excessiveness in relationships violates research ethics.

Shafiqeh Niknafs

In oral history, empathy means understanding the specific circumstances of interviewees who are unable to express their memories and stories. One of the interviewing strategies in oral history is for the interviewer to imagine himself in the place of the interviewee and, understanding his past circumstances, ask appropriate questions. However, in situations of bitter and painful experiences, this is not possible for the interviewer. In situations of bitter experiences, the interviewees also do not have the language tools to express their memories; therefore, they remain silent or speak in a way that is difficult for the audience to understand. Here, empathy means that the interviewer has an informal approach to the interview, asks semi-structured questions, and does not pressure the interviewee. In such circumstances, the impartiality of the research will not be compromised.

Abolfat’h Mo’men

An interview in oral history is an exploratory tool for collecting historical data and a general narrative of a subject. The interviewer's empathy is necessary and reasonable to the extent that it helps to enhance, recall, and guide the narrator's mind. The historian must show himself eager, encourage the narrator to express his memories, place himself in his temporal, spatial, and cultural conditions, and help him represent the events. However, this empathy should not lead to impartiality and encourage the narrator to tell his own preferred narrative. The interviewer should present his guidance impartially and not publicly express his belief about an event. As a result, empathy is good to a reasonable extent, but it should not go beyond the limits and question the scientific principles of the research.

Abolfazl Hassanabadi

The understanding of the word empathy in oral history is somewhat different from its understanding in other fields such as psychology. If the meaning of empathy can be understood as understanding the feelings of the narrator, creating a safe space for dialogue, listening without judgment and respecting his lived experience, and leading to strengthening the output of information data from the interview in the context of critical, challenging questions and an analytical attitude, it is useful and helpful. However, if empathy leads to identification and immersion in the feelings of the narrator, it will pave the way for justification and silence in the face of contradictions and realities, and in this case it is harmful.

Seyed Mohammad Sadeq Faiz

Companionship and gaining the narrator's trust are necessary tools for an interview, and it is natural that the narrator, feeling secure in such an atmosphere that his secrets will not be revealed, will agree to the interview and reveal the hidden details of his life. And the interviewer will also use this space to search further in the labyrinth of the narrator's mind. The important point in this regard is to observe balance in this matter and should not get too close to the narrator's feelings or show alienation. Otherwise, he will lose the path of discovery.

Hamid Qazvini

As can be deduced from the concept of empathy, this word expresses a kind of emotional and emotional companionship and alignment, not definitive approval and agreement. Thus, if empathy aims to encourage the narrator to express more details and propose other angles of his memories and observations, it is not only okay but necessary. Basically, the interviewer is obliged in many cases to show some kind of empathy with the narrator's joys and sorrows or some of his positions on personal and social issues so that the narrator feels satisfied with his company; but empathy should not be in a way that undermines the researcher's impartiality and creates the impression that he agrees with or seriously endorses the narrator and his narratives.

Jafar Golshan

1. It seems that the question is not very precise and correct. The interviewer uses the interview with the narrator to collect data and information so that he can compile and publish a text containing the narrator's memories or a research text using multiple sources, including memories. The comments and memories of a narrator cannot harm the result of deep historical research in the precise and correct sense of the word. The interviewer uses the narrator's words to complete his findings, and naturally, the entire foundation of historical research is not based on the narrator's memories. 2. If we are of the opinion that "empathy" means the interviewer's companionship and agreement with the narrator, then it must be said that it does not harm the impartiality of historical research. Because an independent and knowledgeable narrator does not care who interviews him or with what perspective. The narrator speaks his own words, views, and memories and does not wait for the interviewer's agreement and companionship.

Artificial Intelligence

The interviewer's empathy with the narrator does not necessarily harm the impartiality of historical research, but can help build trust, provide more details, and reveal hidden layers of the narrator's experiences. However, if empathy turns into complete identification or bias, it risks biasing responses, ignoring contradictions, and diminishing the researcher’s critical perspective. In oral history, empathy is an essential communication skill, but it must be accompanied by analytical distance and critical evaluation of the narratives. The main issue, therefore, is not the presence of empathy, but rather the balance between the human understanding of the narrator and adherence to scientific principles and the objectivity of the research. (Chatgpt)