Experts’ Answers to Oral History Questions

100 Questions/13

Translated by Mandana Karimi

2026-1-21

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.

The experts are asked to submit their answers by Sunday night so that all answers can be published on Tuesday.

Question 13:

How can one manage narrator bias in oral history interviews?

Seyyed Vali Hashemi

Before evaluating the narrative, the possibility of narrator bias should be assessed, as regret over past management, forgetfulness, changing social status, or a desire to prove oneself can orient the narrative. To prevent distortion, the narrative must be managed. Strategies: Create confidence in decisions made at the time of the event, correct memory errors with dialogue and accurate information, remind the person in a higher position of the past, explain the impartiality of the work to the person whose position has been reduced, and eliminate ignorance about the terrain, equipment, forces, and geographical location to tell a more accurate and realistic narrative.

Mohammad Mehdi Abdollahzadeh

The interviewer is more successful if they are familiar with the subject, the time of the event, and to some extent the personality of the interviewee. People may be biased by their personality, desires, goals, political leanings, and the prevailing atmosphere; therefore, the interviewer must adjust accordingly. An example from a field experience: A commander claimed to have shot down two enemy helicopters with RPGs in one day. When asked about artillery support and asked for the date of the event or a documentary of the commendation, his narrative wavered and he dropped the subject; a sign that conscious questioning can reveal bias and exaggeration.

Hassan Beheshtipour

Although it is necessary to first define bias and its types in order to introduce ways to manage it in oral history, the most important methods of managing it are mentioned here. This management does not mean eliminating the narrator’s narrative, but rather a conscious effort to identify and contextualize memory biases. The process begins with the pre-interview; by understanding the historical context and designing open-ended questions. During the interview, active listening and critical questioning make it possible to separate lived experience from personal interpretation. In the post-interview, careful implementation, verification with documents, and clarification of the interviewer’s role help produce a more authentic and polyphonic narrative.

Gholamreza Azari Khakestar

Narrator bias in oral history is a natural phenomenon and part of the data, because each person narrates events based on their own experience and interpretation. Sometimes these individual perceptions lead to a bias in the narrative, and what is formed in the interview is a reflection of the narrator's perspective and memory. The interviewer's main role is to record lived experience, not to judge or direct the narrative, because judgment can distort the flow of the conversation. To manage bias, avoiding judgment, accurately recording statements, asking thoughtful questions, and documenting the different layers of the narrative allow for a more accurate and multidimensional picture of the past.

Shafigheh Niknafs

There are biases in both the narrator and the interviewer. Historical researchers were once advised to be impartial in their research, but today it is said that this is not possible, and therefore the narrator cannot be expected to speak without bias. However, you can ask questions to get more details about the subject, encourage them to explain more about the event and explain their motivation for making a decision.
By listening carefully to the interviewee's narratives, giving them a sense of encouragement, and understanding them rather than judging them, you can achieve more favorable narratives.

Abolfazl Hassanabadi

The issue of bias and impartiality of the interviewee is always a concern in oral history, as it can influence the data. The narrator cannot always be expected to set aside personal interests; the extent of their involvement depends on the initial justification, the nature of the project, and the purpose of the research. The narrator is a human agent, and the circumstances of the interview, psychological pressures, and social situation can affect the telling of the past. To reduce bias, the interviewer's companionship and empathy, asking thoughtful questions, building trust, and gaining information about the subject are necessary; an approach that guides the interview in the right direction and allows for a more accurate and balanced narrative.

Abolfat'h Mo'men

Oral history is based on interviews and narrators’ narratives, and the boundary between fantasy and reality is very thin; fantasy entering the realm of narrative can lead to distortion. Since the gap between objective reality and the narrator’s mental image is inevitable, the role of the interviewer is important in three stages: before, during, and after the interview. Narrator bias can be inadvertent—due to forgetting and memory reconstruction—or intentional, such as self-censorship, heroism, group loyalty, and analysis influenced by the present. Bias can be managed by understanding the subject, asking precise questions, relying on details, document-based recall, and polyphonic dialogue.

Hamid Ghazvini

All narrators answer questions based on their own perspective, perception, and experience, and interviews cannot be expected to be free of bias. At the same time, given that the goal of oral history is to obtain a healthy and acceptable account of the past, the narrator should be helped before and during the interview to avoid biases in the narrative as much as possible. For example, you can ask before the interview that the answers be expressed without bias and clarify the meaning with an example. Then, in the middle of the interview, while asking new questions, if necessary, emphasize that we want the questions to be answered without bias so that the narrator distance themselves from specific biases.

Seyyed Mohammad Sadegh Feyz

By mastering the subject and presenting evidence and clues, the narrator can be made aware of several points: First, that they may have made a historical error and should compensate by quoting the interviewer. Second, the interviewer has some knowledge of the subject and should be more careful in their statements. Third, by quoting related memoirs or documents, and of course interrogatively, the narrator can be warned of a possible error and also pointed out that if they intend to deceive, they should realize that their audience, first and foremost the interviewer and then the readers and audience, will be informed of their intentional or unintentional mistake and they should be more careful in quoting their memoirs.

Gholamreza Azizi

Narrators may be biased for a variety of reasons, including exonerating themselves or their group, blaming others, ideological evaluations, or even a transcendental view of events. Oral history interviewers are usually advised to avoid arguing with the narrator in order to maintain the flow of the interview. To manage bias, the narrator should first be reminded that the purpose of the interview is to recount what was seen and heard, not to interpret or interpret intent. Then, the conversation should be directed with phrases such as “Let’s get back to the main topic” or “Please skip the interpretation.” If the narrator insists, their words are recorded and noted in a footnote.