Experts answer to oral history questions

100 Questions/20

Translated by Mandana Karimi

2026-3-12

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.

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

Question 20

Which one of these three people play the role of the historian, the narrator, the interviewer or the editor? Why?

Gholamreza Azari Khakestar

In oral history discussions, we encounter two main pillars: the interviewer and the interviewee. Each plays a fundamental role in recording and transmitting past experiences. If the interviewer has a specific scientific and theoretical framework, they largely play a role similar to that of a historian; because the historian also delves into past events and analyzes them to understand historical developments. In oral history, the interviewer's questions are essentially an effort to examine changes and events from the narrator's perspective. Therefore, it can be said that among the interviewer, narrator, and editor, the interviewer's role is more prominent. The editor organizes the recorded data into a coherent format, but it is the interviewer who, by scientifically guiding the conversation, assumes the central and even equal role of the historian in oral history studies.

Mohammad Mahdi Abdollahzadeh

The historian describes, reasons, explains, and interprets the nature of historical events. It is through explanation that events are reasoned and the connections between them become clear; the historian narrates events in a way that allows us to understand the reasons behind them. They answer questions such as: what, how, why, when, where, and who. They also make ambiguous matters understandable and comprehensible through interpretation.

In oral history, the interviewer must act as a historian by performing duties before, during, and after the interview. The editor, with defined interventions, prepares the text for publication while preserving its fidelity and authenticity. Therefore, the interviewer being a historian is primary, and the editor secondarily so, but the historian status of the narrator and its rank depends on variables that they may or may not possess.

Shafigheh Niknafs

Among these three roles, the one closest to the concept of historian is the interviewer. They are the one who gives shape and content to oral history; they conceptualize; they actualize the idea, selects the interviewee, and persuades them to be interviewed. They sensitize their mind to the research topic and excite them; they trigger the recall of their memories; during the interview, their mind is constantly analyzing the interviewee’s information and adjusting questions. They think about the future and the audiences who will watch and read the interview.

In creativity and the creation of the historical source, both the interviewer and the narrator have equal roles. The editor has a complementary role and makes the created source easily accessible for researchers.

Abolfat’h Mo’men

Narrators are usually not professional historians familiar with the scientific foundations of history; therefore, one cannot expect them to produce a research work. They merely provide their data and narratives in a transmitted form to the historian, and although the text belongs to them, they are not considered historians. In oral history, the interviewer plays a fundamental role in preserving, guiding, and extracting memories. With knowledge of events and understanding the narrator’s position, he can properly organize the narratives and even, if taking on text editing, produce a scientific and innovative work; thus, he can assume the role of historian. The editor also plays an important role in the final stage by clarifying the memory and observing scientific and editorial principles, and with close cooperation with the interviewer, a coherent and historical product will be presented.

Hassan Beheshtipour

If historian means the narrator of history, it is clear that in oral history, the narrator has the role of historian; but if historian means the recorder of history, then the role of the interviewer and the final editor become more prominent. Generally, if we want to judge fairly, in oral history the final product is 60 to 70 percent the effort of the narrator and 30 to a maximum of 40 percent the combined effort of the editor and interviewer. So, in oral history, we face a triple historian.

It should not be forgotten that in oral history, the main role, i.e., the creation of the work, belongs to the narrator, and the editor and interviewer are considered assistants.

Abolfazl Hasanabadi

An important point regarding this question is whether it is possible to pursue historiography in oral history at all and whether the data obtained from oral history can be considered historiography or not. Essentially, at the interview stage in oral history, one should not seek historiography, and the data obtained from oral history, produced in an interactive conversation between the narrator and the interviewer, can be called oral evidence that is usable in producing and completing historical information. Of course, at the oral history editing stage, depending on the type of use of the produced content and the method considered for editing, one can move towards producing a historiographical text.

Hamid Ghazvini

Definitions have been offered about the historian that have supporters and opponents. Which definition aligns with oral history requires further reflection.

At the same time, perhaps the narrator can be seen as a historical document, the interviewer as a chronicler, and the editor, who evaluates, deletes, corrects, and arranges data, as the historian. Although in classical works the author merely chronicled events and everyone accepted them as a historian.

But these assessments are not precise; in any case, the historian must, along with familiarity with the philosophy of history, have scientific, informational, and professional ability to exercise judgment in historical matters, and not every oral history researcher has such a position.

Gholamreza Azizi

Although the narrator, as an eyewitness to the events, serves as a source; since it is possible to question them, they are in a way a meta-source and play a role in the compilation of history. 

If we accept that compilation begins with the interview and the concept of oral historiography emerges from that time, the interviewer acts as an oral historian (except in some group interviews). 

Ultimately, the compiler completes this circle in the role of historian. 

From this perspective, in the publication of oral history interviews (like relay runners or links in a chain), all three individuals play a role as historians, but the role of the compiler may be considered more prominent.

Artificial Intelligence

In oral history, the role of the "historian" in the strict sense of the word is mostly undertaken by the editor. The narrator is the producer of raw data; they narrate their lived experience and memories, but are not necessarily familiar with historiographical methodology, source criticism, and credibility assessment. The interviewer is also a facilitator and designer of the data collection process; they guide the narrative path with targeted questions but do not formulate the final product historically. It is the editor who, by evaluating documents, matching narratives, eliminating conflicts, and organizing a coherent structure, transforms scattered data into a historically credible text; therefore, their work most closely aligns with the duties of a historian.