Experts Answer to Oral History Questions

100 Questions/ 54

What are the differences between oral history for a general audience and a specific audience?

Machine Translation Edited by Mandana Karimi

2026-11-2

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 opinions of the Oral History website. Although the answers are supposed to be about 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 54

What are the differences between oral history for a general audience and a specific audience?

***

Experts’ Answer:

Hassan Beheshtipour

Oral history for a general and a specialized audience is no different in terms of honesty and accuracy; the difference is in the method of presentation. Both must preserve the meaning of the narrator's words, not hide meaningful contradictions, observe informed consent, and identify the origin of the narrative. The difference between general and specialized oral history is in the format, degree of editing, depth of analysis, detail of documentation, and access to relevant sources. The general work must announce editorial interventions and explain contradictions. The specialized work also presents the method, conditions of the interview, and evidence in more detail. Therefore, the general work should be more readable, not less accurate, and the specialized work more documented, not less narrative.

Gholamreza Azari Khakestar

In the production of oral history resources, researchers and primary source collectors are usually the priority audience. However, the audience and attractiveness of the content are also important in the production of oral history-based works. The compiler's approach, production goals, and content policies are effective in determining the audience group. Therefore, oral history works can respond to the specialized needs of researchers and, by utilizing appropriate editing and narration methods, also attract a general audience. Overall, the narrative and content capacity of oral history provides the possibility of communicating with a wide range of audiences and expands the scope for different groups to benefit from these resources.

Mohammad Mehdi Abdollahzadeh

Each oral history interview that is implemented is presented to the audience after being edited. Since editing begins at the beginning of any oral history project, the type of audience must be considered at all stages of the project implementation. Specific audiences, who are mainly researchers and readers, tend to be documentary, subject-oriented, and have details, accurate references, and reliable sources. General audiences prefer works that are referential, fluent, coherent, story-oriented, and have narrative appeal and are easy to understand. Therefore, the needs and characteristics of the audience must be taken into account in the selection of the narrator, the design of questions, the editing method, and the presentation format of oral history works.

Abolfat’h Mo’men

Oral history is usually formed by a purposeful and methodical interview between a historian and a narrator, and its goal is to extract historical data about an event that the narrator witnessed or was involved in. This type of history emphasizes documentation, validation of narratives, and the use of documents and other sources. In contrast, autobiographical memoirs focus more on the personal experiences and perspectives of the writer and are not necessarily reconciled with other documents. Also, oral history is polyphonic in nature, while memoirs are often monophonic and audience-oriented. Therefore, the main difference between the two is in their subject-centeredness, authenticity, citation, permanence, and community of audience.

Hamid Ghazvini

Oral history, like any other discipline, must pay attention to the audience group. Usually, in a work with a specific audience, specialized language and literature are used, and many names, terms, and symbols do not need to be explained. The audience, with their own information and experience, will have a clear understanding of the text, and this makes the author's job easier. In this way, an important part of these works is based on the knowledge of the audience. In contrast, in works with a general audience, the author is forced to publish a text that is appropriate to the level of information of the majority of society and close to standard literature, along with explanations of specialized terms.

Seyyed Mohammad Sadegh Feyz

Nothing! Oral history is oral history, and there is not much difference between a general and a specific audience, unless you want to specialize in a topic. In a specialized text, you should pay more attention to your documents and explanations, because your audience is a researcher. You cannot easily ignore the topics, however insignificant. On the other hand, in general topics that you are dealing with a general audience, pay more attention to the narrative aspects of the work than to the documentary minutiae. Here, the audience is not so interested in the dryness of the documents. In both, there is one common feature, and that is originality and professional ethics; whether the audience and topic are general or specific. The general rules of such a text must be observed; including professional interviews, documentation, and maintaining privacy, etc.

Jaafar Golashan

This question can be answered from three perspectives. First, from the perspective of the theoretical knowledge of history or the philosophy of history, which is a methodological issue and raises numerous issues about having an audience and the type and typology of the audience. Second, from the perspective of the interview method and the flow of active dialogue according to the type of audience that requires a specific answer. Here, the question arises whether it is possible or necessary to conduct the interview in a way that is general or specific to the audience? Third, from the perspective of the text or content that is obtained and produced from oral history; how it should be in order to attract the audience. The answer to your question will definitely be different depending on each of these three perspectives.

Abolfazl Hassanabadi

The difference between oral history for a general and specific audience can be examined in terms of purpose, narrative style, language, level of detail, type of documentation, and presentation. These differences can be seen from the project design stage to the publication of the final product. In both types, oral history relies on recording and interpreting individuals' memories, experiences, and narratives of past events; however, the method of transforming narratives into a historical product varies according to the audience and goals of the project. For a general audience, the content is simple, fluent, engaging, and understandable, emphasizing human experiences and significant memories; while a specific audience requires in-depth analysis, more detail, scientific terminology, and a more coherent analytical structure.

Gholamreza Azizi

Assuming that the specific audience in oral history is a reader who is in the same field, classmate, or colleague as the narrator, then the specific audience has more information and common ground with the topic and subject of the interview than other readers and expects the narrator to be required to provide a precise, detailed, and in-depth account of the events and their whys and hows. Especially those that may be hidden from the eyes of the general audience. However, what actually happens and the books that are published do not distinguish between general and specific audiences, and the text that is produced has both perspectives and covers them.

Artificial Intelligence

Oral history for a general audience focuses on engaging narrative, simplification of language, storytelling, and emotion to engage the non-specialist listener and keep collective memory alive. But for a specific audience (researchers), methodological rigor, source validation, contextual detail, careful referencing, and critical analysis take precedence. The general product is often excerpted and edited; the specialized product includes full text, raw audio, and methodological notes. The general goal is communication and empathy; the specific goal is to produce citation-worthy scholarly data. Thus, the structure, tone, depth, and criteria for judgment are quite different. (DeepSeek)

Oral history for a general audience and a specific audience differs in terms of language, content, presentation style, and purpose. In oral history for a general audience, the material is presented in simple, fluent, and engaging language so that people without specialized knowledge can use it. In this style, narrative, impactful memories, and human aspects are more important. However, oral history for a specific audience, such as researchers and students, emphasizes scientific accuracy, historical detail, specialized analysis, and documentation. Therefore, the main difference between the two is in the level of expertise, type of presentation, amount of detail, and purpose of the audience. (ChatGPT)

Share