Answering 10 Fundamental Questions in Oral History

Hassan Beheshtipour
Machine Translation Edited by Mandana Karimi

2026-11-12

This text was received at the request of the Iranian Oral History website and in response to the “Call for Fundamental Questions in the Field of Oral History.” In it, the author raises 10 key questions that he believes every researcher, interviewer, and person interested in oral history should think about, and writes an answer of about 200 words for each question. Submitted materials will be published on the Oral History website under the author’s name and pen name and without editing. It is hoped that this call will pave the way for a broader dialogue among experts and people interested in this field. On this occasion, we will read Mr. Hassan Beheshtipour’s questions and answers and sincerely thank him for his support.

1. What is oral history and what kind of knowledge does it produce?

Oral history is not simply a method of collecting memories. It is a research and interpretive process in which the researcher and the narrator, through a systematic dialogue, recall and make sense of the past together. The data do not exist in advance and emerge in the interaction between the interviewer and the narrator. The result is a new document that did not exist before the interview. For this reason, the process of producing the narrative itself is also the subject of analysis.
In general, oral history has three meanings at the same time: first, a process of conversation and recording, second, a collection of audio and video documents, and third, a method for studying the past through the lived narratives of real people.
Ultimately, the knowledge produced has three layers: information about the event, lived experience (perception and emotion), and the meaning that the narrator gives to the past today. In addition, it also creates knowledge about individual and collective memory, identity, language, and power relations. Its value is not only in adding “new information.” Sometimes it shows how people experienced and understood an event.

2. What does historical truth mean in oral history?

Oral narrative is a combination of recollection, interpretation, and meaning-making, that is, a “meaningful construction of experience.” The narrator recounts the past from their present position, influenced by memory, the passage of time, identity, audience, subsequent experiences, and the circumstances of the interview. So, we must distinguish between three things: the historical event, the memory of the event, and the narrator’s current account of that memory. Truth is multi-layered and has three types:
Eventual truth: What happened? This layer can be measured by other documents and evidence.
Experiential truth: What was the event like for the narrator and how was it felt and understood?
Semantic truth: How does the narrator make sense of it today?

These levels do not always coincide. A narrative that is flawed at the event level may be very telling at the experiential and semantic levels. Even an inaccurate memory of the details of an event can be important for understanding one’s experience, perception, or historical memory. The boundary between historical fact and narrative memory is therefore not fixed. It is up to the researcher to determine for each proposition at which level they are making a claim and to measure it against the criteria of that level. Their goal is not simply to separate the two. They must also understand the relationship between them and how meaning is formed in memory and narrative.

3. To what extent is memory a source of knowledge of the past?

Memory is an indispensable, unique but limited and uncertain source for understanding the past; not a mechanical record, but a narrative process in which the individual reconstructs the past from the perspective of the present. Time, forgetting, subsequent experiences, family and official narratives, the media and identity needs affect the narrator's recollection. However, errors and reinterpretations are the narrator's and indicate how the individual has understood the past; therefore, the accuracy of memory should not be equated with its research value. Accuracy is not uniform. Fine details are more fallible, but the overall structure and fateful events are more stable. The researcher must separate two questions: Did all the details described by the narrator occur? And what does the memory mean to the narrator? Internal coherence, agreement with independent sources, sensory detail, time interval, comparison with documents and attention to patterns of distortion can be used to assess validity. It should be noted that individual memory is formed in a collective context and internalizes the group narrative; therefore, the statements of the interview are not just individual recollections. The interviewer is not a neutral observer, but a catalyst and intervener, and must consider the effect of their questions in the analysis and avoid inductive questioning.

4. What is the ultimate purpose and function of oral history?

Oral history does not have a single, exclusive purpose. Its most important functions include: recording and preserving human experience, completing documents and filling in gaps, reconstructing events, critiquing official narratives, revealing the voices of silenced or underheard groups, and studying individual and collective memory and how society makes sense of the past. Understanding identity, public education, and advocacy are also among its other functions.
Reconstructing an event is important, but it is not the ultimate goal; because memory itself and the meaning that individuals give to an event are also the subject of research. The most important function of oral history, especially regarding war, captivity, and migration, is to produce a new understanding of the past that is not obtained solely from official documents; that is, to see history from below and from within human experience. Oral history is therefore a source, a method, and a field for the production of historical knowledge. The purpose of the research should be clear before it begins, as it will influence the selection of narrators, the type of questioning, recording, analysis, and access to the narratives. Otherwise, historical reality, personal memory, and narrative meaning may become confused. Consideration should also be given to the unintended consequences of disseminating the narrative, such as stigmatization, unwanted disclosure, or reproducing trauma. Ultimately, the value of oral history lies in the connection between the “history of the event” and the “history of the human experience of the event.”

5. How do the interviewer and power relations affect narrative production?

Narrative in oral history is the result of the interaction between the interviewer and the narrator, not the extraction of information from the narrator's mind. Social status, gender, age, education, organizational and political affiliation, the purpose of the research, and even the reputation and assumptions of the interviewer can affect what the narrator says or leaves unsaid. The narrator is also an active actor and, depending on the audience, may highlight, modify, or hide certain issues. Power relations are not formed only between the interviewer and the narrator; the commissioning institution, the government, the archive, the translator, and even the future audience can also affect the production and final form of the narrative. Each question determines the path of recollection to some extent; therefore, the interviewer inevitably intervenes in the production of the narrative. The problem is that this intervention remains limited to facilitating the expression of experience and does not become an insinuation of an answer or an imposition of a result. Open-ended questions, following the narrator’s narrative, respecting silence, and allowing for correction are examples of legitimate guidance; in contrast, leading questions, pressure, repeated interruptions, or pushing the narrator to a predetermined conclusion are considered manipulative interventions. Thus, absolute neutrality is not achievable, but systematic reflection and recording of the interview conditions can make the impact of power relations visible and measurable.

6. How should the validation and comparison of oral narratives with other sources be done?

Validation is a multi-layered process of critiquing and comparing evidence. First, the narrator’s claim, its time and place, and their relationship to the event must be determined: were they a direct witness, heard from others, or expressing their own personal impression? Then, the origin, time of production, purpose, audience, and limitations of each source, whether oral or written, are examined.
The narrative must be compared with other independent sources, such as documents, official reports, press releases, photographs, statistical data, physical evidence, memoirs, and interviews. Criteria such as internal coherence and temporal and spatial consistency are also important. No source, including an official document, has a priori authority; each source may have its own purpose, bias, or limitations.
In the event of a conflict, one narrative should not be automatically eliminated or “corrected.” The researcher should examine the cause of the discrepancy, such as memory error, differences in position and perspective, differences in lived experience and official narrative, or the limitations and purpose of the document. Then state the level of confidence explicitly: “corroborates,” “inconsistent,” “no independent witness found,” or “undetermined.”
Thus, the credibility of oral history is not achieved by preferring one oral account or written document over another, but rather by critiquing the source, comparing evidence, paying attention to context, and clearly stating the level of confidence.

7. How should silence, forgetting, contradiction, and the unspoken be dealt with in oral history?

Silence, forgetting, contradiction, and unsaid should not be seen simply as narrative flaws or errors; they are sometimes themselves important data about experience, memory, identity, and power relations. However, not every silence or forgetting should be assumed to have a hidden meaning or be seen as a deliberate sign of concealment.
The researcher should distinguish between “does not know,” “does not remember,” “does not want to say,” and “cannot say.” Silence or forgetting may be due to the passage of time, trauma, shame, fear, political and family considerations, social pressure, cultural constraints, insufficient trust, or a conscious decision by the narrator. Contradiction does not necessarily negate the validity of the narrative and may result from a difference in perspective, a reconstruction of memory, or a change in the meaning of the past.
The appropriate method is to accurately record silences, pauses, corrections, and refusals to answer, without pressure on the narrator, and to analyze them in a historical and social context. These should also be compared with other narratives and independent evidence. Interpretation of the unsaid should be cautious and evidence-based, and the researcher should not speak for the narrator.
The main question should therefore not be “What is the narrator hiding?” but rather “Under what circumstances was this not said, and what limitations and possibilities does this silence create for interpretation?”

8. How does the researcher distinguish between the narrator's narrative and their own interpretation?

The researcher must distinguish between three levels: the narrator’s statement, the researcher’s inferences from comparing the narrative with other sources, and the researcher’s interpretation of the meaning and patterns in the narratives. Blending these levels makes it difficult for the reader to distinguish which statements are the narrator’s and which are the researcher’s.
A complete separation of the two is not possible, because the choice of narrator, the design of the question, the implementation, the translation, the editing, and the selection of quotations also contribute to the formation of meaning. The goal is therefore not to claim absolute impartiality, but to clarify the stages of intervention and the distinction between the different levels. Maintaining the original file, the precise implementation, the recording of the edited text, the coding, and the documentation of the analysis stages allow for the review of the process.
In the final writing, the direct quotation should be distinguished from the researcher’s analysis, and each inference should be documented with its evidence and sources. The researcher must first accurately record and code the narratives, then identify themes and patterns, place them in historical and social context, and compare them with other narratives and sources; then interpret and theorize.
Reviewing the narrative by the narrator, if agreed upon, can reduce obvious errors, but should not lead to the elimination of unpleasant parts. Finally, the researcher must both preserve the narrator's voice and explicitly accept responsibility for his or her scholarly interpretation.

9. What are the ethical boundaries of questioning and the responsibility of the researcher?

Ethics in oral history are part of the research process itself. The researcher may ask questions about sensitive and painful experiences, but the pursuit of truth does not give permission to invade the privacy or cause harm to the narrator. Questions should be asked with the aim of understanding and always with the dignity and safety of the narrator in mind.
Free and informed consent is a fundamental principle and should be maintained as much as possible. The narrator should be aware of the purpose of the research, the manner in which the data will be recorded, used and disseminated, the potential audience, the risks, the manner of storage and their rights. They have the right not to answer a question, to change the subject, to stop the interview, to set limits on access to the narrative and to remain anonymous when necessary.
In sensitive and traumatic subjects, the principle of minimizing harm is particularly important. The interview should be gradual and sensitive, and the researcher should avoid pressuring the narrator to reveal emotional details or to continue the interview against their wishes. The researcher’s responsibility also includes respecting the privacy and security of named third parties.
The ethical line is where the scientific value of the question is imposed at the cost of serious harm to the narrator. Therefore, a balance must be struck between scientific importance and the potential for harm. Editing should also be for readability, not to alter the narrator’s voice; and promises such as absolute confidentiality or complete control over future uses should not be made.

10. Who is represented and who is responsible for the fate of the narrative after production?

Every oral history project, by selecting narrators, includes a part of the community in the historical narrative and excludes another part; therefore, no collection is completely representative of the community. Usually, those who are easier to reach are more likely to be present in the projects, and groups such as women, minorities, the marginalized, the injured, the disaffected, those afraid to speak, or those who do not know the language of the project may be underrepresented. The researcher should clearly state the criteria for selecting narrators and, as appropriate to the research question, consider gender, generational, social, geographical, and experiential diversity. The absence of a voice should not be confused with historical silence.
The responsibility for the post-production narrative also lies not only with the researcher, but also with the narrator, the interviewer, the final editor, the research institution, and even the archive. For this reason, there should be a clear agreement from the outset about material ownership and intellectual property rights, the level of access, the conditions for publication and reuse, the duration of the limitation, and the manner of archiving. The narrator should be aware of their rights and, within the framework of the agreement, have the possibility of access and, in certain cases, revision or restriction of publication.
The researcher is responsible for responsible use and editing; the archive is responsible for safekeeping and compliance with the conditions of access. Ultimately, the fate of the narrative is a balance between the rights of the narrator, the requirements of the research, and the public interest, and should be determined transparently and responsibly.

Share