100 Questions/ 2
Translated by Mandana Karimi
2025-10-30
We asked several researchers and practitioners in the field of oral history to share their views on key questions in this field. The name of each participant appears at the beginning of their response. All responses will be published on this portal by the end of the week. The goal of this project is to open new perspectives on a shared issue and to promote academic dialogue in the field of oral history.
In this project, a new question is posed every Saturday, and experts are invited to express their views in a short text (around 100 words) by the end of the week. All responses are published together so that readers can compare and analyze different viewpoints.
The views expressed belong to the contributors and do not necessarily represent the stance of the Oral History website. Although the responses are expected to be around 100 words, longer ones are accepted when needed for politeness or completeness of discussion.
Question 2:
What is the reason why academics do not welcome oral history?
Mohammad Mehdi Behravand
The reason for academic reluctance to engage with oral history is due to several key factors: first, methodological limitations; because this approach relies on individual memories, it is sometimes considered scientifically inaccurate and unreliable. second, there is a lack of theoretical frameworks and skills in analyzing qualitative data, which are rarely taught in traditional history education. third, there are difficulties in collecting and maintaining interviews and a lack of financial resources. In addition, the dominance of documentary approaches has caused oral history to remain on the margins. As a result, despite its high capacity to represent human experiences, it has not yet gained a solid foothold in academia.
Mohammad Mehdi Abdollahzadeh
More than seven decades have passed since the beginning of oral history in prestigious universities around the world, and it has been more than two decades since some Iranian universities have established this field. However, the lack of acceptance of oral history by some professors is related to several factors. One of the most important factors is the negative attitude towards outputs lacking scientific standards; because after the Iran-Iraq war, people without theoretical familiarity entered this field, although their absence meant the loss of important opportunities. Also, the lack of theoretical resources, resistance to change, and the dominance of the traditional view of history are other factors of this reluctance.
Hassan Beheshtipour
The answer to this question, requires a more precise formulation of the question. First, it must be clarified who is meant by “academics”: professors or students? And in what field; history, social sciences, or all disciplines? Also, what exactly does “unwelcome” mean; non-participation in oral history projects, or indifference to its effects and outcomes? Clarifying these issues can lead to more precise answers.
In an analytical framework, the factors associated with academic reluctance can be examined in four categories:
1. Epistemological and methodological challenges:
Many history professors consider oral history to be a less credible source due to its reliance on individual memory and subjectivism. On the other hand, coherent methodological training in this field has a limited place in university curricula.
2.Political and security considerations:
The sensitivity of contemporary issues and institutional control over some projects have led to distrust of academic independence in this field.
3. Institutional and structural challenges:
Lack of financial support, equipment, and the absence of research privileges in the academic promotion system reduce the incentive to participate.
4. The disconnect between academia and society:
Because many oral history projects are conducted outside the academic space, interaction between academic researchers and field activists is weak.
Abolfazl Hassan Abadi
The discussion of the relationship between universities and academics and oral history can be examined from two perspectives. First, the role of universities in the formation, development, and education of oral history; in such a way that universities have been the main centers of this field. However, except for a master's degree program in oral history at Columbia University, there has been no desire to establish an independent field in other centers of the world and short-term training has been preferred. In Iran, only two courses were offered in the doctoral program in local history, which has now been eliminated. From another perspective, universities have long considered oral history data to be unreliable sources. Although there is no explicit opposition today, indifference towards this field is still evident; a factor that is rooted in academics' limited familiarity with theoretical foundations, difficulty in accessing archives, and lack of educational resources.
Shafigheh Niknafs
Oral history is a research that relies on the memory and subjective knowledge of individuals; which depends on personal perception of experiences and changes with the passage of time and changing social conditions. Therefore, memory is not absolute and fixed, and the results obtained from it can also vary in different periods. Accordingly, some researchers emphasize greater reliance on unchanging sources such as documents, written memoirs, newspapers and photographs. However, the importance of oral history in filling the information gap becomes apparent when written sources are insufficient, especially in studies related to the lower classes, women, ethnic groups and groups that have been ignored in official history.
Hamid Ghazvini
Today, a large number of graduate and doctoral graduates and even some faculty members are active in the field of oral history. However, a group of academics still show no inclination towards this field. The reasons for this reluctance can be found in several factors: habituation to written and document-based sources, adherence to traditional research methods, unfamiliarity with modern methods, lack of methodology in some works, the presence of bias and unfounded content in some research, difficulty in verifying narratives, lack of attention to the history of the people and social issues, as well as the inherent difficulties of fieldwork in oral history.
Gholamreza Azizi
Oral history has not yet established itself as an independent discipline in Iranian universities. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is the lack of effective communication between professors and this course. However, valuable efforts have been made by various professors in some universities. For example, oral history is taught in the PhD program at the University of Isfahan and in the Master's program in the field of archival studies, and it has also been considered at Al-Zahra University. On the other hand, the implementation of projects such as oral history at the universities of Tehran, Medical Sciences, and Payam Noor indicate the practical growth of this field.
Fazel Shirzad
The main problem of academics’ reluctance to oral history lies not in themselves, but in the ambiguous position of this field in the country’s scientific structure. This reluctance is mostly the result of the lack of conditions and infrastructure necessary for serious activity in a nascent field whose tools, training, and evaluation criteria have not yet been institutionalized; therefore, resistance to it is a natural reaction to the unknown. At the same time, oral history has a popular and living nature and should not be limited to dry academic formats, because its value lies in its human and polyphonic narrative; and the university’s indifference means deprivation of a part of society’s collective memory.
Hossein Zanjani
The country's educational and academic structure still adheres to past practices and needs a serious overhaul. Although some universities, such as the University of Isfahan, have entered oral history and several theses have been written in this field, which is a positive sign, the powerful presence of institutions such as the Arts Center, the Foundation for the Preservation of Holy Defense Works, the Revolutionary Guard, the army, and some private publishers has caused universities to lag behind the production caravan. Now more than ever, there is a need for theoretical discussions, criticism, and review of existing works, and it is appropriate for history and literature majors to develop specialized lesson plans and resources on oral history.
Mohammad Mohsen Mashafi
The university and public historiography are two different sources for the production of knowledge and meaning. The university considers science to be the exclusive preserve of specialists and draws a clear boundary between “scholars” and “others”; in its view, the production of knowledge requires scientific competence and academic methodology. In contrast, public historiography emphasizes the participation of ordinary people in the narrative of the past and attempts to break the monopoly of elites in explaining history. This approach is the result of an era in which the general public sees itself as cultural and social actors. Accordingly, the university and oral history walk on two different intellectual paths, each with a distinct vision of history in mind.
Jafar Golshan Roghani
If we look at it from the perspective of historical knowledge and university education in the field of history, the following reasons can answer the premise of the aforementioned question: Despite the arrival of new ideas and schools of historical research and historiography, this idea has still overshadowed the field of history that for any subject to become historical and researchable, at least half a century must have passed since its time and its documents and evidence must have been published so that it can be discussed clearly, deeply, and documented and a valid research work can be presented. Therefore, since oral history focuses on topics that are many of which are not even fifty years old, it is excluded from the topics and issues under study in the field of history.
Number of Visits: 32
http://oral-history.ir/?page=post&id=12894