Scientific Secretary of the "Fourth National Conference on Oral History of Sacred Defense":

Critique Oral History Works to Prevent Repetition of Past Errors

Conversation and Compilation: Maryam Asadi Jafari
Translated by Kianoush Borzouei

2024-11-28

Oral History Website – The call for papers for the Fourth National Conference on Oral History of Sacred Defense and Resistance comes at a time when over 30 years of experience in publishing oral histories of the war have accumulated. Given the substantial quantity and quality of these works, it is now time for a thorough critique and evaluation.

The call focuses on the theme of “Diagnosing the Challenges in Oral History of Sacred Defense” with three subtopics: Theoretical Foundations of Oral History of Sacred Defense, Developmental and Practical Approaches, and Case Studies and Shared Experiences. In the following interview with Dr. Gholamreza Azizi, the conference’s scientific secretary, we examine the current state of critique and evaluation of oral history publications about the war:

 It seems that most oral history projects and publications are carried out by state-affiliated organizations connected to the Sacred Defense. Yet, many of these works are subpar or even fail to adhere to the principles of oral history. Will these issues be addressed in this conference?

Our efforts aim to address this, but the ultimate scope depends on the submitted papers. It is important to recognize that we lack a universally accepted benchmark for compiling oral histories, making it difficult to categorize a book as “weak” merely due to its methodology.

State-affiliated works are not inherently inferior. Nevertheless, methodological errors can be observed in some publications. Alongside weaker works, there are also exemplary publications by institutions like the Center for Sacred Defense Documents and Research.

When you speak of methodological errors, are you referring to compilation techniques? What is the correct approach?

Oral history practitioners have adopted at least four recognized methods for compilation. Some present the interviews verbatim without any alterations. Others organize the content of the sessions in chronological order, rearranging the questions as needed. Another group not only disrupts the sequence of sessions to achieve historical coherence but also consolidates discussions of a single topic that may have occurred across multiple sessions into one section. Finally, some consider the interview text as raw material and rewrite it in their own words.

We cannot question why someone has chosen the first or second method — everyone has their own rationale for their approach. However, it is reasonable to ask: if you used the first method, why did you combine it with the fourth? And why is the text inconsistent? In fact, part of the critical analysis of oral history in the Sacred Defense focuses on addressing such issues.

In another segment of the conference, we aim to explore strategies for improvement. Therefore, we must first understand what has transpired so far. Readers should engage with the published books, critique them, and submit their evaluations in the form of articles. By bringing these critiques together and highlighting past shortcomings, we can identify the mistakes of previous efforts, ensuring that at least those errors are not repeated in the future.

Is the critique limited to technical aspects of these books?

When discussing critique, we must examine every aspect. How well has editing been executed? Is the concept of editing in oral history aligned with general editing principles, or does it differ? Has the content been handled effectively? Were the interviewer and interviewee appropriately selected? Did the interviewee convey information accurately, and did the interviewer thoroughly explore the perspective, depth, and breadth of the interviewee's narrative?

For instance, if a combatant describes the front line where they were stationed but lacks knowledge about the adjacent unit, and subsequently makes a sweeping generalization about an event, did the interviewer consider the possibility of error or exaggeration? Was there follow-up research, contextualization, and verification to ensure the reliability of these accounts?

On another note, redundancy is a significant issue in the oral history of the Sacred Defense. Multiple institutions have published books under the broad title of oral history, often based on the accounts of a limited number of individuals. Meanwhile, a vast number of combatants and families affected by the war have yet to be approached.

Additionally, we have not yet integrated the published interviews into qualitative research. For example, we could analyze several books on a specific topic and use qualitative research or statistical methods to interpret combatants' opinions on that subject. Moreover, these interviews have yet to be utilized as data in broader historical, political, social, or military studies.

 Some government agencies quicken data collection through what they call "Jihadi efforts" to conduct and transcribe interviews. Do you see this as a shortcoming?

If individuals engage in efforts to expedite the collection of information, there is no inherent issue, provided that the interviewers are properly trained beforehand. Such training requires its own structured approach. For instance, care must be taken in selecting instructors who either have substantial scholarly contributions to oral history or possess extensive experience in teaching. Participants in the training programs, after completing theoretical instruction, must engage in hands-on practice — essentially shadowing a professional interviewer to gain practical experience.

On the other hand, fortunately, some centers have developed their own guidelines, which at least provide clarity on the trajectory to follow and outline the process of conducting oral history interviews up to the stage of publication. These guidelines serve as essential complements to training.

Several factors contribute to the successful production of a quality oral history work within institutions. First, having a guideline ensures that individuals are aware of the framework they should adhere to. Second, interviews must be conducted by a trained and specialized interviewer. Merely having a recording device is not sufficient to conduct a proper oral history interview. The interviewer must possess expertise, knowledge, and prior research on the interview’s subject. While it is not necessary for the interviewer to have personally experienced the era of the Sacred Defense, it is expected that they have conducted in-depth study on the topic, mastered interview techniques, and are familiar with the interviewee. A competent interviewer must have a thorough understanding of the subject, the timeframe, and the narrator. Third, interviews must be conducted with a qualified interviewee — someone who is knowledgeable, a witness, an actor, or an observer of the event in question. This chain of prerequisites pertains to the pre-publication stage of a book.

If any link in this chain — such as editing, clarification, formatting, layout, or cover design — is missing, the book will inevitably suffer in quality. The further back one goes in the chain, the greater the impact of deficiencies. For example, while errors in publication-related matters can be corrected in subsequent editions, if the interview itself has not been conducted properly and the interviewee is no longer accessible for any reason, nothing can be done to remedy the situation. Thus, the further back the problem lies (even as far as the interview stage), the harder it becomes to reconstruct the text.

We hope that specialists and interested individuals who submit articles to us will focus on these areas of concern.

 Given the widespread activity in publishing oral histories, could a centralized review committee pre-approve works to ensure their quality?

I believe such a thing is not feasible. We have certain natural sciences where experiments can be conducted, but in the realm of humanities, it is not possible to dictate a uniform approach where everyone writes in the same manner. As I mentioned earlier, at least four different approaches to compiling oral history can be presented. One perspective involves critique — assessing and identifying the strengths and weaknesses. When we talk about critique, we might encounter two implicit perspectives: the critic’s viewpoint and that of the author, compiler, or editor — in other words, completely negative and completely positive views. When we are subjected to critique, our initial expectation is often praise and admiration. However, if a critique points out one or two flaws, as they say, you can forget about maintaining friendships. Otherwise, all oral history practitioners would welcome having their books critiqued!

In some institutions, the method of "pre-publication critique" has been practiced. That is, the manuscript is reviewed and critiqued by several specialists before it is printed. If there were any shortcomings or flaws, they would address them. This method could even be applied to all books in the field of the Sacred Defense.

I once saw a book that was a memoir but had been labeled under oral history. Such examples can be corrected during pre-publication critique (and even in subsequent editions). As a first step, we hope everyone — like the Center for Sacred Defense Documents and Research, the Center for Sacred Defense Documents and Records, and the War Knowledge Commission — develops oral history guidelines. The second step is to have individuals instill these guidelines in others. Otherwise, when you look at the books of a particular institution, you might notice that, for example, the first 30 questions in most books are identical, indicating that they followed the same template throughout. However, if a research article in the field of pathology examines these works, the publisher is more likely to pay closer attention to subsequent projects.

Thus, the final link in that chain is critique. First, we should determine our evaluation tools and then critique the books to help them improve.