Oral history education should not rely on individuals

Conducted by: Akram Dashtban
Translated by: M.B. Khoshnevisan

2024-12-2

Today, training is considered by the oral history experts as a key issue. According to Dr. “Ali Tattari”, oral history education needs to be processed in universities so that, by approving regulations and guidelines, the education of this science does not rely on individuals and does not suffer from a crisis with the slightest change in the country's political and economic climate. What you will read in this interview is an examination of the challenges, crises, and benefits of education in the field of oral history.

***

*How much has oral history grown in the past twenty years? Has oral history education come close to its standard?

*The discussion has an introduction. Before we see how important oral history education is and whether it has reached the status of science and technique under the title of oral history in the past two decades; we must clarify one point about oral history itself. If we accept that oral history is a method of producing a document and in which the interviewer and the interviewee consciously record an event that occurred in the past, thereby permanently recording it, we have begun to produce content using a scientific method. In this case, we have actually been involved in the subject of historiography.  So we must accept that oral history is a process and has its own standards and principles. When we say process, it must have a set of activities, steps, and stages. Such as research, research and study, identifying individuals, pre-interviewing, extracting questions, conducting interviews, and documentation, each of which has steps and sub-branches, and its stages must be defined like a dendrite. In fact, the first step for what was said totally is education. If we want to reach a scientific level in oral history, we must be educated in the first step.

*Is the training that the writers currently use scientific and standard?

In this regard, we have had many ups and downs, because cultural issues are influenced by political and economic issues. Whenever society enjoys relative political peace, cultural issues grow and develop in proportion to those issues. Oral history is not separate from this. Before these two decades, we did not have a scientific view of oral history. That is, training in the way that was considered serious at the origin of oral history in the West did not exist in the country. Each person would take a tape recorder and work on a topic that they were interested in, and sometimes they would also teach. However, in the past two decades, with the presence of scientific and academic societies, some universities took the lead in giving birth to the Oral History Association in Iran. They even named some meetings and conferences as education in oral history, and it became clear that education is the first step in oral history. But we must admit that the subject of oral history, like many other issues in society, is in crisis, and this trend in the country, according to some, has been called a short-term society. That is, interested and motivated individuals or institutions that rely on individuals come and advance a scientific topic, but whenever there are changes and developments in the government, we witness the collapse of those centers. Unfortunately, or unluckily, oral history has also suffered from these crises in the past two decades. Some institutions have gone through a moderate and moderate trend, but in this regard, we have not been able to reach a method in content production and compile domestic reference books, relying on our own indigenous knowledge, in the field of education.

*Given these issues, what is your strategy in this regard?

*On the one hand, the academic community should look at this issue more closely, because I have witnessed that in a university where oral history is discussed and taught, they are dependent on individuals. In fact, there is a specialist professor there, and as long as that professor is there, oral history is in a relatively good situation. However, when the professor retires, there is no replacement, because no one is trained in this field. To solve these problems, a process must be formed in that university. That is, regulations and guidelines must be approved and implemented so that the continuation of a scientific work does not rely on an individual. Unfortunately, we have this problem in the academic environment and its sub-sector, which faces a crisis with the slightest change, while when a scientific circle is formed, it must be made a process and not be influenced by political and economic issues so that it can enter and take action based on a good guideline. Currently, we have faculties that have two oral history meetings in their guidelines for a year, but they are not held on the pretext that we do not have the budget or the university president does not agree with these meetings.

*Maybe they have not understood its necessity.

*Yes, one of the reasons is that they have not understood its necessity. Because oral history is a way of producing documents. For example, some countries in the Persian Gulf are not even fifty years old, but they claim that the lands that have been an inseparable part of Iranian soil for several thousand years belong to them. One way to solve this problem is to create documents through the use of oral history. If they talked to the elders of that region and the document was recorded through this science, neighboring countries would not allow themselves to make such a claim.

*So you believe that the starting point of education is the university?

*No, part of it is the university, part of it are centers and institutions that are the legacy of this field. Scientific centers and libraries have grown and developed in this field. I don’t want to name them. If a pathology is done among the 18 institutions that were involved in oral history, you will see that they flourished and developed in one period and stagnated and became distressed in another. These same issues harm oral history. For example, an institution trains academic staff. Like all specialized fields, this staff enters the work in the hope of a job and income. The project flourishes and works well, but suddenly, the project is closed and job security in that specialty is lost. This causes creative, intelligent, and motivated people to gradually stop involving in this type of specialty and looking for the jobs that provide for their livelihood. For these reasons, vivid talents are not being attracted to these fields. If we put these factors together, you can see to what extent these developments affect the discussion of education and the process that I mentioned about oral history.

You can see the educational weakness in people who are doing a project in the field of oral history. I have rarely seen a researcher or writer asked for an educational background. This request cannot be made to the professors of the revolutionary generation, because they all learned to work in this field through study and knowledge. But the next generations can be asked where you were trained and based on which method and standard you work. Because this is a method of producing documents. In the world, since World War II, oral history has been recognized and entered associations and universities. The countries of England, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, and the United States of America have made good progress in this field. It should also be noted that oral history is related to development, and developed countries have achieved better oral history and archives. A study was conducted by a student at Al-Zahra University on the relationship between the progress of archival sciences and the development of countries, which resulted in the conclusion that developed countries place more importance on this field.

*Is oral history to the point where we can say that it has become a standard in the field of education?

*We had meetings in the Oral History Association. We have not yet reached a conclusion on some principles, such as editing in oral history. In general, the main issues of oral history have not been seriously discussed in academic centers, associations or institutions. We have held 14 conferences in the Oral History Association. The Oral History Association has the most experience in this field. Is holding this many conferences really enough? Certainly not enough. A trend in this field occurs when oral history conferences or meetings are held regularly and frequently. That is where specialists, researchers and writers can be trained, because through it, people know that they have to present an article for a conference on a specific topic every year. So they wait, this creates joy, spirit and motivation. But when a scientific event or conference is not complete, that statistical community is not strengthened scientifically. Students and professors drop out and go after other things. In fact, it must be said that oral history has no custodian. At one time, the National Library of Iran wanted to be the custodian of the work, but that too has suffered a disaster. Because two of the experts in this field who were working there retired and the work remained unfinished.

*So, is the lack of human resources another problem in the field of oral history education?

*Yes, the skilled personnel who become professors do not teach anyone. Moreover, the next generation is not interested in working in this field and mostly goes to money-making fields. The people who are involved become distressed and confused after a while, because these fields have no future and it is logical for them not to come to this direction. Resolving these problems requires material and spiritual strength.

*So what are the benefits of oral history and what harm can it do if we ignore it?

In general, humanity discards any knowledge that is not useful, such as foreign sciences and alchemy. Therefore, sciences that benefit human life remain. The definition of science states: "That set of knowledge that was established by humans for the progress and development of humanity." Science is for a better life, well-being and future of humanity. The science of history is also one of these sciences and, contrary to popular belief, it is not a science for the past, but rather a science for the present and future of humanity, and oral history is one of its branches for producing documents. Oral history intervenes in historiography and is considered a subset of this science.

If I accept that history is a science and that oral history is a subset of this science, it is better to go towards oral history. This science is a lamp that illuminates the future. In it, the experiences of humans are recorded individually or collectively and remain as a legacy. Humans are the only creatures that have culture. Culture means: “the collection of human achievements that are passed down from one generation to another.” This is the characteristic of humans that can record and transmit the experience of the past chest to chest. In fact, with this science, we can preserve the heritage of the past and lay each and every brick of the future with oral history.

*What should be done to increase the quality of oral history discussions?

This depends on the individual and the individual's literacy. How many oral history models do we have in the country? How many types of books have been written? In the country, some individuals and some organizations and universities have moved towards making oral history as a science, but I think this issue requires national determination and we need to move towards standardizing it.