Experts Answer to Oral History Questions

100 Questions / 42

What is the importance of the narrator and interviewers shared understanding of the past in oral history?

Machine Translation Edited by Mandana Karimi

2026-8-10

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 the 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 the 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 opinion of the Oral History website. Although the answers are supposed to be around 100 words, in order to be polite and not to leave the discussion incomplete, in some cases, more than this amount of answers will be accepted.

This time, we asked the experts to send their answers by Sunday night so that all the answers will 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 42:

What is the importance of the narrator and the interviewer's shared understanding of the past in oral history?

____________________________________________

Answers to Question 42:

Hassan Beheshtipour

A shared understanding between the narrator and the interviewer is important in oral history. Because it transforms the interview from a simple question and answer to an interpretive conversation. This understanding builds trust and allows the narrator to express his experiences more accurately and deeply. While the interviewer can access deeper layers of meaning, emotion, and historical context with follow-up questions, this same-shared understanding, if based on incorrect assumptions or contemporary biases, can lead the narrative to confirm the interviewer’s mindset. Therefore, its main value in oral history is not complete agreement, but rather the formation of a critical and flexible relationship in which the past is both better understood and less distorted.

Gholamreza Azari Khakstar

A shared understanding between the interviewer and the interviewee about the past is one of the essential factors in the success of oral history conversations. This shared understanding, first, makes the interview process purposeful and coherent and leads to more precise and effective questions. Second, if the importance of the past and the value of its narrative are not properly explained to the narrator, he may not be able to express historical memories and events with sufficient accuracy, coherence, and depth. As a result, the historical narrative will be incomplete or ambiguous. Therefore, the formation of a shared understanding of the past provides a suitable basis for accurately recounting the difficulties of the narrative and helps to record historical experiences in a documented and reliable manner.

Mohammad Mehdi Abdollahzadeh

One of the important skills of an oral history interviewer is to establish effective communication with the interviewee. This skill helps to create a shared understanding of the past, even if the two parties differ in values. Shared understanding creates a favorable atmosphere for the interview and allows the interviewee to recall their memories better and with a cause-and-effect relationship and to reach their why and how. This understanding also helps the interviewer to understand the narrator and his memories more accurately, avoid misunderstandings, and ask questions that are more appropriate. As a result, the interviewee also understands the objectives of the questions and the interview process better, and the interviewer will have more control over the course of events.

Abolfat’h Mo’men

In oral history, reaching a common ground and creating mutual understanding between the interviewer and the interviewee is very important. A common understanding of past events improves the interview process and leads to greater cooperation, recall of details, and the formation of empathy between the two parties. In these circumstances, the narrator knows better that about what topic and why he is talking and then continues his narrative with greater motivation. Creating a sense of temporal and spatial belonging also helps to leave fewer aspects of the event unsaid. This mutual understanding also helps the historian manage time, design precise questions, and conduct the interview. Ultimately, the narrator will contribute more effectively by being aware of the importance of his or her narrative for the present and the future.

Abolfazl Hassanabadi

In oral history, a shared understanding, not a homogenization of viewpoints, between the narrator and the interviewer is one of the most important factors in producing a credible, deep, and analyzable narrative. Of course, shared understanding refers to reaching a common understanding of the subject of the interview in order to establish effective communication. The more interaction there is, the more likely it is to reach a correct understanding of the meaning of the narrative, produce deeper data, appropriately conduct the interview, and synergize information between the interviewer and the interviewee. Ultimately, the scientific validity of oral history largely depends on the interaction and balance of communication between the interviewer and the interviewee in a common intellectual context.

Gholamreza Azizi

It may seem at first that a “common understanding of the past between the narrator and the interviewer” is important for avoiding disagreement and for empathizing with history, but I think this common understanding (understanding and understanding) can be more damaging to oral history projects than a “different understanding of the past between the narrator and the interviewer.” Because a “common understanding” has at its heart a shared belief, a shared understanding that will lead from common thinking to empathy and harmony with the past. The narrator and the interviewer both look at the past from the same perspective. With this assumption, is not what the interviewer asks the same thing that the narrator wants to talk about. Alternatively, is not what the narrator says the same thing that the interviewer himself has the same opinion and opinion, knows, and wants to hear? In this case, not only the possibility of conflict opinions eliminates, but also a new question is created from this perspective, and no light of enlightenment will be shed on any dark corner.

Seyyed Mohammad Sadeq Feyz

Although a common understanding between the narrator and the interviewer can increase the speed of the project's progress and perhaps reduce unnecessary repetition, increase the quality and comprehensiveness of the discussions, and also put the interview in the right direction to prevent dispersion and long-windedness, it also warns the narrator from dealing with incorrect narratives and may, in their company, promote the oral history project and help the narrator express his memories more fluently; but this shortcoming also makes it possible for the narrator to avoid expressing some details and nuances that will be useful in the continuation of the discussion, in order to familiarize the interviewer with the subject. This makes the audience face a void and a kind of embeddedness in the text when reading the final text, which harms the work. This common understanding should not cause the deletion or avoidance of expressing the details of the memory.

Hamid Qazvini

A prerequisite for any dialogue is a common understanding of the issues, words, and expressions used. Many issues, expressions, and words will have different semantic loads over time and in different situations by people with different tendencies. For this reason, the parties must have reached a clear and common understanding of the issues under discussion and their vocabulary. Of course, this does not mean imposing one view or taste on the other and does not contradict the freedom of the interviewee to express his or her opinions and views. Rather, it means that the parties have a clear and common understanding of the issue, problem, and question. For example, when talking about a military operation, the parties should have a close understanding of the phenomenon under discussion and use language that is understandable to the other in its description. Even if they disagree about its dimensions and how it is implemented.

Artificial Intelligence

In oral history, the shared understanding of the past between the narrator and the interviewer is at the core of the credibility and depth of the narrative. This cognitive empathy is not simply an agreement on events, but rather a trusting space for the recounting of hidden memories and interpretations. When the interviewer understands the cultural context and mindset of the narrator, he or she can ask more specific questions, transforming the narrative from a general report to a lived, tangible experience. This understanding frees the narrator from the worry of distortion or judgment and helps create a rich, multi-layered narrative of the past that is important for historiography beyond written documents. (Deepseek)

***

A shared understanding of the past between the narrator and the interviewer is crucial in oral history because it makes the narrative of the past more accurate, coherent, and understandable. The narrator expresses his experiences and memories based on his personal perception, and the interviewer helps to clarify the context and details with appropriate questions. This shared understanding also prevents misunderstandings and unwanted distortions of the narrative. When both have a close and shared perception of the time, place, characters and events in question, the conversation gains greater depth. As a result, oral history will not only be a record of individual memories, but also a more accurate and meaningful reconstruction of the past. (Chatgpt)