Experts Answer to Oral History Questions

100 Questions/53

Should the interviewer point out inconsistencies in the narrative to the narrator during the interview?

Machine Translation Edited by Mandana Karimi

2026-10-27

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 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 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 opinions of the Oral History website. Although the answers are supposed to be about 100 words, in order to be polite and not to leave the discussion incomplete, in some cases, more than this number of answers are also accepted.

This time, we asked the experts to send their answers by Sunday night so that all the answers can 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 53

Should the interviewer point out inconsistencies in the narrative to the narrator during the interview?

***

Experts’ Answers:

Gholamreza Azari Khakestar

In multi-session interviews, the interviewee may provide different or contradictory accounts of the same subject in different sessions. Interviewers are required to record all accounts accurately and impartially. Sometimes, a contradiction in the account allows the interviewer to arrive at the correct account. If a contradiction is observed during the interview, the interviewer should respectfully remind the interviewee of the issue and provide an opportunity for clarification and clarification. If a contradiction becomes apparent after the end of the session and in subsequent reviews, the interviewee should raise the issue in another session, citing the available documents and evidence, and record the interviewee's explanations to enable a more accurate and documented assessment of the accounts.

Hassan Beheshtipour

The interviewer should not immediately and confront inconsistencies, but they should not be ignored either. The assumption is that a significant inconsistency is noted, the narrative continues to the end of the relevant section. Then clarification is provided with an open, respectful, and non-leading question. If the inconsistency prevents understanding of the continuation of the narrative or there is no opportunity for another session, a brief question in the same session is appropriate; if its proposal seriously hurts the narrator, it should be postponed or abandoned. In multi-session interviews, the recording can be returned to the next session with an exact transcription. Inconsistencies are not necessarily signs of memory error or lying. The narrator's response should be recorded without distortion and weighed against the documents.

Abolfazl Hassanabadi

Contradictory narratives in oral history are always one of the challenges for the interviewer, which may affect the final outcome. The reaction to contradictory information depends on the issue at hand and its importance in the defined project. Sometimes it is necessary to clarify the contradiction during the interview with supplementary questions and providing additional information, and at other times, after the interview, the content of the narrative is completed by studying and evaluating it with documents and evidence. In general, the interviewer should not ignore important contradictions, but he does not have the right to turn it into a confrontation with the narrator. Because in oral history, respect for the interviewee is the main thing.

Mohammad Mehdi Abdollahzadeh

For intentional or unintentional reasons, the interviewee's narrative may seem contradictory. In such cases, the interviewer should note the contradictions and, taking into account the circumstances, decide whether to raise the issue or not. The purpose of raising the contradiction is not to trap or insult the narrator, but to remove ambiguity and clarify the narrative. The personality of the narrator, the extent to which the contradiction affects the credibility of the narrative, the interviewer's skill in expressing the issue, and the appropriate time to raise it are all factors in this decision. Therefore, the interviewer should respectfully and maintaining an atmosphere of trust, ask for clarification when necessary, and avoid any judgmental approach.

Hamid Ghazvini

During an interview, it is natural for contradictions to arise unconsciously in the narrative, and it is the interviewer's job to identify and recall them, just as it is the interviewer's job to address other interview requirements. Each interview and each narrator has its own requirements that the interviewer is aware of. Sometimes it is possible to point out a contradiction as soon as it arises so that it can be corrected before it is added to the narrative, and sometimes it is possible to allow the discussion to continue and point it out at the beginning of a new paragraph or question so that the narrator realizes their error. The important thing is that the narrative be free of contradictions.

Abolfat’h Mo’men

Oral history interviews have principles, some of which relate to the historian's treatment of the interviewee. The historian should not explicitly tell the narrator about the contradictions in order to force them to take a position; rather, they should recount those cases from the words of other narrators and documents and say that the narration of others and documents is like this, and you yourself have said it like this elsewhere, then ask which one is correct. This technique provides an opportunity for correction; the contradiction may be due to fatigue, forgetfulness, lack of concentration, or expediency. It is essential to maintain the narrator's respect and dignity, and it is better to bring it up at an appropriate time or at the end of the meeting; otherwise, it must be brought up in the next meeting.

Seyyed Mohammad Sadegh Feyz

No. Because the essence of the interview is more important than resolving the contradiction. This will cause the narrator to react negatively or refuse to continue the interview. The interviewer can ask all such points that they may find contradictory in a separate session, or when the topic is presented in a different way, delicately, respectfully, and even indirectly, so as not to disrupt the interview process and not offend the narrator. It is possible that even raising such a topic in the last session will cause the narrator to react and prevent the interview and subsequent steps from being used.

Gholamreza Azizi

The interviewer has two approaches to dealing with narrative inconsistencies. First, the interventionist approach: if he notices a contradiction during the interview, it is better to point it out respectfully; for example, with the phrase “I don’t understand, didn’t you say this before?” and ask the narrator to repeat what they confirm. In the implementation, I try to preserve this contradiction as a “saying” and a “truth”; although narrators usually request its removal before publication. If a contradiction becomes apparent in the implementation or editing, it is better to point it out in the subtitle and ask the narrator why. The second reaction is non-interventionist: the interviewer consciously keeps the contradiction in the text because, according to postmodern teachings in oral history, this contradiction makes sense to the reader or researcher.

Jaafar Golshan

Pointing out contradictions depends on the narrator's personality and knowledge, the atmosphere prevailing during the interview, and the knowledge and presence of mind of the interviewer. It should also be clear what is meant by contradiction: the difference between what the narrator says in different sessions or the discrepancy between their narrative and the data and analyses available in the scientific and public space. Therefore, it is not possible to comment explicitly on what and why the contradictions are. Stating contradictions or even ignoring them can provide valuable information about the narrator's social, political, cultural, and intellectual position; just as identifying falsehoods in the works of historians provides the basis for analysis and judgment about the position of the historian.

Artificial Intelligence

No, the interviewer should not directly and judgmentally point out contradictions to the narrator during the interview. The oral history interviewer’s job is to create an intimate, unbiased space to record the intact narrative. Directly pointing out contradictions can make the narrator defensive and change the narrative. The correct approach is to ask indirect clarifying questions and then examine the contradictions during the editing and confrontation with the documents. (DeepSeek)
 

In an oral history interview, it is best for the interviewer to handle the contradictions in the narrative carefully and impartially. The goal is not to trap or force the narrator to accept the interviewer’s interpretation, but to clarify ambiguities and accurately record experiences. If a contradiction is observed in the statements, dates, or details of events, the interviewer can ask the narrator to explain the matter further by asking open-ended, non-judgmental questions. However, sometimes it is better to leave this issue until the end of the interview so as not to disrupt the flow of the narrative. Ultimately, contradictions should not be eliminated or hidden, but should be recorded honestly and in the context of the narrative. (ChatGPT)

Share