After weeks of learning theory, it’s time to begin fashioning my own method for conducting oral history interviews. Scholarship from leading oral historians like Lynn Abrams, Michael Frisch, Jeremy Brecher, and Alessandro Portelli will inform my multidisciplinary methodology.
C. Joyer categorizes oral history interviews as “communicative events.” (Abrams, 16). They take place in real time with real people. Therefore, my methodology considers the social structure of the oral interview as “a three-way dialogue [among] the respondent with him or herself, between the interviewer and the respondent and between the respondent and cultural discourses of the present and the past.” (Abrams, 59). It reflects on the effect I have on the product (the interview) as the researcher/immediate audience. Perhaps my mannerisms, dress, appearance, academic background, the oral history project with which I’m engaged, and possibly my prior curatorial work will influence the narrator/subject. Unintentionally, I will be “displaying aspects of [myself] that will be ‘read’ and interpreted by the respondent according to [their] own subjective position.” (Abrams, 60). The subject/narrator may then incorporate their analysis into their responses, dramatizing their recollections or stories. Subject/narrators may take the oral history interview “as an opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and to perform a version of the self congruent with” their desired image. (Abrams, 142). This may be because of the unfortunate power imbalance in the oral history interview. Everything from the recording equipment to the research questions lend the researcher/interviewer “legitimacy and thus power,” from which the researcher/interviewer leverages to “gain access to an individual and their memories.” (Abrams, 163-4).
To ameliorate this, my methodology will first directly and honestly acknowledge the inherent intersubjectivity in the interview. This will facilitate a sense of respect and comfort. Then, it will employ tactics linked to performance study. I believe employing tactics like Dell Hymes’ SPEAKING (Setting, Participant, Ends, Act-sequences, Keys, Instrumentalities, Norms, Genres), Elizabeth Fines’ “performance report” (despite the criticisms), and Dennis Tedlock’s ethnographic approach using special typography in the interview transcript will help “convey as far as is possible the narrative as a performance act, resting on the assumption that meaning is conveyed as much by non-verbal gestures and expression as by the actual words spoken.” (Abrams, 145). This, however, highlights another imbalance in the scholarship of the researcher. After the interview, the researcher still maintains power through the transcription and interpretation of the script available to the public. “At every stage of the process – from transcription and interpretation to publication – the researcher effectively holds the power.” (Abrams, 165). Therefore, my methodology will also reinforce empathy and establish a collaborative structure with the researcher/interviewee, sharing the authority of the oral interview with them. An established Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the extent to which shared authority – agreed upon by both parties and codified before the interview – will solve criticisms regarding tensions over shared control of the transcript and the subject infringing upon the freedoms of the researcher. The MOU underscores Frisch’s idea of shared authority by allowing “the interpretive and meaning-making process” of the interview to be shared between the researcher/interviewer as well as the subject/narrator. (Frisch, 127).
My methodology will also closely examine the language and rhetoric employed by the narrator/subject during the oral history interview. Firstly, it will consider the narratives employed by the narrator/subject. “Narrative is something we do without thinking,” Abrams says, possibly containing “embedded meaning [and] linguistic patterns and allude to certain ideas which require analysis in order to reveal meaning.” (Abrams, 107). Narrators can use strategies – informed by a variety of factors such as gender, ethnicity, culture – to construct a sense of self for the interviewer, so the interviewer must utilize narrative analysis to understand when and how this performance is taking place. Secondly, the methodology will consider memory. While memory is not as mercurial as skeptics fear, it must be understood in a larger cultural context. “One person’s memory,” Abrams writes, “operates within a wider context that includes memory produced and maintained by family, community and public representations.” (Abrams, 79). Individuals, according to Lynn Abrams, “use social frameworks when they remember,” therefore we “‘cannot understand each memory as it occurs in individual thought only when we locate each within the thought of the corresponding group.’” (Abrams, 95). It is the interviewer’s task “to facilitate [the subject’s] remembering and then, in [analysis], consider the various influences that have shaped their recall.” (Abrams, 105).
To ameliorate this, my methodology will employ a narrative analysis of the transcription. This “can take the historian beyond the bare statements [to] begin to understand how the narrator constructs his or her life in relation to culture. […] This approach [enables] the historian to go far beyond what [is] imparted [to] meaning or what the respondent is revealing…” (Abrams, 117). A narrative analysis will include parsing/syntax analysis, linguistic approaches, and a study of the structure/shape of written text in the transcription. This is a great way to emphasize what Alessandro Portelli calls the “‘velocity’ of narration,” including things like silences, gaps, and other oscillations that may indicate underlying emotions important to the narrator/subject. (Portelli, 49). Alongside this, my methodology will also create a welcoming environment for the interviewee/subject as well as identify the relationship between the narrator/subject within a broader cultural context, through a biography of the subject to contextualize their memories as well as highlight the various influences that have shaped their recall.
My methodology also understands that oral interviews can sometimes enter traumatic subjects for narrators, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The MOU in this methodology – in line with Jeremy Brecher’s methodology – ensures the sources are respected and “know that they will not be forced into areas they find embarrassing or uncomfortable.” (Brecher, 197). However, if the subject agrees to push forward, my methodology encourages a “deep listening” tactic, which denotes “effective, present, and respectful listening for what is being said, untainted by assumptions, judgments, or interruptions.” (Abrams, 187).
Finally, my methodology will concern preservation and access. One aspect that defines oral history is the preservation of the interview for future analysis. To address this concern, my methodology emphasizes an audio-visual recording of the interview, alongside a written transcription and biography of the subject/narrator. This way, future researchers can access the interview regardless of the future technological situation, and they can visually see the performance illustrated in the performance report.
Ultimately, my methodology will employ intersubjectivity, performance, shared authority, and narrative analysis to examine both the interview structure as well as the language used to treat oral testimony as more than simply raw data. Through this methodology, I hope to produce an honest oral history interview that not only records the visible transcript – but also the hidden transcript – of the subject.
References:
Abrams, Lynn. Oral History Theory. 2nd ed. London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016.
Brecher, Jeremy. 1984. “How I Learned to Quit Worrying And Love Community History: A ‘Pet’s Outsider’s’ Report On The Brass Workers History Project.” Radical History Review. 28-30.
Frisch, Michael. “From A Shared Authority to the Digital Kitchen, and Back.” Hearing Voices: Sharing Authority through Oral History.
Portelli, Alessandro. “What Makes Oral History Different.” In The Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories: Form and Meaning in Oral History, State University of New York Press, 1991, 45–58.