This oral history methodology statement serves to outline and, in some relatively shallow depth, to expound on the methodology intended for use during the conduct of an interview with a selected subject pursuant to the oral history class. The statement attempts a modicum of synthesis of the readings covered during the class. It is structured around the idea of a checklist because, as this is the first real undertaking of an oral history interview on the part of this interviewer, checklists may be followed in the heat of the moment. This structure inherently limits some aspects of the statement in the interest of a sense of brevity that, in theory, will allow for greater adherence to the statement during the conduct of the interview. Additionally, this statement is generally applicable to any subject but includes specific references to the interviewer’s role in the class project, specifically one interview with an employee of one institution. Finally, one must accept the primary limitation of checklists in this context. They seek to simplify that which is complex but cannot do so completely and, in some cases, run the risk of introducing errors into the process of producing oral history. Therefore, this methodological statement must be understood as an amateur’s playbook; a bare minimum serving as a foundation for a far more complex superstructure that emerges during the course of the interview.
The overarching intent of this methodology is to achieve the following. First, to co-author usable historical texts with the subject of the interview. This involves several components. Since oral texts are co-authored and therefore subject in part to the limitations (or, conversely, overreaching or overcorrection) of the interviewer, care must be taken to prepare a thematic organization of questions conducive to the subject matter.1 Second, to deliberately provide a space for the subject’s “autonomous discourse,” 2 recognizing the integral link between the conversational vector established by the interviewer and the subject’s narrativity. Third, and related to the class project, is to establish rapport with the subject to facilitate future interviews. both with the subject and, through the subject’s discourse in their own professional sphere, to enable effective relationships with future subjects in the interest of the longevity of this project. This aim involves peripheral attention to establishing and maintaining community links between the academic institution and the interview’s subjects.
The thematic organization of questions referenced earlier serves to enable both the natural progression of conversation and its consistent (though not absolute) vector in the interest of this project. This form of organization emphasizes oral history as “the process of historical interpretation.”3 It requires both deliberate structure to capitalize on its nuances as the process of reconstruction, but also the freedom to detour down unseen (to the interviewer’s mind) paths in ways that relate stories that are both parallel to and deeper in meaning than initially envisioned.4 Thereby, this method bolsters the shared authority of the project.5
An essential component of this method is the balance in the interviewer/interviewee dynamic. Taking lessons learned from other students during a recent oral history interview exercise and chapter eight of Lynn Abrams’ Oral History Theory, care must be taken to strike up the proper dimensionality within the power dynamic.6 Given the information previously gathered on our proposed subject, I do not anticipate a significant struggle to establish an appropriate balance (the subject is neither dispossessed nor in a position of vertical institutional power over the interviewers). However, one can never be too careful. To this end, I propose an established package of rapport-building questions that, in addition, enable the subject to relate relevant information about their life history. Subsequent to this introductory phase, we may naturally progress to the thematic constellation of questions essential to the project.
The real-world execution of this interview involves two interviewers. Therefore, I propose a careful mix of synchronization and agency. Predetermining which interviewer will be asking which questions may allow for more thoughtful note-taking. Again, since this will be the first official oral history interview, dividing cognitive load between such tasks as note-taking, monitoring recording equipment, checking the time remaining to keep the interview on track (should there be significant divergence from the plan), and asking questions and planning follow-ups on specific topics reduces the interviewer’s propensity for error. Additionally, the “co-co-authoring” (that being two interviewers to one interviewee) significantly expands the interviewers’ capacity for identifying important avenues of questioning. This enables a more optimized co-authoring of the text.
Finally, and in keeping with one of the overarching ideas for this methodology, we must reinforce the positive relationship with the subject (in this case, not in all), and thank them for their time. Abram’s Oral History Theory mentions either thanking the subject or sending a thank-you letter 16 times. It may be difficult to understate the importance of this final part of the interview process.
- Portelli, Alessandro, The Death of Luigi Trastulli, and Other Stories: Form and Meaning in Oral History. State University of New York Press, 1991, p. 54 ↩︎
- Ibid, p. 57 ↩︎
- Halpern, Rick. “Oral History and Labor History: A Historiographic Assessment after Twenty-Five Years.” The Journal of American History 85, no. 2 (1998): 598 ↩︎
- Donald A. Ritchie. 2015. Doing Oral History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://research-ebsco-com.libproxy.temple.edu/linkprocessor/plink?id=8dadfb6a-aa65-3e1c-b634-6bbbf15bd69e. p. 11 ↩︎
- Michael Frisch. “From a Shared Authority: To the Digital Kitchen, and Back” in Hearing Voices: Sharing Authority through Oral History. Ed. Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski. Left Coast Press, 2011. p. 126 ↩︎
- Abrams, Lynn. Oral History Theory, 2nd Ed. Routledge, 2016. pp. 153-174. ↩︎