Oral histories can provide a uniquely insightful look into historical events, or even contemporary ones with sociocultural relevance or soon-to-be historical value. It is, in all likelihood, safe to say that oral history has surpassed its early contentious origins and has been established as a legitimate and credible research methodology. This does not mean, however, that those seeking to conduct an oral history project should not be actively engaged with and considerate of fundamental methodological considerations. Simply talking to people does not constitute an oral history; neither does methodically interrogating people. This document consists of a general methodology statement relating to the process of an oral history project, as well as a list of general steps and potential concerns.
The concept of oral history, as presented in Lynn Abrams’ Oral History Theory, is the broad theoretical underpinning of this methodology statement. Abrams’ social-science-derived theories and concepts of self, narrative, subjectivity and intersubjectivity, performance, memory, power relationships, and trauma should all be largely accepted and considered for the conduct and gathering of oral histories. These oral histories should not necessarily be rabbit-holing into the construction of memory or cultural narrative devices, or any theory-heavy realm, but should be well aware of the dynamics at play in the collection and analysis of an oral history.
Depending on the corporate standing of the individual narrators for this project, two separate approaches should be adopted. If the narrators selected occupy, or occupied, any high-ranking, “third-floor” positions of power in their institutions, then consideration should be given to Allan Nevins and the more top-down approach to oral history. While care should assuredly be taken to avoid stepping into the realm of biography, however critical it may or may not be, a different approach is necessitated when dealing with people holding institutional power. Conversely, a more labor-centric (akin to the work of Jeremy Brecher and Leon Fink) approach should be taken when the narrators are “front of house” or “back of house” boots-on-the-ground employees. Obviously, one can ask the same questions to either group of narrators, but care should be taken in the analytical phase of the project to delve into how the corporate standings influenced the responses. Conversely, some questions that elicit deep and insightful responses from the employees may ring hollow with the management, and vice versa.
Alessandro Portelli, in a chapter of his 1991 book titled The Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories, discussed the concept of orality as it related to oral history. In short, Portelli argues that a significant, perhaps the most significant, aspect of oral history is that it collects and (should) utilize oral sources. Transcriptions are useful and convenient, but the primacy of written documents in historical scholarship is no longer monolithic; audio tapes contain a great breadth of sociocultural information and subsequent revelations. The orality of oral sources, thus, should be respected at all times by the oral historian; dialect, unique or improper grammar, speech patterns, and performative gestures or sayings are all available in the form of the recording, and thus should be faithfully transcribed as so. However, concerning the particular kind of oral histories to be collected in this project, orality occupies a lesser importance. When dealing with folklore or ethnography, for example, the orality of oral sources is a vitally important component. Given that the oral histories to be found in this project are more akin to corporate or labor history, however, preserving the orality of the sources may not be as necessary. If any particularities of an individual narrator’s speech or background are best conveyed via the orality of the interview, then, of course, such should be preserved and presented. However, care should be taken not to overtly stress the orality of each oral source at the cost of other analytical avenues (like the aforementioned corporate or labor history approaches).
Potential concerns for this particular oral history project include:
- Denying, even if unintentionally, the narrator their ability to actively craft a narrative and project themself into it in the moment of the interview.
- The relationship of the oral historians to their individual narrators prevents any meaningful insertion of outside opinions or corrections in response to the narrator’s particular narrative.
- After-the-fact analysis can, of course, include potentially critical commentary, but under no circumstances should this be broached in the interview.
- Delving too deeply into the exact dimensions of the oral history project without extrapolation; losing the forest for the trees.
- Forgoing an in-depth exploration of the particularities of the oral history project; missing the trees within the forest.
- Treating an oral history interview as a “conversation” rather than a dedicated research methodology.
- Intersubjectivity defines oral history as a communicative process, but this does not mean an interviewer should necessarily be actively responding.
- Balancing the necessity for respect and (when appropriate) deference with inquiry and examination.
- Developing too close a relationship, or even amicability, with the narrator.
- Conversely, being too detached or “scientific” with the project is also a challenge.
A general list of steps for this project’s oral history methodology is:
- Ensure that the date and time of the interview are not only communicated properly with the narrator but also in their best interests. Perhaps the first, if not the easiest, step in maximizing the chances of a constructive and engaging oral history interview is guaranteeing that the narrator knows where and when to show up (or where and when the interviewers can be expected to show) and is wholly comfortable in that setting.
- Map out a general outline or diagram of thematic considerations and topics to be addressed. Having a theoretical, “big picture” framework present will help tether the interview to the goals and aspirations of the overall project.
- Create a list of 10–20 interview questions to guide the interview process. These questions do not need to be asked verbatim, but should exist to reflect a more abstract and thematic outline or diagram. This list should not be shared with the narrator to prevent any prior contamination of the potential narrative.
- When conducting the interview, a good balance between inquisitive exploration and thematic-driven inquiry should be maintained. The list of questions mentioned previously should always exist to ensure a steady flow of information from the narrator, but this does not mean that “improvised” questions should be avoided.
- High-quality, professional tape recorders should be used as the primary recording device, but having back-ups in the form of smartphone “voice memo” recordings should be running during the entirety of the interview as failsafes.
- After the conclusion of the interview, a courtesy email should be sent to the narrator extending the opportunity to further comment on or discuss matters relevant to the interview. The dialogue should not necessarily be cut off following the interview.
- The aural interview should be converted into a faithful—reflecting the particularities of the narrator’s speech and vocabulary—and accurate—in a literal sense, but also more broadly reflecting a lack of significant editing or revision—transcript. Ethical and legal considerations should, of course, be respected (e.g., if the narrator wishes something redacted, then it must be), but a transcript should not be constructed with the conventions, style, and prose of academic writing; it should merely be a written transcription of the recorded interview.
- Any form of reflective or analytical writing done by the oral historian(s) should be in tandem with both the transcription and the recording in mind. In other words, the transcript and the tape should not, if at all possible, produce differing analyses when used separately from the same person.
