What is Oral History?
In the article What is Oral History?, the author defines oral history “as a self-conscious, disciplined conversation between two people about some aspect of the past considered by them to be of historical significance and intentionally recorded for the record” (2). One of the things the author discusses is that in the past, “the absence of audio- and videotape recorders—or digital recording devices—necessitated reliance on human note-takers, thus raising questions about reliability and veracity” (2).
For so long we have relied on technology for interviews that it is hard to imagine what the interview process was like without it. I can’t help but wonder just how many people’s stories have been inaccurately retold throughout history as a result of human error during the initial note taking process years ago. I know from my own personal experience with conducting interviews how easy it is to misconstrue information when taking notes by hand. There have been instances when I have gone back to my notes following an interview and had an extremely difficult time trying to recall exactly what it was that they were saying, due to my inability to effectively and accurately jot down their exact response to my question. I found that many of the times that I had difficulty deciphering my notes were because I was unable to keep up with what the person was saying as they spoke, so I instead shortened his or her responses by rephrasing their words into my own. Because of this, their actual response to my question may have been inaccurately retold as a result of how I interpreted it.
While I understand the importance of using recording devices to have the most accurate records of an oral history, I still am curious about the reliability of the oral history itself. If the interviewer is supposed to rely solely on what the narrator is telling them, then how can they be sure that what they are saying is completely true? I know plenty of people that love to embellish their stories to make them more entertaining, and there are even some people that have convinced themselves that something has happened, when in all actuality none of it took place. So my question here is, who is to say what is fact and what is fiction? I am sure that in most cases the narrators are being truthful, but I think that there could also be some who have been less than honest in their story telling.
Like It Was: Chapter 3
When reading this chapter, I was quite surprised to learn the amount of preparation that needs to go into an interview in order to have a successful and interesting outcome. Though I always understood that an interview requires a certain amount of planning, I never really thought about all of the things that an interviewer needs to consider before ever even beginning to think about the questions they will ask.
One thing that I found to be especially interesting was the connection between the interviewer and the narrator. It seems as though there is a delicate balance between the interviewer saying just enough to get the narrator to trust and open up to them, and the interviewer being sure not to say so much that they disrupt the flow of the interview. It appears to be a difficult task for an interviewer to try to maintain a good relationship with the narrator because they are required to do a lot of multitasking and thinking on their feet.
I never would have thought that the chemistry between the interviewer and the narrator could be such a big factor in the information that comes from an interview. Now having read this, it makes perfect sense that the interviewer establishes a good connection with the narrator. If the narrator does not feel comfortable, they will not want to share the most intimate details of their story, which could take away from a potentially great story. I can also see how important it is that the interviewer pays careful attention to everything from the kinds of questions they ask, at what points in the interview they ask the questions, how they phrase the question, the way in which they deliver the question, their level of background knowledge on the subject, when certain questions are not working, when to push for more details, and even the type of body language and facial expressions displayed throughout the interview.
I though this reading was both extremely informative, and now that I have gained such a better understanding of the interview process and everything it entails, I look forward to this next assignment. Although I am still a little unclear as to exactly what we will be doing, I am pretty excited to venture into a project such as this because I think it will be far different from anything I have ever done before.
In the article What is Oral History?, the author defines oral history “as a self-conscious, disciplined conversation between two people about some aspect of the past considered by them to be of historical significance and intentionally recorded for the record” (2). One of the things the author discusses is that in the past, “the absence of audio- and videotape recorders—or digital recording devices—necessitated reliance on human note-takers, thus raising questions about reliability and veracity” (2).
For so long we have relied on technology for interviews that it is hard to imagine what the interview process was like without it. I can’t help but wonder just how many people’s stories have been inaccurately retold throughout history as a result of human error during the initial note taking process years ago. I know from my own personal experience with conducting interviews how easy it is to misconstrue information when taking notes by hand. There have been instances when I have gone back to my notes following an interview and had an extremely difficult time trying to recall exactly what it was that they were saying, due to my inability to effectively and accurately jot down their exact response to my question. I found that many of the times that I had difficulty deciphering my notes were because I was unable to keep up with what the person was saying as they spoke, so I instead shortened his or her responses by rephrasing their words into my own. Because of this, their actual response to my question may have been inaccurately retold as a result of how I interpreted it.
While I understand the importance of using recording devices to have the most accurate records of an oral history, I still am curious about the reliability of the oral history itself. If the interviewer is supposed to rely solely on what the narrator is telling them, then how can they be sure that what they are saying is completely true? I know plenty of people that love to embellish their stories to make them more entertaining, and there are even some people that have convinced themselves that something has happened, when in all actuality none of it took place. So my question here is, who is to say what is fact and what is fiction? I am sure that in most cases the narrators are being truthful, but I think that there could also be some who have been less than honest in their story telling.
Like It Was: Chapter 3
When reading this chapter, I was quite surprised to learn the amount of preparation that needs to go into an interview in order to have a successful and interesting outcome. Though I always understood that an interview requires a certain amount of planning, I never really thought about all of the things that an interviewer needs to consider before ever even beginning to think about the questions they will ask.
One thing that I found to be especially interesting was the connection between the interviewer and the narrator. It seems as though there is a delicate balance between the interviewer saying just enough to get the narrator to trust and open up to them, and the interviewer being sure not to say so much that they disrupt the flow of the interview. It appears to be a difficult task for an interviewer to try to maintain a good relationship with the narrator because they are required to do a lot of multitasking and thinking on their feet.
I never would have thought that the chemistry between the interviewer and the narrator could be such a big factor in the information that comes from an interview. Now having read this, it makes perfect sense that the interviewer establishes a good connection with the narrator. If the narrator does not feel comfortable, they will not want to share the most intimate details of their story, which could take away from a potentially great story. I can also see how important it is that the interviewer pays careful attention to everything from the kinds of questions they ask, at what points in the interview they ask the questions, how they phrase the question, the way in which they deliver the question, their level of background knowledge on the subject, when certain questions are not working, when to push for more details, and even the type of body language and facial expressions displayed throughout the interview.
I though this reading was both extremely informative, and now that I have gained such a better understanding of the interview process and everything it entails, I look forward to this next assignment. Although I am still a little unclear as to exactly what we will be doing, I am pretty excited to venture into a project such as this because I think it will be far different from anything I have ever done before.
RSS Feed