Oral History Theory

In her book, Oral History Theory,   Lynn Abrams describes the practice of oral history as a method of research that is distinct from other historical endeavors due to its collaborative approach in which the researcher must instigate and lead interviews and from these interactions, historical documents are created. In other words, oral history is unique in that it forces the historian to, in some cases; interact with their subject in a personal way which is beyond the level of other fields. Oral historians go out and look for interesting people as opposed to documents and analyze each person’s personal memory of the past. It is an effective approach to studying history because the interviewer has the ability to ask their subject any question they want and get an answer in return. With documents, the historian obviously has what is offered to them and cannot manipulate the information they receive in the same way. When I refer to this manipulation, I am referring to the fact that the historian can ask any questions they would like and phrase the questions in a way which will hopefully get them their full response.

According to Abrams, you can study a group or an individual and learn from their previous experiences they may not have been documented and each interview is the result of a dialogue. According to Abrams, the interviewer must keep in mind that “subjectivity and intersubjectivity are present in every interview.” Just like interpreting anything else, the interviewer must keep in mind of the subjectivity of their subjects and take what they learn with a grain of salt. Like everything else, each person you might interview will answer your questions and participate in the interview process with a touch of bias whether they do it on purpose or not. One of the things that will affect the content of the information you receive is whatever cultural background the content of information comes from. Abrams also reminds us that the oral history document is the result of a three way dialogue: “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.”

In her book, Lynn Abrams introduces us to a multi-step interview process for conducting an oral history interview:

                -the original interview

                -recording of the interview

                -transcription and interpretation of the interview material

Abrams makes the argument that the interviewer will want to be as precise as possible when transcribing the interview. It is not beneficial to record the information as the historian receives it because everything is interpreted differently by different people. The speaker’s rhythms of speech, dialects and sentences are important in conveying their meaning. To back this up, Abrams says “unless the sheen of social science was added to the oral history practice, including the careful and accurate transcription of interviews and faithful representation of the spoken voice, then the method was depicted as literary and creative rather than as historical and reliable.” In summary, it is not the historian’s job to interpret what they heard but to record what they heard for other to interpret the meaning themselves.

                Abrams does not that sometimes there are exceptions to that rule. For example, when she was conducting an interview of people from Shetland Island, she noted that their vocabulary was almost incomprehensible to her and it was necessary to make some slight edits to the meaning wouldn’t have been completely lost. While speech patterns are incredibly important, if they hinder the historian from obtaining the full meaning, it is acceptable to make some edits which are in itself, not a simple task.    Another important part of the interview process is making a physical observation of the speaker. “In the interview itself some quite concrete signs are read by either side: dress, accent, demeanor and body language provide signals which are interpreted by both parties. Respondents may also communicate their attitude towards the interviewer and the interview process by the preparations they have made (or not).”  Additionally historians must approach their interview with “openness” and let those that they are interviewing ultimately determine the direction of the project.

                Ultimately the role of oral historians is to decode data and establish a connection between individuals and general narratives, personal and public experiences, and the past and present. Abrams mentions a study by Allesandro Portelli in which he privileges the names of the interviewees over the historian because the speakers are the ones that are creating the history while the historian is there to write it down and maintain it for the future.