THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH IN ORAL HISTORY

Eileen Clark

Paper presented to the International Association for Qualitative Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 6 – 10 July 1999.

This is an abridged version of a paper entitled ‘Getting at the truth in oral history’ which has been submitted for publication in Social Research and Social Change: the Journal of the Australian Association for Social Research, Inc.

Eileen Clark Phone: 02 6058 3706
School of Nursing Fax: 02 6058 3737
La Trobe University Email: E.Clark@aw.latrobe.edu.au
PO Box 821
Wodonga, VIC 3689
Australia

The pursuit of truth in oral history

Abstract

This paper reviews techniques for verifying information collected as oral history. It focuses on the interview and the writing up as critical stages for ensuring rigour in the research process, and uses concepts from feminist and postmodern theories to explore these key stages. The findings enable researchers to realise the full potential of oral history as a technique. In addition, the paper places oral history within established theoretical debates by recognising writing up as an essential part of maintaining rigour, and as a communication medium in its own right.

Introduction

Located in the spaces between ethnography, sociology, and history, oral history has been seized on by those eager to record the stories of ordinary folk often ignored by mainstream researchers. Since its emergence, there has been on-going debate over the value of oral history as a legitimate form of research. Much of this debate has focused on the extent to which oral history is able to provide consistent, useful information; in other words, the truth.

This paper reviews the techniques for verifying information gathered as oral history. It outlines verification in qualitative sociology and traditional history before identifying potential problems with authentication in oral history. In particular it focuses on the interview and the writing up as critical stages for ensuring rigour in the research process. These key stages are explored using concepts from feminist and postmodern theories ¹. The paper places oral history within established theoretical debates by recognising the writing up process as an essential part of maintaining the rigour of oral history research, and as a communication medium in its own right. In doing so it moves oral history into the mainstream of academic discourse, rather than leaving it as a technique of limited academic interest.

Oral history: definitions and uses

Oral history can be defined as the reminiscences of people who were involved in particular events or experiences, where the information is obtained in spoken form by interviews recorded verbatim (Douglas and Spearitt, 1982:53, citing Lance, 1977). Rosaldo (1980:97) says that oral histories should be seen as organising perceptions of the past, not as facts standing alone. He describes oral history as a two-stage process when he says that ‘Doing oral history involves telling stories about stories people tell about themselves’ (1980:89). Informants describe their perceptions of events to a researcher, who imposes his/her own form or structure upon them to produce a finished item presented as oral history. The account that is read/heard has thus been filtered twice, through the informant and then the researcher, before readers draw their own conclusions about the events. Each stage of the oral history process contains the potential for distortion of the truth, on purpose or accidentally. Rosaldo himself implies this by his use of the word ‘story’, which in current English usage denotes not only a tale or narration, but also a deliberate untruth.

Oral history has been hailed as a means of redressing the class, race and gender biases of traditional history based on written records. It can be an important tool in recording social change, especially from the viewpoint of disadvantaged or subordinate groups. With regard to women, Sangster (1994:6) believes that oral history studies issues of importance to a marginalised group in a way that makes women’s voices and concerns central. In doing so, the methodology itself draws upon feminist debates about appropriate ways to conduct research. Oral history presents a strong challenge to traditional history, but at the same time the worth of oral history is contested by those who see it as motivated by politics or emotion, or others who see it as too idiosyncratic to be taken seriously as academic knowledge. Quite simply, how do practitioners know that what they collect as oral history is, indeed, true; and is it possible even to talk about truth in relation to personal reminiscence?

In the remainder of this paper I address two critical stages of this process: the interview, and writing up. I consider how each of these contributes to the overall truth of oral history and how they manage the critical double jeopardy of oral history as the story passes from informant to researcher and from researcher to reader (Rosaldo, 1980: 97).

Interviews

The oral history interview is more than the simple presentation of facts. It is the telling of a tale, a narration, which may be shaped by social norms, emotions, and intervening events. Even the use of the term narrator rather than informant in oral history texts implies that the interview is constructed, as a story might be. Because of this it may be impossible to separate facts from embellishments in a narrative, and attempts to do so may destroy the value of an interview. There may be a dialectical relationship between telling and remembering, with each shaping the other. The understanding that comes with reflection on an event may modify one’s perception of it and the portrayal of it in a subsequent narrative (Tonkin, 1992:41). Murphy (1986:165) sees oral history as metaphor; the very act of asking someone ‘what was it like’ generates experience presented in metaphorical style. The extent of truth in the narrative may depend on the performance rules shared by narrator and audience, and the particular genre in which the story is presented (Tonkin, 1992: 39; Rosaldo, 1980:92).

Most writers accept that long-term memory is reliable, but that intervening events can alter the way in which these memories are presented or explained. Sangster (1994:8) notes that current political ideology can shape the construction of memory. For example, I have recently been interviewing women who worked alongside men as scientists in the 1940s. These women recall being paid less than the men, and accepting it then as the norm, but now each talks of how she was exploited under such a wage system. Changes in the political and social climate from then to now may also affect the way memories are presented. Lang and Mercier (1991:110-111) provide examples of narrators who are now respected citizens and who tried to distance themselves from radical political activities of their youth by minimising their own involvement in the events they described.

Writers disagree about the extent of similarity that is desirable between interviewer and informant in terms of ascribed statuses like class, gender, or ethnicity. While a measure of congruence can encourage frankness, Anderson and Jack (1991:13) point out that a common frame of reference may lead to the loss of information in interviews. Shared norms of behaviour may limit probing, and a simple ‘well, you know,’ may leave details implied rather than explicit. There is more agreement over the need for interviewers to acknowledge class and gender differences in styles of talking. Connerton (1989:19) believes this is crucial if oral history is to meet the needs and expectations of subordinate groups. Minister (1991:31) highlights the extent to which women as informants are disadvantaged by a masculine communication style, which is the dominant paradigm in social science interviewing. She believes that men traditionally talk about topics like work that reflect what they do, while women focus on personal and relationship issues that show who they are (emphases in original). Unless a suitable communication frame is used, interviews with women will miss important aspects of their lives and provide unreliable information. This communication frame not only shapes the words that are used but also takes into account the paralinguistic and non-verbal communication used by women. Silences and omissions may be more telling than words in women’s stories (Sangster, 1994:9).

The question of confidentiality challenges the pursuit of truth in interviews. Informants may request that a statement is not recorded, or they may offer information and ask that it remains confidential. Such situations force researchers to confront the ethical basis of their work. Stacey (1991:113-114) discusses the extent of the ethical dilemmas researchers may face when given privileged information. She gives the example of an informant who revealed she was lesbian, but wanted this kept secret in the research account. Respect for the rights of research subjects should force the researcher to agree to secrecy, but in so doing she would add to the ‘homophobic silencing of lesbian experience’ (p.114). Either way she would be compromising a feminist belief. There is no easy solution to this problem yet it is one that every researcher may need to confront.

Collecting the ‘stories people tell about themselves’ (Rosaldo, 1980:89) is clearly a complex business requiring knowledge, skill and sensitivity on the part of the interviewer if worthwhile information is to be obtained. The presentation of these stories to a wider audience is no less difficult.

Writing up

For most oral historians, the finished product of their work is still the printed word, disseminated in publications for an academic or a general audience (these two are not mutually exclusive, of course). This is the act of ‘telling stories about stories people tell’ (Rosaldo, 1980:89) and it raises several issues about the nature of oral testimony and the relationship between interviewer, informant and text.

The first issue arises when tape recorded interviews are transcribed, or interview notes reviewed. Even the most accurate transcript is an interpretation of the original interview. Transcription turns aural testimony into a visual form, which inevitably alters it (Portelli, 1998:65). There are features of speech that cannot be exactly expressed in writing. Pauses, cadence, velocity, intonation, and accent all convey meaning yet their expression in transcripts through punctuation and other means is arbitrary (Portelli, 1998:65; Samuel, 1998:389).

The transcript is the first stage in the writing up process. The next issue is the extent of analysis and interpretation that is desirable in oral history. There is debate between professional historians who argue that facts must always be interpreted within a theoretical framework, and those sometimes described as ‘inspired amateurs’, often from the folkloric tradition, who believe that informants’ stories must speak for themselves (Douglas and Spearitt, 1982:63). This debate has gained renewed impetus in recent years as post-structuralists have challenged the power of authors (researchers) to speak on behalf of those they have researched (Scheurich, 1996:54). Researchers who do not want to impose themselves on the data may be overlooking the point that facts never do speak for themselves. Each reader will interpret informants’ statements in his or her own way, and draw conclusions from them.

Inevitably the authorial process involves a degree of selection, interpretation and explanation, and it is immaterial whether this is described as a theoretical framework or not. Authorial actions take many forms. Lowenstein selected specific subjects for her study of those who suffered in the Depression (cited in Douglas and Spearitt, 1982:63). Rosaldo (1980:95) integrated several narratives into one whole. The author’s role in the translation and portrayal of indigenous languages and relationships presents particular challenges (Morris, 1990:87). Authors may choose to use different visual representations of words, such as poetic forms (Tonkin, 1992, 71). Richardson, an author who has published works in a number of genres and forms, makes the role and power of the author clear:

When we write social science, we are using our authority and privileges to tell about the people we study . . . No matter how we stage the text, we - as authors - are doing the staging.

(Richardson, 1990:12)

The skill and integrity of the author are paramount in determining the accuracy and truthfulness of an oral history publication. Even so, the power of the author’s explanatory frameworks may be debated by readers.

The selection of appropriate theoretical frameworks can itself be problematic as informants may disagree with the explanatory concepts used by researchers. For example, feminism provides a powerful exposition and critique of gendered power relations in society and it is an essential part of oral history studies that seek to focus on women’s lives under patriarchy. It is unthinkable for feminist researchers not to use these explanations, since this would deny their own integrity as scholars and as persons. Yet the concepts of feminism can be alien and threatening to female informants whose lives provide the raw material of studies. They may reject the label ‘feminist’ as hostile and negative, seeing it as an unwelcome addition to their self-image (Sangster, 1994:11; Borland, 1991:71). This dilemma highlights the social and cultural distance that can exist between researcher and researched. No matter what names are given to these roles, there is always a power differential between them (Stacey, 1991:113). Researchers need to be aware of the pitfalls of interpretation, and they need to think about the ethical dilemmas that may arise. But theoretical interpretation is essential for oral history to be a useful and legitimate form of knowledge, rather than a collection of anecdotes.

Theoretical explanation is also essential if oral history is to fulfil its aim of exposing and redressing the biases of traditional history. It is important that the methods used in presenting oral history testimony do not destroy its potential for challenging inequities. This concern has arisen particularly in regard to the use of postmodernist approaches in preference to Marxist-feminist structural explanations. There are several strands to this issue. The traditional Marxist approach embraces a commitment to radical social change to overcome inequality. Individual experience of injustice is taken as typifying a class position. In contrast, post-structuralism questions the validity of talking about a group experience, rather than considering each person’s subjectivity. It asks whether authors can speak for exploited groups, particularly where they are not members of those groups. It challenges the authority of the author and breaks down the division between the one who knows (researcher) and those who are written about (the researched). Underlying these concerns is the extent to which language and the written word represent a system of shared meanings or a multiplicity of unique interpretations. Sangster (1994:13) rejects these claims. She points out that post-structuralist critiques of the inherent uniqueness of individual experience, language and meanings serve to deny the power of collective oppression. Writing which emphasises the differences between women may prevent oral history from fulfilling its wish to explicate and value women’s collective lives. Sangster (1994:14) writes of her ‘... sense of political despair when the very notions of exploitation and oppression are deconstructed so completely as to be abandoned’. Richardson (1990:27) has cautioned against the postmodernist desire to minimise the author’s voice and deny the difference between fact and fiction in favour of multiple readings of a text, each with its own reality. She believes this disempowers those people who had most to gain from being heard.

These criticisms of postmodernism may perhaps be overstated. There is little evidence to show that these fears have been realised. Both postmodernism and orthodox feminism have added to our understanding of the importance of power and the ability of patriarchal capitalist systems to resist change. Both reject positivist epistemology, with its image of the detached objective researcher investigating compliant subjects (Stacey, 1991:115). Stacey (1991:116) believes feminism can learn from the reflexivity of postmodern approaches and she calls for a continuing dialogue between researchers. This debate extends beyond oral history but it exemplifies the recurring difficulty of ‘telling stories people tell about themselves’ (Rosaldo, 1980:89).

Conclusion

This paper has reviewed aspects of ensuring truthfulness in oral history. It has focused on the interview and the writing up as critical stages of this process and in doing so it has shown how oral history is affected by wider debates in the epistemology of social science. Information collected using oral history techniques must be interpreted within an appropriate theoretical paradigm. The choice of paradigm is an integral part of ensuring the veracity of oral history, yet we must be cautious about believing that there is only ever one truth or one way of explaining what a researcher has been told.

Notes

1. The terms postmodernism and post-structuralism are often used interchangeably. In this paper I use postmodernism to refer to a theory of society and culture, while post-structuralism focuses on a theory of knowledge and language.

Acknowledgement

This paper was written while the author was Visiting Research Fellow at the Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University. I wish to thank the staff of the Johnstone Centre for providing facilities and an environment conducive to research.

References

Anderson, K. and Jack, D.C. (1991), Learning to listen: interview techniques and analyses, in S.B.Gluck and D.Patai, (eds.), Women’s words. The feminist practice of oral history, New York, Routledge, pp. 11-26.

Borland, K. (1991), "That’s not what I said": interpretive conflict in oral narrative research, in S.B.Gluck and D.Patai, (eds.), Women’s words. The feminist practice of oral history, New York, Routledge, pp. 63-75.

Connerton, P. (1989), How societies remember, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Douglas, L. and Spearitt, P. (1982), Talking history: the use of oral sources, in G.Osborne and W.Mandle, (eds.), New history: studying Australia today, Sydney, Allen & Unwin, pp. 51-68.

Lance, D. (1977), An archive approach to oral history, London, Imperial War Museum and the International Association of Sound Archivists.

Lang, W.L. & Mercier, L. (1991), Testing for reliability in oral history, in J. Sandford Rikoon and J. Austin, (eds.), Interpreting local culture and history, Moscow, University of Idaho Press, pp. 103-118.

Minister, K. (1991), A feminist frame for the oral history interview, in S.B.Gluck and D.Patai, (eds.), Women’s words. The feminist practice of oral history, New York, Routledge, pp. 27-41.

Morris, B. (1990), Making histories/living history, in J.Marcus (ed.), Writing Australian culture. Text, society, and national identity. Special issue of Social Analysis, No. 27. pp. 83 -92.

Murphy, J. (1986), The voice of memory: history, autobiography and oral history, Historical Studies, 22, 87, 157-175.

Portelli, A. 1998, What makes oral history different, in R.Perks & A. Thomson, (eds.), The oral history reader, pp. 63-74, Routledge, London.

Richardson, L. (1990), Writing strategies: reaching diverse audiences, Newbury Park, CA., Sage Publications.

Rosaldo, R. (1980), Doing oral history, Social Analysis, 4, 89 - 99.

Samuel, R. 1998, Perils of the transcript, in R.Perks & A. Thomson, (eds.), The oral history reader, pp. 389 - 392, Routledge, London.

Sangster, J. (1994), Telling our stories: feminist debates and the use of oral history, Women’s History Review, 3, 1, 5-28.

Scheurich, J.J. (1996), The masks of validity: a deconstructive investigation, Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 1, 49-60.

Stacey, J. (1991), Can there be a feminist ethnography?, in S.B.Gluck and D.Patai, (eds.), Women’s words. The feminist practice of oral history, New York, Routledge, pp. 111-119.

Tonkin, E. (1992), Narrating our pasts. The social construction of oral history. Cambridge University Press.