Interviews, even tightly controlled ones, have the potential to wander. A quickly tiring narrator, the vagaries of memory, the tendency to pursue tangents – these can derail good interviews more often than add to them. Good research and questions will prevent if not entirely eliminate these obstacles to obtaining a research-quality interview.
What constitutes good research in terms of preparing for an oral history interview is relative to the narrator and the topic in question. It is possible that so little is known about the narrator or topic that only broad contextual research is necessary or even possible – although there is a point where you may want to reconsider why the subject is being interviewed – and that questions are really more like prompts. At the other side of the spectrum is the interview where critical gaps exist in an otherwise well-known story, and the interview is less about discovery than answering a narrow band of questions. Most interview situations lie somewhere between these extremes, and in general research should result in a kind of cultural fluency -- familiarity with the political, artistic, socioeconomic worlds inhabited by the subject -- that can allow for a meaningful discussion between interviewer and narrator. And, of course, the definition of the project should drive the direction of the research. In addition to performing basic research using secondary sources, it is useful also to consult WorldCat and Google – a narrator may have already done an oral history, a not uncommon occurrence, answering research questions you have or creating new ones. Then there’s going straight to the source: in developing an oral history, a pre-interview meeting with the narrator can illuminate topics, and, importantly, create a sense of partnership. Successful documentarians will often invest significant time (days, weeks, months, years) with their subjects before taking out their cameras and their microphones, ensuring that a relationship precedes what is recorded. Although oral historians don't always have this luxury, building a rapport with the interviewee, even if it's only in the few minutes before an interview, will lend itself to a comfortable session and a more complete history given.
Building questions, like research, depends on the nature of the interview. If a conversational interview is anticipated, an outline that guides the discussion will maintain the relaxed feel, while a written set of questions could be helpful in a formal setting, or in a situation where the participants feel more comfortable having an explicit structure. In either case:
Do oral histories conducted as part of research projects in academic or research institutions require the support of an institutional review board (IRB)? Well, it depends...
For years there has been debate regarding IRB oversight of oral histories, and IRBs at different institutions set different policies and often work on a case-by-case basis because, as we can imagine, oral histories can run the gamut of research topics and uses. In general, though, IRB oversight of oral history has been considered an administrative hurdle having the potential to impede humanities research, under which the bulk of oral histories fall. In early 2017 the federal government revised its Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, to clarify that oral history need not be considered research in the spirit that the policy was originally developed in 1991, and therefore did not require IRB approval. The revised policy is scheduled to go into effect January 19, 2018 (more here in the Journal of Higher Education), although it is possible that the date will be pushed back to allow further evaluation.
Even with the new federal policy, research institutions (like Duke) can implement their own IRB policies, to help protect human subjects, ensure ethical practices, and create valid research. These policies may encompass oral history. The best course of action when creating oral histories within a research institution setting is to contact the IRB office. You can contact the Duke IRB office here: campusirb.duke.edu.
There's a lot to think about in considering compensation for narrators, but for me one of the most compelling reasons for compensation is that oftentimes in oral history projects the other participants (interviewers, transcribers, archivists, administrators) are getting paid for their work and can make critical decisions affecting the outcome of an interview. Also evident is that each project will need to be evaluated on its own when considering compensation. If this is an aspect of your oral history project that you feel would be worthy to pursue, I highly recommend the following article in the Oral History Review (OHA's journal): "Money Talks: Narrator Compensation in Oral History," Fanny Julissa García & Nara Milanich, Volume 50, 2023, pp. 148-168 | Published online: 19 Jul 2023. In asking for funding from grantors for narrator compensation for their project -- interviews with Guatemalans who had attempted to migrate to the US but often ended up in debt and/or separated from their families -- the authors gave the following reasons:
"Our original budget, of course, had not requested any money for narrator compensation. We went back to our grant administrators to request funding. In the absence of established guidelines to help us, we came up with a series of considerations to justify our pay scale. These factors, which we have subsequently expanded, included:
The transportation in remote rural areas required to reach internet access;
The fact narrators are using their own technology to talk to us;
The fact we are asking them to take time out of precarious lives and grueling work schedules;
The fact we are discussing emotionally traumatic events;
The fact that all other participants in the project are remunerated for their work;
The fact that the narrators are participating in the creation of an archive of political value and historical significance;
A commitment to “opportunistic redistribution,” given that the project brings together institutions and people in radically different economic positions (including a private US college, a wealthy US foundation, and some of the poorest people in the hemisphere);Footnote15
The unfortunate reality that true redress remains elusive, and the only acknowledgement they will see for their suffering for the foreseeable future is this conversation with us—a sympathetic ear; and
Perhaps most of all, a desire for narrators to understand how much we appreciate their participation in this project and the value we place on their stories and on them as human beings."
Importantly, the authors also describe the arguments against compensation, and consider whether their own project was vulnerable to these.
