In the last four weeks Part I, II, III & IV of this article were presented. Now here is Part V:

Archiving Oral Histories

As you have already seen, qualitative research in general, and oral history in particular, demand a high degree of ethics in practice. The archiving of oral history transcripts and/or projects is an important part of the oral history process. The American Historical Association says that arranging to deposit oral history interviews in an archival repository is a part of ethical research. The archiving of oral history materials, which makes them available for any host of future uses, may influence the research process in many ways. If a participant is well informed about the research and its outcomes, as they should be through informed consent, then the knowledge the interview will be archived may influence their storytelling. This is particularly salient when unedited interviews will be archived as narrators understand their initial telling of their story will be documented and made available forever.

The deliberate consideration of what can and should be said, and how it should be said, is pronounced when interview transcripts are specifically prepared for archival purposes because narrators will seek to prepare their narratives for an undetermined public audience. This has a doubleedged effect. On the one hand, it can produce more accurate recollections and fuller accounts if narrators take the time to refresh their memories by consulting old documents, and/or other people who experienced the same events. On the other hand, however, it may produce more of a “canned speech,” or a more carefully crafted statement that is sensitive to wider implications of what is said. (Wilmsen, 2001, p. 72)

Edited interviews, intended for archival deposit, present their own set of challenges.
Analyzing, interpreting and writing up your data is always a part of meaning-making. Producing a version of the work can be equated with producing meaning itself—creating knowledge. Editing is thus tied up with the construction of meaning (Wilmsen, 2001). As the researcher, how are you going to edit the transcript? Will you “clean it up” in terms of pauses, “ums,” “likes,” and the other informal ways people speak? Will you fix grammar? Will you change the particulars of their way of speaking, and, if so, what implications does this have in terms of meaning construction? Will you delete or add emphasis to convey meaning? And, if so, meaning from whose perspective, yours, the narrator’s or your interpretation of the narrator’s meaning? How is all of this influenced by social class, race, gender and other characteristics? In other words, what are the implications in changing the grammar of a narrator from a lower socio-economic background? What are the implications of changing, or adding your own explanations for, slang words, which may be the productive of ethnic background and other social characteristics? These are all considerations when determining how to edit the transcript. Wilmsen (2001) cautions that these choices are interlinked with social power—the power to construct and disseminate knowledge.

A significant feature of the social relations of oral history interviews is the power relations between the interviewer and the narrator. Gender, class, race, and other social considerations enter into every interview situation to a greater or lesser extent. They affect editing through narrator and interviewer/editor perceptions of the social status similarities or differences between them, which in turn shape their understandings of their respective roles. The importance this has for editing is the way in which power relations are interwoven with differing experience with the written word. The fact that narrators have varying experience with the written word, the world of publishing, research archives, libraries, et cetera, affects what editing decisions are made, who makes them, and why. (p. 75)

As with all of the choices a researcher makes when thinking about interpretation and representation, editing is an important arena in which meaning production occurs. Reflexive researchers must consider issues of difference and research power relations as a part of ethical praxis.
The extent to which the research process is collaborative will also impact the editing process. If the narrator is involved in the interpretive process they will likely have input upon reflection. In other words, when reviewing the raw transcript, it is very likely that the narrator will recall things that were forgotten at the time of the interview that they may want to add. Likewise, they may want to elaborate or edit parts of the transcript. As a part of ethical practice we encourage you to share your transcripts with your narrators for their approval and input; however, we caution that this of courses raises many possible responses. Ultimately, the degree of influence the narrator will have on the editing process is linked to the issues of authority previously discussed.

• AUTOETHNOGRAPHY
Sometimes researchers use themselves as the subject of their research. In this way, one can conduct an oral history project using oneself as the narrator. For example, if you are interested in your own personal experiences and how they are situated in a cultural context, this approach may help you meet your goals. Qualitative researchers often use autobiographical data in both explicit and implicit ways. For instance, field researchers often keep a journal, ethics diary, or reflective diary where they document their thoughts, feelings, emotions, and so forth (Tenni, Smyth, & Boucher, 2003, p. 2). In this way autobiographical data is a part of the research process. Additionally, particular theoretical and epistemological positions may influence a researcher to explicitly include autobiographical data. When using standpoint epistemology as conceptualized by Sandra Harding, and thus using “strong objectivity,” the researcher necessarily discloses information about her own biography and how it is informing the knowledge-building process. There are many examples of researchers incorporating their own experience into their projects, including doing so implicitly by imposing categories on their data derived from their own life experience. Autoethnography is a particular approach to oral history in which the research explicitly constructs data from their own life history. Furthermore, many researchers merge autobiographical writing with fiction as they write up their autoethnographies. This method thus allows researchers to fictionalize aspects of their work and create characterizations.

But it is insufficient to say that autoethnography is simply an oral history interview that you do to yourself. There is a key distinction between oral history and autoethnography. The difference is that a traditional oral history interview is based on talking (verbal narration that is recorded) whereas an autoethnography is based on writing (Maines, 2001, p. 109). Oral history interviews produce transcripts which replicate narration (Maines, 2001, p. 109). In the case of using oneself as the data source, talk is replaced by writing (Maines, 2001, p. 109). Talking and writing are entirely different modes of communication and thus deeply impact the data produced. People talk faster than they are able to write, produce more detail, and are less likely to censor themselves talking (Maines, 2001, p. 109). Additionally, speech patterns, gestures, tone, and all of the other nuances of the narrative process we discussed earlier are removed from the writing process where the author retains total control and may place emphasis differently than if speaking. Now that we have reviewed the major difference between biographical and autobiographical oral histories, let’s looks more closely at the kind of writing process that constitutes autoethnography.

The term autoethnography can mean different things depending how it is applied and what theory is applied to it; however, in this section we are focusing on autoethnography as a very general form of autobiographical oral history.

Autoethnography refers to writing about the personal and its relationship to culture. It is an autobiographical genre of writing and research that displays multiple layers of consciousness. (Ellis, 2004, p. 37, quoting Dumont, 1978)

Ellis (2004) expands on this definition in order to illustrate the richness of this method and variability in representational forms it can utilize, which includes books, essays, poems, plays, novels and performance pieces.

What is autoethnography?” you might ask. My brief answer: research, writing, story, and method that connect the autobiographical and personal to the cultural, social, and political. Autoethnographic forms feature concrete action, emotion, embodiment, self-consciousness, and introspection portrayed in dialogue, scenes, characterization, and plot. Thus, autoethnography claims the conventions of literary writing. (p. xix)

This method allows us to use our own experiences, thoughts, feelings, and emotions as data to help us understand the social world. Through this approach we are able to link our personal stories to the larger society, which is the structural backdrop against which we experience everything. We can also fictionalize aspects of our project for the sake of the narrative told. This kind of research can be empowering for the researcher-subject and raise our self-consciousness and reflexivity. Having said this, these potential rewards carry their own burden.
As stated earlier, the oral history process is intellectually and emotionally draining. When conducting an oral history interview we can never be fully prepared for what the narrator might say. Nor can we fully prepare our narrators for the range of possible emotions that could flow from telling their story. The same is true for when we use ourselves as the subjects of our research.

The engagement with what is going on for us must be physical, emotional and intellectual. It is with the physical and emotional in particular, that we often get the first clue that something is happening and may be worthy of exploration. So our annoyance, discomfort, restlessness, sadness, excitement, triumph, tense neck, scratchy eyes or feeling of serenity is also data that alert us to something. This process may cause some degree of distress so having supports in place (such as a supervisor, colleague or support group) is important.” (Tenni et al., 2003, p. 3)

Heightened emotions during the research process can be markers of important data that we need to flesh out and try to make sense of. These moments also represent times where we may need additional support because the strains of the research process may be more than we can comfortably handle alone. Keeping track of one’s emotions during the process can thus serve as both data and signals to the researcher about how he or she is coping with the autobiographical process. The data analysis process may also require external assistance. Differing from traditional supervisory roles of detachment and purported neutrality, supervisors engaged in assisting with autoethnography must be invested and engaged (Tenni et al., 2003, p. 3). The person or people invited to help the researcher gauge the process and interpret the data must be invested in the process, because it is, after all, about the life of the researcher, who may be their friend or colleague. Having an external dialogue (Tenni et al., 2003, p. 3) can help the researcher stay grounded and also help alleviate some of the concerns about validity that are often raised when researchers use personal data. Additionally, an external party, but one who is committed to the project, can add complexity and nuance to the data analysis process—he or she may help the researcher “see” more broadly, enhancing both the data and what the researcher takes away from the project in terms of self-consciousness.

Autoethnography can also be challenging, as you are opening up your own experiences for “public” consumption and perhaps the scrutiny that comes along with that. In other words, this method requires a level of vulnerability on the part of the researcher. Author Carolyn Ellis explains how she had to deal with this issue as she performed autoethnography. Let’s join Ellis for a backstage look at the reality of confronting this process.

End of part V.

Source:
The Practice of Qualitative Research by Sharlene J. Nagy Hesse-Biber and Patricia L. (Lina) Leavy (Aug 9, 2005), Part II: Methods of Data Collection, Chapter 5: ORAL HISTORY: A Collaborative Method of (Auto)Biography Interview



Your Name Email Comment Type this number