Random Thoughts on Oral History, Interviews, and Technique

This week, I spent some time really focusing on the process of getting ready for an oral history interview and what is really involved. I ended up with 13 small paragraphs about different ideas and thoughts on how to interview and collect oral history... and I will share them with you below.

1. The idea of neutrality is described as a skillful way of holding yourself/ body and asking questions that keep the focus at all times on the interviewee and their thoughts and feelings. For instance, having too much rapport or empathy with the interviewee can really side-rail the interview and make it more about you and your feelings and thoughts- and not the person being interviewed... which is certainly not the goal that we are trying to complete(in performing an interview). Also, too much of anything- whether it is emotions, questioning etc... can change the interview and make it more biased, less accurate and focused on the biases, not the whole picture.

2. It is suggested that opening an interview with a question that provokes a detailed answer helps to start an interview with a prompt, purposeful beginning. It lets the interviewee know that the interview has begun and gives both you and the interviewee the cue that you are 'down to business'. Using a question that the interviewee is likely to know and need to give a detailed answer to helps get the interview off on the right track of the interviewee talking... and you listening.. It also should state the main purpose for the interview so that the subject that is to be covered is acknowledged right away.

3. A leading question is a question that sets up the interviewee to answer the question asked in the way that the interviewer seems to wish. This will not necessarily give you the answer you are really looking for. The danger of loaded questions contaminating the interview becomes higher if the 'status' of the interviewer is higher than the 'status' of the interviewee. Loaded questions can also produce answers that are truly difficult for the historian to interpret correctly because the interviewer's bias is so obvious in the original question. To avoid loaded questions, avoid questions that provoke short answers, questions filled with 'emotive' words, and use the interviewers own words to ask more questions- do not make assumptions of what the words mean... ask! Leading questions are less likely to cause problems with the interview near the end of the interview and can be useful when you have had an uncooperative interviewee. At the end you can use these questions to try and pull out more details and get more information. However, even in these situations, keeping the questions as non-'leading' as possible will help to keep the interview unbiased and 'correct.'

4. A negative leading question can be useful for getting comments and thoughts on provocative topics... especially if the historian's research has turned up conflicting information between the research and the information provided in the interview. It is important however, to not use too many of these questions because they can turn the interviewee off of the interview and it is also important to word the question so that the 'challenge' appears to come from a third party and not you- which can cause the interviewee to feel hostile and not as forthcoming towards the interviewer. There are other reasons to be cautious when using a negative leading question, but that covers the important points. They should really only be used when the questions can add to intellectual knowledge and debate or figuring out how the subject deals with adversity.

5. You should only give your opinion when the person being interviewed insists on knowing it. Otherwise, your opinion isn't really important in this instance. Your opinion can only help to bias the interview or even divide you from the person you are interviewing. Even when asked, the interviewer can sometimes use the words in the question to turn the interviewee back to the focus of the interview... and take the focus off of you!

6. Follow up questions are used by the historian to really get the details that you are attempting to have the interviewee provide. Ask for understanding when you feel that something is vague. However, the historian must be very careful to not make the interview feel like the subject is getting the 'third degree'. Questions should be open and indirect... without looking like you are challenging the other person. Some interviews can be fairly useless when they are completed in such a way that followup questions are not really asked.

7. Background research is so useful for a few reasons. Research ahead of time can help you to determine bias or untruthfulness in your potential interviewee. The information can help you during the interview to understand the information that you are being given, help to keep the interview 'on topic', and help you to provide 'useful' leading questions as well as memory nudges for the interviewee that is having a hard time remembering specific things/details. Background details are especially good for helping your interviewee with introspection and helping the individual remember what they 'felt' or 'thought' in the past during certain situations.

8. Approaching a friend or family member about an interview would be done differently than an interview with someone you did not know. First, you already have some rapport with the person that you have developed through your personal relationship. Ignoring your previous relationship while performing an interview would make the interview confused, stilted and any attempt to be 'neutral' would look a little ridiculous. :) However, the interviewer/historian must also carefully analyze the person that they are interviewing and modify their (the historian's) behavior and questions accordingly. Again the interview is about the information and the interviewee and not about you or your relationship with the 'interviewed'. Keeping the interview on track, easy going... but as neutral as possible and focused is the key. The interviewer needs to exercise self restraint in some instances and use rapport, empathy and neutrality to get the information that is sought.

9. Oral history is different from journalism in several ways. Oral history is the legal property of the person/interviewee and can only be used with that person's permission. Oral historians usually try to solve this problem by having a release signed when they complete the interview. Journalists rarely ask for consent to publish and as such they are less likely to get people to truly open up about sensitive personal information. As oral history usually contains such personal information, historians should make no assumptions about publication unless they have consent. Journalists also have the option to bias results in ways that oral historians should not. A journalist can use correct materials in such as way to create a bias in one direction or for political expediency. But while that is not OK for a journalist, many journalists will still do it for reasons of expediency, etc... A historian, in an ideal situation, will not allow societal bias, personal beliefs, etc... to influence the information that he is presenting. The historian will do their best to make sure that the information is as neutral and bias free as possible so that the most accurate picture will be presented. A journalist has the responsibility to report and may use personal information in a way that the person may not feel comfortable with. A historian has the responsibility to do more than just protect the source- if the information is not useful for the current public good and can cause undue injury to those involved, the historian should keep the information safe for a good number of years until the information is can be used in a way that doesn't cause a lot of damage to living people.

10. It is suggested that release forms should be simple and informal... and if you write one yourself... keep it from being legalistic. While some people think the forms should be signed before the interview... it is generally recognized that after the interview process is the best time to do so. While, after the interview you might have problems with a recalcitrant interviewee who has changed his mind, doing the signing before the interview can inhibit the person to be interviewed. Making promises to the one that is interviewed is difficult as well because it may be difficult for you to keep the promises. History can and should belong to everyone so promising that it will not is just one promise that is difficult to keep.

11. Background research itself can raise ethical issues that the historian has to deal with. When you are doing research on living people, you may discover information that is clearly confidential and private. It is important that you realize that specific permission must be gotten for releasing this information- even if you broke no laws to get it. It is very important that the historian does their best to not breach people's privacy or release information that can cause undue harm.

12. It has been mentioned that maintaining a neutral stance during an interview is hard and appears to be manipulative and dehumanizing if you perform tactical and careful planning ahead of time. The idea of neutrality is very important and should be carefully considered, but should not be taken the the other extreme which can inhibit the interview. The historian must remember that being neutral should not cause you to behave unethically or even anti-socially. Making sure that the interview situation is about the interviewee, and not about the interviewer. Keeping things confidential, being sensitive and empathetic, helps to keep the interview unbiased and truly humanistic. Neutrality should be used to gather information and not hinder the gathering... but it also should be slowly put aside if needed to increase communication and understanding by making interpretation. I hope that makes some sense.

13. When interpreting and analyzing your interview, it is important that you treat the conversation and information as serious, important information. Some historians believe that any interpretation of someone else's words is possible inappropriate and ethically challenging.... and a full transcript must be released. Others suggest that the historian, by reinterpreting the interview, puts themselves in a place of higher significance, and that releasing the interview as a full transcript is the only way that the interviewer and the interviewee are on 'the same plane'. Other say that there is always interpretation and if you assert that the interpretation of the historian is unethical, that is 'tantamount' to saying that the interview should have never taken place. I suspect what is being said is that care must be taken to be objective when attempting to interpret an interview... and that the historian should be aware of bias- especially their own.

14. The interview should be put into context if you are planning on using it for a term paper or for general consumption. One reason for this is that reading about someone you do not know can be confusing... and even boring. Most people understand that no life is perfect and is affected by the society and culture around it. So adding the history that affects the person's life is so important and makes the interview interesting and draws the attention of not only historians, but other people.

A Boost!

I got a heck of a compliment today from a college professor- she was already my very favorite, but this really, really made my day! So I thought I would share. Some parts of my life are having some serious challenges, but I am doing OK at school. :)

December 9, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of Badgerdown who has been a student in my 400 level online Discovering and Interpreting Local History course this fall. Badgerdown is an excellent student. Her work is always of the highest quality and she contributes greatly to class discussion. Many times, she has started the discussion on the discussion board and her classmates respond very well to her comments. She is also very helpful and supportive of her classmates in adding her own insights to what they have said. She responded to her classmate’s posts immediately with student introductions which helped me to create a virtual classroom experience. I think that Badgerdown and her classmates have become well acquainted with one another even though they have never met one another. Badgerdown’s work ethic, attitude and passion for history helped to make this happen.

Badgerdown’s work has been thoughtful, analytical and well written. She is a motivated student who completes her work and is willing to interact with the professor on a regular basis. Even though Badgerdown and I have never met, we correspond several times a week. I believe that Badgerdown has added so much to this class based on her own family history research experience and I believe that she has taught me as much as I have taught her. When I ask her a question or a classmate asks her a question about her experiences, she is very willing to answer the question and there have been times when she has gone online and found information that she has then shared with the class; this was never a requirement of the class, but I appreciated her wanting to help and to answer questions.
I consider Badgerdown to be an excellent candidate for your honors program. If she were an UMPI student, I would encourage her to be in the UMPI honors program and I would encourage her to become a history major so that I could have her as a student in more of my classes. When my colleagues ask me if I miss classroom interaction by teaching online, I tell them no and I then give Sonia as an example of the caliber of student I have found through my online courses. I look forward to reading Badgerdown’s comments on discussion board and her papers because she is such a good student and she contributes so much to both her classmates and to me. I highly recommend Badgerdown to your program.
Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
University of Maine at Presque Isle

This is one of the most positive letters I have ever received in the sense that I am painted in such a good light. That isn't something I have grown used to... but I think I would like to hear good thoughts like this more often. I am going to celebrate with a sushi dinner tonight and enjoy the confidence and sense of worth that I have built up this semester. :)

Pioneer Day - July 24

On July 24th, Mormons celebrate Pioneer Day. It is an important holiday for my church as well celebrate and remember the sacrifices of the people who came before us. Those thousands of individuals and families who left their homes- whether from persecution in Missouri, Illinois, or their homes in other countries to join the saints in Salt Lake- with a dream and a purpose: to live and worship freely and without fear. (sounds a little like the beginning of the history of the United States, doesn't it?)

I was born into a Mormon family, grew up as a Mormon and pretty much always able to be surrounded by Mormons until I got married and moved to the East Coast. On the West Coast, Mormons celebrate by wearing lots of clothing and parading around in the heat and when the children complain, they are told that the pioneers suffered for days on end the same way and it isn't meant to be 'fun'- we are meant to remember. But what we are meant to remember seems to be foolish in some regards as I grow up. Suffering for a few hours like our ancestors seems to me to not teach us the lesson that is most appropriate. Yes, we learned that they suffered and times were tough. We learned that they were persecuted and treated poorly for what they believed and how they lived.

But these lessons will fade because they are not the most important lesson we should be teaching to ourselves and the next generation. Yes, we will still revere and respect our ancestors and enjoy the stories of them... but life as we age/grow will teach us suffering. We will learn that times now are tough- even if the some of the challenges we face are different. Some of us will learn that our ancestors were not perfect and some even persecuted other innocent people. Some will learn that we still do it in some places where more qualified non-members are not given jobs because they are given to less qualified 'faithful'. (If anyone wonders why there are very few people in Utah that have a neutral opinion of the Mormon church that one example might cue you in.) While the lessons that we should learn and teach our children are the lessons of strength and bravery in the face of the unknown.... the faith to follow your convictions and your heart no matter where it leads you... the confidence in each individuals great worth and the courage to fight and continue in the face of great doubt or even when you realize that you have no choice... but to continue in happiness and faith. That is the lesson that we should be teaching and we need to know for ourselves. It is not an easy or superficial lesson- but it is the most important lesson that we can learn in this life.... and as a Mormon I am grateful to have the ancestry to look back on to remember and ponder these lessons. As a historian and a human, I have thousands of years of collective history to look over and learn from... and almost all roads lead back to these basic lessons.

So many Mormons these days celebrate their pioneer heritage with a few hours of suffering or playacting and the rest of the year with conformity and silence. They do not voice their doubts, fears or concerns about the church or church culture for fear of dishonoring their family and their ancestors (and in turn, their sacrifice.) In my opinion, our ancestor's sacrifice is dishonored by ignoring their example. The lessons that they have given us- sealed by their sweat, toil, tears, songs, and their entire lives and how they lived them... we waste and disregard them by not living up to them. So this special day, this pioneer's day, take a moment to remember the real reason we should celebrate and feel grateful for our heritage. Not that they suffered and died... but that they gave us lessons, examples, and their dreams and hopes to live on in us. Please let us not fail them! Be a modern day pioneer. Do not meekly submit to authority- even to the authority of the church when our ancestors took over a year in travel and struggle and tears to follow their dream and their beliefs and to try and make the world a better place by defying authority. Before you accept doctrines and belief, pray and fast and get revelation that it is right to do so. For I believe, that is what your ancestors would have you do.

PS: I am aware that these thoughts will be offensive to some, but our ancestors defied authority so that they could also practice a form of marriage that is considered unacceptable to many today (including Mormons). Before you decide that you are sure that Heavenly Father hates homosexuals, their families, and their children and they should not have rights because the church tells use that homosexuality is wrong, please pray and do not take that answer solely for granted simply because the church says so. People around the world are dying because they feel unaccepted and Mormons are too. Equal rights is something our ancestors wanted -to be able to live by their beliefs. Joseph Smith said that we respect others beliefs. Please.... this is a matter of life and death. Please think on it... Please.

Challenges of an Apex Predator: The Great White Shark and our Ecosystem

Yesterday, I asked the question: which is the most frightening apex predator? The choices that I brought to the discussion were a great white shark or a human being. My thoughts lean towards human beings being the more dangerous of the two groups. In this post, I want to take the time to introduce the great white shark as an unique and beautiful creation, look at the differences between great white sharks and the other shark family members, and how the great white shark interacts with his environment and its inhabitants.

The members of the shark family are different from most other animals that live in the ocean due to their lack of a bony skeleton. Instead, sharks have a cartilaginous skeleton which gives them an advantage of a lighter weight physique. They have jaws that do not attach to their cranium which allows greater range of movement, teeth that are continuously replaced with the advantage of always having a strong weapon for catching prey, and their bodies and skin are developed for easy movement and speed in water. One disadvantage to not having bones is that the shark is not able to swim backwards- only forwards or to the side. Sharks also have the disadvantage that they have problems with buoyancy- a very fatty liver helps to keep them from sinking, but most sharks need to stay in constant motion so that they do not sink, and also to breathe as they need the water to move through their mouths to their gills so that they can breathe.

Sharks have a very long history on our earth. Sharks are believed to go back hundreds of millions of years and modern shark ancestors are believed to have begun around 100 million years ago. One of the great whites well known close ancestors was C. Megalodon, a shark that is believed to have gained lengths of 100 feet (In fact the great white is C. Megalodon's only surviving close relative although this is relationship is not agreed upon by all scientists and is a subject for much debate.) The great white shark in many ways physically looks like its past ancestor -whether they have behavior in common is still debated by scientists.

The great white shark has a few traits or behaviors that are unique in comparison to its other shark cousins. The great white shark can hold its head out of the water- out of hundreds of sharks, only one other shark can do so the same. The great white shark wins hand down on the claim of being the world's largest predatory fish. Great white sharks are also different from other sharks in terms of their fins, conical nose, and distinctive coloring. It is one of less than a handful of sharks that have been documented to attack humans – not that that is a great distinction!

The great white shark is a very important and vital part of the ocean's ecosystem. As an apex predator, they feed on a large number of invertebrate and vertebrate animals - examples are sea lions, seals, other sharks, rays, whales, small cetaceans, etc... As an adaptable animal, its diet can and does change with its environment so studying the shark's feeding habits are difficult at best. Because the great white shark is the 'top dog' of the seas so to speak, its importance to the oceans and to our world cannot be overstated. If the great white shark was to become extinct, it could lead to huge increases in its prey populations which in turn will cause changes in many other animal and plant populations. And unfortunately, this shark is currently endangered and runs a real risk of extinction in the future.

So, you ask, why have I possibly bored you with all this information about a animal that at best you have never seen and know very little about? Why defend a creature that seems to have so few redeeming characteristics to the majority of the human population? A few ideas are listed above. In the last installment to this post, I hope to answer this question fully and also hope that I can instill a sense of concern if not urgency for the endangered species of the world which struggle and for the sanctity of life that I believe in.