Extract from: Government of British Columbia Historical Archives Manual “Oral History” – continued– part 9 of 9.

Research and Preparation Checklist

 Have you examined research sources?

 Do you know the major themes, gaps in knowledge and controversies of the topic?

 Do you have a sufficient general knowledge of the subject to enable you to explore unexpected topics during the interview or allow you to pick up inconsistencies or discrepancies in the interviewee’s account.

 Have you had a successful preliminary interview?

Is the selection of interviewees appropriate to the topic? Are they representative of the group, era or organization being studied?

 Has the interviewee been given a clear description of your reasons for wanting an interview and. the planned use of the recordings?

 Have you prepared an adequate question set?

 Have you examined your own biases and assumptions toward the subject and the interviewee?

 Are you able to establish rapport with the interviewee?

An oral history interview should be a dialogue where the interviewee’s side dominates. Nevertheless, the interviewer’s part of this two-way conversation includes much more than simply asking the questions in the order they appear on the question set. The way you raise your eyebrow all communicate something. By reacting positively, you can demonstrate an interest in what is being said. In particular, eye-to-eye contact and appropriate smiles and laughter encourage the interviewee. Experienced interviewers even develop a silent laugh that does not interfere with the words of the interviewee.

While it is best to refrain from passing judgment on what is said, no reaction at all can he unproductive. A simple “Yes, I see” is often all that is needed. However, you must be careful not to constantly interfere with the voice of the interviewee. A steady stream of “Uh-huh” and “Is that so” can be as intrusive as other acoustic problems such as air conditioning or traffic noise.

Even the use, conscious or otherwise, of body language is important. Sitting more or less erect, inclining the body slightly towards the interviewee and maintaining eye contact and an open and friendly visage will give the interviewee the subtle message, “here is someone genuinely interested in my recollections.” While it is possible to overwork this non-verbal communication to the point of obvious insincerity, its significance must be understood.

Controversial subjects: Potentially sensitive topics such as sex, crime, religion and the exercise of power should be explored with caution. These can either be left to the end of the interview or treated in a low-key and matter-of-fact manner when they naturally arise. The approach depends on the nature of the person and the type of material sought.

A related problem occurs when the interviewee freely provides highly sensitive or even potentially slanderous information or asks that the recorder be turned off while a confidence is shared with you. In the first case, you should consider whether or not you could be held liable in a legal action for your part in recording the slander. Consequently, you might wish to place a restriction on part of an interview even if the interviewee has not asked for one. In the second case, you should try to get the interviewee to make their comments on the record by emphasizing the value of such information for future researchers and pointing out the ways in which access to the tape can be restricted to protect confidentiality. Another approach is to discuss the sensitive area beforehand and negotiate how to get the information on tape without endangering or offending someone.

One should adopt the attitude that the tape recorder serves rather than controls the flow of the interview. Accordingly, the tape recorder may be stopped if someone needs to regain composure, clarify a question, or refresh a memory. If the interviewee appears reluctant or uncomfortable, the tape recorder can be stopped and the difficulty discussed. It may even be preferable to erase a question or answer and start again.

Finding “The Truth:” The exploration of discrepancies in the interviewee’s story can usually best be accomplished in an indirect way. In most cases, the interviewee will not have set out to deceive you or distort the historical record but will merely have forgotten the exact details or remembered them incorrectly. You can ask the same question in several ways or have the interviewee discuss the same topic from different perspectives (their own role, chronology, attitudes, motives and feelings, descriptions of other people and their roles.

It is not enough to know what happened, we must also know what people think happened.
— J. and E. M. Wilkie, Elitelore

Other factors being equal, a number of one or two hour interviews are better than a single long session. Long interviews lead to exhausted interviewers and interviewees who are more likely to make mistakes and less likely to expand on important topics. Multiple sessions allow interviewees to think more about the topics that are being covered. Similarly, you will have time to consider some of the points that have been raised and prepare questions to clarify or expand them if necessary. There is no value in rushing through an interview when patience and a slower pace will yield better results.

Interviewing more than one person: What about interviewing two or more people at one time, as is frequently suggested? In general, we find that the problems outweigh the advantages. The problems include: difficulty in identifying who is speaking at a particular moment; getting several people’s voices adequately covered by only one or two microphones; people talking simultaneously; and having the interview degenerate into a series of contradictions and disputes or an extended “in joke.” On the other hand a small group of interviewees may stimulate one another into producing a truly marvelous recording. Caution is the key; you must use discretion in suggesting or accepting this type of interview situation.

Special locations and props: You should consider recording the interview at a spot appropriate to the subject matter. For instance, we have had excellent success in interviewing a politician in the legislative chamber where he served for many years. His reminiscences gained vitality and immediacy as he recalled successes and defeats with precision and piquancy. An interview could be recorded at an old family home, at the scene of a historic event, or any other appropriate location. The aim should be to gain the flavour of “actuality” recording while shaking the interviewee out of standard ways of thinking about and discussing certain events.

The use of’ props such as photographs, maps, films, or sound recordings, may result in an improved reminiscence. For instance, showing the interviewee a photograph of his or her parents or playing a tape recording of their voices might result in an excellent oral recollection. Playing a politician a recording of a former opponent making a provocative statement might also produce an interesting and worthwhile response. You should be wary of turning the interview into a multimedia extravaganza, however, and you should be careful to document your activities in this regard. Notes should be kept along with the recording which will indicate what props were used in the interview so they may, if necessary, be examined later by users of the recording. Copies of the photographs (or at least instructions as to where they may be found) should be kept in the documentation file accompany each recording.

Photographs: Taking photographs of the interviewee at the time of the interview can add valuable information about an interview and might one day prove extremely valuable to a future user of the interview. A number of oral history projects have included this procedure as a regular part of the interview process. Another approach is for an artist to make sketches of the interviewee and the interview situation.

Recording precise information: One widely recognized problem with oral history is the fact that, in certain situations, it lacks precision. A couple of examples will illustrate this point. If the interviewee says, “I was shot right here,” the statement will be accompanied by a gesture so that the location is perfectly clear to the interviewer, but not to a later listener. If the interviewee says that his friend was “Derek McDonald,” you might be unsure whether it was the Derek McDonald or Derrick, Deryk, Darrick, MacDonald, Macdonald, or MacDonnell. In these cases, you must ask for descriptions which will be clearly understood by a listener. The interviewee might be asked to spell proper names for both clarity of identification and as an aid in future transcription. To avoid the “spelling bee syndrome,” some interviewers collect these ambiguities throughout the interview and clarify them all at once in the form of notes which are filed with the Interview.

The facts that you and your interviewee have in your heads will be of no value to future users of the tape. If the interviewee mentions something about which you have been previously informed off the tape, you should tactfully clarify the information. Special terms should be explained. “Gurdies” may be familiar to fishermen and “hi-ballers” to loggers but may not be to future users of the recording.

Monitoring sound quality: During the interview you should regularly check that the tape recorder is operating properly and that the meters show appropriate responses to the voices. After the first 10 minutes of recording or so play back a few seconds of the recording. This not only ensures that the recording is being properly made but might also identify any previously unnoted acoustical problems.

A nervous interviewee will sometimes fidget with the microphone or the cord, or make some other nervous and noisy gesture near the microphone. While you may be reluctant to point these things out to an already nervous subject, it is imperative that this be done. If you have properly paved the way for the production of a high quality sound recording, there should be no problem. The ideal solution is to have a technician present for the recording who can be responsible for equipment and sound quality, but this is seldom possible, and you must do the best job possible on your own.

Ending the interview: At the end of an interview it is a good idea to end the specific questioning and ask the interviewee a few general and positive questions “How do you feel now about your long career as a locomotive engineer?”. Ask if they have anything to add to the interview, giving them a few moments to think about any additions “Is there anything you would like to add or any topic we haven’t discussed?” ending the interview in this way helps to reinforce the bond that has been established between you and interviewee.

While this synopsis on the interview has covered a number of opportunities and pitfalls of interviewing, it is far from a definitive discussion. The only way to become a good interviewer is to actively work at it. Just as all interviewees are different, so too are all interviewers. It serves no purpose to dream of producing flawless interviews, they don’t exist. It is better to think of an interview as raw material containing some inappropriate questions, repetitions and tangents that will be ignored or edited out by a user. As an interviewer, you should concentrate on getting a dynamic and complete interview rather than nervously worry about a flaw here and there. Develop your own style that is flexible enough for any interview situation while still suiting you. This, combined with thoughtful preparation and practice will make you a successful interviewer.