Menu Sidebar
Menu

Author Interview: Katherine Fobear on LGBTQ Oral History Methodology

In our upcoming issue of OHR (49.2), Katherine Fobear discusses project design and the incorporation of visual methods into storytelling for LGBTQ refugees in her article, “The Precariousness of Home and Belonging among Queer Refugees: Using Participatory Photography in Oral Histories in Vancouver, British Columbia.”   

What is it about oral history that makes it an effective methodology for telling the story of LGBTQ refugees?

Oral history provides a valuable pathway for LGBTQ refugees to explore their experiences of migration in all of their complexity without having to confine them to one linear or limited narrative. Stories are essential for LGBTQ refugee seekers. It is through telling their stories that LGBTQ refugees must successfully argue to a Canadian Immigration Refugee Board member or American Asylum Officer that they not only qualify for asylum but are in need of protection. As an oral historian, working with LGBTQ refugees means working with people who have had to tell their stories of persecution, trauma, and migration over and over to various officials and service providers. They are in every sense expert storytellers. But in this constant retelling of their experiences in order to receive asylum, LGBTQ refugees’ narratives are often restricted to a limited and linear state narrative. This state narrative is usually serving Western nations like Canada or the United States by casting LGBTQ refugees as being only or simply victims living in “backward” countries and wanting the freedom that Western progressive countries can offer. This narrative may ring true to many LGBTQ refugees’ experiences, but it isn’t the only narrative and there is of course much more complexity to LGBTQ refugees’ experiences of migration and settlement. 

This is where oral history can be such a valuable methodology to engage with the complexity of LGBTQ refugees’ experiences. At the core of oral history is recognizing and valuing the agency of narrators to guide their narratives. It is about building and recognizing the relationship between narrators and interviewers/researchers and recognizing how both are contributing to the narrative that is being shared. Oral history provides the necessary space for narrators to not only share more detail about their experiences but also to critically think about the past and its impact on their present. This recollection and reflection are not only incredibly important in complicating our understanding of peoples’ experiences, but it puts narrators at the center of analysis. 

How do you prepare for interviews that may ask the victim to recall a traumatic experience? What approach would you suggest to someone new in the field?

First and foremost it is vital to be clear and upfront with participants about the purpose of the project and what the oral history will be used for. Whether this is for a public archive, historical research, or a family or community-centered project, it is essential to be clear as possible about why you are asking individuals to participate and what is your responsibility to them after the interview is over. Regardless of the circumstances in which the interview takes place, there is an incredible privilege in asking questions and asking a participant to share their story. Oral historians must always be aware of the power differentials and dynamics in the research and the relationship they have with the narrators. I really recommend meeting with the person before the interview to go over what will be asked and to give a general sense of the flow or process of the interview. It is here that I discuss with them the potential areas we may cover in the oral history in regards to traumatic incidences of violence and oppression. I explain how they have control over how much they want to discuss and that they have the option to not answer any questions I ask. They also have the option to take a breath, step away, move on, or even leave the interview. 

I do repeat check-ins during the interview. I ask how they are feeling in general, whether they would like to take a breather, and how they are feeling about the interview. Sometimes when asking a question that I perceive to be more difficult or uncomfortable I preface it by saying “I’m going to ask you this question, but you have every right to not answer or tell me what you feel comfortable with sharing…” For me, it is about constantly reaffirming with the narrator that they have equal say in what is being asked of them. I also believe that ending an oral history interview is just as important as starting it. You need to think about care from beginning to end. In structuring the oral history, even if it’s a life narrative, I try to leave the interview in a restful or peaceful place as much as possible. This often involves preparing questions focusing more on positive aspects of a person’s life or having them think about the future. At the end of an oral history interview, I often ask “What is a message you would like others to hear about your experiences? What is a message or knowledge you want them to know about people who share similar experiences?” This allows the narrators to step outside of the immediacy of their experiences and memory to speak to the larger audience who may be reading or listening to their oral history. It provides an avenue for participants to contribute to the analysis of their narratives. 

In the article, you discuss the employment of participatory photography and the role it played in your project. What drew you to this medium? Were there any other media you considered in the process of designing the project?

Through the years, I’ve been more and more interested in art-based methodologies as a means to further articulate meaning, knowledge, and understanding beyond text. I think as oral historians, many of us have experienced the limitation of words to fully express the complexity of human experiences. Bringing art-based methodologies to an oral history project is an exciting way to further explore meaning. Prior to doing photovoice, I worked on a Rainbow Refugee community arts project in which LGBTQ refugee participants shared stories and worked together on a mural and a short video. The experience was incredibly rewarding not only for the participants in being able to bond together but also as a means to advocate against anti-refugee sentiment, racism, and homophobia in Canada. 

When considering how to design this oral history project, I wanted to bring an arts-based methodology into the research. I wanted an arts-based methodology that would allow the participants to work individually, without much guidance from me or a group. Participatory photography or photovoice was a way for participants to connect their oral history experience to exploring themes of home and belonging. It was a way for me to work with the participants one-on-one to further explore their narratives. What came out of it was a really interesting exploration of memory, storytelling, and emotion around home and belonging. The photographs collected and the participants’ interpretation of them were related to what the participants narrated in their multiple oral history interviews. They also went beyond that to explore the everyday experiences of their lives. I really liked the intimacy that photovoice brought to this research. 

For our readers that may not be familiar with these methods what exactly are photovoice and participatory photography?

Photovoice is a participatory visual research method in which photography or image capturing is used as a tool for researchers and participants to understand individuals’ experiences as well as deconstruct and interrogate systemic problems. Photovoice has a long history in public health and public advocacy as a way for participants and their communities to document and analyze social barriers and feelings around health access. Participants are usually given a camera and guiding questions in which they then take photographs representing their experiences or their perspectives on a topic/issue. Researchers then analyze together with participants the meaning and feelings behind the photographs. It is fundamentally about situating research participants as sharing equal responsibility in data collection and analysis. Images become a means by which participants can share their perspectives with others and advocate for change.  

Queer oral history is a growing field. How do you see the field continuing to evolve in the next couple of years?

Oral history has always been a fundamental component of queer historical research. If you think about important queer historical works like Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold by Elizabeth Kennedy and Madeline Davis, oral history served as the primary methodology because there was a limited historical archive. This is the consequence of homophobic, transphobic, sexist, and racist oppression that continues to marginalize sexual and gender minority communities. When your sexuality or gender identity is criminalized and pathologized as deviant, dangerous, and/or destructive, personal or community artifacts are lost or never created out of fear of being outed or discovered. I understand this very much working with LGBTQ refugees who couldn’t keep mementos or anything documenting their sexual or gender identity out of fear of persecution. What they carry with them are their memories. That is the real importance of oral history in documenting and understanding LGBTQ2+ histories. It is at times only our story and our community’s memories that we have left. 

This is all to say that oral history is not new to queer history. But, queering oral history is new. What I mean by queering oral history is engaging with queer theory in not only the oral history process but our analysis of oral history narratives. Queer theory challenges us to interrogate binary and static ideologies around identity, especially gender and sexual norms. There is a greater emphasis on exploring embodiment and affect, focusing on how memory and attachment are experienced through various senses beyond oral/text narratives. Performance is very much investigated in queer theory and this can be seen in recent works on queer oral history in which authors are exploring how narrators are performing their oral histories. Queer theory encourages researchers to experiment with methodology and to reflexively question positionality and power in research. Applying queer theory to oral history research has meant experimenting with and challenging traditional approaches to oral history methods, such as combining different methodologies like dance or art-based methods with oral history. Recent examples of this can be seen in Colin Whitworth’s article “Bodies in dialogue: offering a model for queer oral history” (Text & Performance Quarterly, 2021) in which the author explores how oral history and performance studies are interconnected. 

I am excited about the rise of research and publications dedicated to queer oral history. What was a very niche field of study and scholarship is rapidly growing. When I started doing queer oral history research almost ten years ago there were a handful of publications and known scholars. I am excited by the possibility of bringing more critical queer theory to the conversation, especially engaging with other fields adjacent to mainstream or popular queer theory such as decolonial queer theory and trans theory. As of right now, I am excited by the growth of publications and researchers. 


Katherine Fobear is an assistant professor of Women’s Studies and coordinator of the upcoming LGBTQ studies minor. Her research and activism focuses on the intersections of race, sexuality, and gender in migration and transitional justice. Her most recent work is with LGBTQ refugees and undocumented persons in Canada. Her new work focuses on the issues that transgender asylum seekers and undocumented persons face in the United States and Canada. She is an affiliate of Rainbow Refugee–a volunteer based organization in Canada dedicated to assisting those fleeing persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Featured image from Flickr user Mel Mel used with CC BY 2.0 license.

5 Questions About Civil Rights in Black and Brown

We ask authors of books reviewed in Oral History Review to answer 5 questions about why we should read their books. In our latest installment of the series, Max Krochmal and J. Todd Moye discuss their book Civil Rights in Black and Brown: Histories of Resistance and Struggle in Texas.

Evan Faulkenbury’s review of Civil Rights in Black and Brown will soon be available in OHR Issue 49.2.

What’s it about and why does it matter?

Far from the gaze of the national media, ordinary African American and Mexican American civil rights activists in Texas built not one but two liberation movements, and they did so in conversation with one another. In small towns and huge metropolises across the Lone Star State, they combated its twin caste systems of Jim Crow and his anti-Mexican cousin, Juan Crow. Black and Chicano/a organizers worked first and foremost within their own racial groups, yet they also looked to each other for guidance and support, working together in Black/Brown coalitions that added extra force to their separate struggles. With nothing but their friends and neighbors behind them, Black and Chicano/a activists set out to transform their cities, counties, state, nation, and world. They drew on long traditions of quiet resistance to white supremacy to confront structural racism in every walk of life. Their expansive demands called for not simply integration or access, but also power, equity, and resources.While most research on American race relations has utilized a binary analytical lens—examining either “black” vs. “white” or “Anglo” vs. “Mexican”—the team behind Civil Rights in Black and Brown collects, interprets, and disseminates new oral history interviews with members of all three groups.

How does oral history contribute to your book?  

This book taps a new collection of oral history interviews to tell activists’ stories, in their own words, as they have never been told before. In 2015 and 2016, researchers with the Civil Rights in Black and Brown Oral History Project fanned out across Texas to document first-hand accounts of civil rights activism, broadly defined, in diverse Texas communities large and small. Decades after the fact, memories of past atrocities and resistance, of movements built and battles fought, remained seared in the minds of Black and Chicano/a activists. Anchored in these testimonies and traveling to locales across the state, the chapters in this book reveal the contours of daily life under segregation in Texas and uncover previously-undocumented struggles for equity in education and public services, political self-determination, and an end to state-sanctioned racial violence.The first book of its kind, CRBB is based on hundreds of oral history interviews conducted throughout Texas for the Civil Rights in Black and Brown Oral History Project, which was funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and a few other local foundations. CRBB tackles Texas in all its complexity, considering civil rights organizing in rural and urban communities in the Piney Woods, Rio Grande Valley, High Plains, and major cities of the Lone Star State.   The authors of this book recover the roles of local people in the Black civil rights and Chicano/a movements in Texas and shed new light on the relationships between local, state, and national actors. The book provides fresh insights into inter-ethnic collaboration, conflict, and everything in between—all grounded in the lived experiences of the grassroots organizers and participants in the two intersecting freedom struggles. The book is also accompanied by a free digital humanities website, that features a database of nearly 8,000 searchable video interview clips from the collection, and a digital archive of unclipped interview recordings.

What do you like about using oral history as a methodology?

What’s not to love? Oral history gave us an entry point to a vast human archive of knowledge that we wouldn’t otherwise be able to access. We literally could not tell an accurate version of this history if we weren’t able to access the memories of so many activists (in our case, more than 500 of them).

Why will fellow oral historians be interested in your book?

We hope that the content of the book—each chapter focuses on a specific Texas community and is grounded in the activists’ oral histories—will be interesting in its own right, but we have also included a methodology chapter written by Max that looks behind the curtain of the larger oral history project, digital humanities site, and digital archive, and an appendix of oral history transcript excerpts that should be especially thought-provoking for oral history practitioners.

What is the one thing that you most want readers to remember about the book?

We want readers to remember that Texas has a rich history of civil rights organizing! Texas also has a long and deep history of white supremacy in all its forms, of course, so its multi-racial communities have had to be creative in finding ways to oppose it. These chapters bring those struggles to life. We also hope that readers will use our digital archives for their own research purposes, because there are many more of these stories to be told.


OHR Conversations: Myrl Beam & Elspeth H. Brown on “Toward an Ethos of Trans Care in Trans Oral History.”

In our latest installment of OHR Conversations, our recorded conversations with oral history practitioners and scholars, Myrl Beam & Elspeth H. Brown join OHR co-editor Janneken Smucker to discuss their recent OHR article, “Toward an Ethos of Trans Care in Trans Oral History,” examining the role of oral history within the context of trans visibility. 

OHR Conversations, between Myrl Beam & Elspeth H. Brown & OHR co-editor Janneken Smucker, recorded May 27, 2022

 

 

Listen to audio only.

 

Parting Ways: The Birth and Death of “Childhood” in the Life Narratives of Peruvian War Veterans

This week, our guest contributor José Ignacio Mogrovejo discusses his use of oral history narratives to explore Peruvian War veterans’ recollections of their youth prior to the Peruvian Ecuadorian War of 1941.

 

By José Ignacio Mogrovejo

Childhood, both as an idea and a biological experience, has been a highly contested concept in the social sciences in the decades since the publication of Philippe Ariès’ book Centuries of Childhood. Consequently, contemporary works that emphasize the constitutive dynamics of personhood have  trended toward analyzing childhood as a social and cultural construction, rather than as a natural phenomenon. This perspective applies to the narrative component of life history interviews, in which memory gives shape to past experiences, with interviewees recalling “childhood” or “adulthood” as constitutive elements of a life. For Peru, a nation immersed in the legacy of its conflict-ridden recent past, highlighting the life testimonies of aging war veterans can be useful to unveil frequently absent stories that took part in the collective signification of historical events, and whose transversal issues still define the country’s memory landscape.

As a young and still emerging scholar of modern Peruvian history, I knew that studying the lives of the last surviving generation of my country’s oldest war veterans posed a challenge, not only because of their almost nonexistent relevance as a social group in the media and public commemorations, but because the Peruvian Ecuadorian War of 1941 has predominantly existed in historiography as a conflict with nearly zero social and cultural repercussions.

Trying to look beyond the war, when interviewing veterans I asked them to reconstruct a personal narration of their lives. I noticed that they associated the idea of childhood with the ability to freely decide their fate. In contrast, the early 20th-century view prior to the war approached childhood from a paternalistic perspective, in which children should be protected from social vices and the hardships of industrial labor under the restrictive wing of a nuclear family. Coming from a low or low-middle-class background, the veterans I spoke with found purpose in searching for an individual path towards “success,” especially when they recalled the beginnings of their childhood and acknowledged the struggles they had to endure with their families to survive, an issue that eventually led them to part ways. Having separated from one of the most important tutelary institutions of postcolonial Peru (the triad being composed of the family, church, and the armed forces), they found themselves working in various occupations until the war inserted them into the government’s efforts to discipline its citizens. Although the military experience reinforced their persona as proud symbolic bearers of “the first conflict we (Peruvians) have ever won,” it also meant the death of childhood, as they ceased to be independent youngsters, having transitioned to disciplined recipients of the fruits of a modernizing nation-state. 

Although the military experience reinforced their persona as proud symbolic bearers of “the first conflict we (Peruvians) have ever won”, it also meant the death of childhood, as they ceased to be independent youngsters, having transitioned to disciplined recipients of the fruits of a modernizing nation-state.

For the veterans, recalling their youth produced different individual trajectories that didn’t defy preexisting socio-economic hierarchies, but were aimed at finding better opportunities if it was possible. To provide an example, education has continued to be viewed by many societies in the Global South as one of the main tools to escape from poverty and—from the perspective of pedagogic bureaucrats—to reduce the gaps that characterize historically-entrenched inequalities. For Humberto Tejada, it meant acknowledging the limitations of his working-class Paiján childhood, as he couldn’t attend private schools in the region’s capital according to his mother’s desires. Without it, the only option left was to work at an early age, and by the time he was prepared as a soldier, he had sufficient knowledge to instruct young recruits and fulfill his country’s expectations of discipline and order: “I was drafted because of my age, and I fulfilled my civic duty…By the time my service ended, I had to stay to train the newcomers, and half a year later, I received my certificate as a soldier.”  

When the conflict against Ecuador erupted in January of 1941, almost every corner of Peru mobilized in optimistic public manifestations of support, with mayors and governors organizing military parades every time the conscripts gathered. Thousands of people were drafted, especially those coming from the Highlands with an Indigenous background, who were then transported up north to the front lines in the Amazonian jungle.

“I’m not from the chacra (small farming land),” recalled Máximo Teodoro Jara, “I’m from Wari province in Ancash, and we saw them (as different), the cholitos de chacra (poor indigenous peasants).” His childhood was shaped by navigating the internal hierarchy of the Paramonga estate, despite not being in charge of productive activities or being responsible for recruiting wage laborers from the Highlands. In a country profoundly marked by racism and discrimination, Máximo pretended to act like an “adult” to gain respect and admiration from other workers by buying expensive clothes and dominating the estate’s soccer games when he was 12. For him, military instruction meant giving up this earned autonomy to gain social recognition, as being a military officer allowed you to be seen as “a respectable and powerful person,” without belonging to the elites. Máximo embraced that, and his words reflect how living under hardships defined his identity. He refused to remain stagnant in a powerless condition, and instead used the military discipline to improve his material and social situation: “I’ve always liked to be the best, and I’ve never been anyone’s servant.”    

Recalling the first time I went to talk with the veterans, I found myself in their association headquarters with no idea of what to expect from their testimonies. I feared silence or an unwillingness to speak, rather than my own ability to ask the right questions. However, my motivation to listen and make sense of their identities before becoming soldiers elucidated the ideas that shaped their experiences between the collective struggle of their youth just to survive and the brief moment of militaristic enthusiasm offered by the 1941 war. I also discovered how they as a group were able to internalize both processes as a constitutive part of their current self.

The legacy of their memories has left a door open for a detailed analysis of the lives that often disappear into commemorative acts of patriotism, but also in the recollection of earlier epochs when they had to find a purpose for the future yet to come.

In February of 2020, one of the workers at their association told me that no more than fifty veterans were still living across Peru, and now with the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s uncertain how many of them have passed away. Nevertheless, the legacy of their memories has left a door open for a detailed analysis of the lives that often disappear into commemorative acts of patriotism, but also in the recollection of earlier epochs when they had to find a purpose for the future yet to come. 


José Ignacio Mogrovejo obtained his BA in History from the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú and is currently finishing his undergraduate dissertation about the medical origins of a national racialized geography in late-nineteenth-century Peru. Between 2019 and 2020, he interviewed seven Peruvian war veterans about their life experiences before, during, and after the Peruvian-Ecuadorian War of 1941, as part of an ongoing project titled “Testimonies from the War of ’41 Oral History Project” for the digital collections of the Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History.

Featured images from Wikimedia Commons used with CC BY 2.0 license.

 

Author Interview: Jakub Mlynář on Conversation Analysis of Oral History

In OHR’s spring Issue, sociologist Jakub Mlynář uses conversation analysis to explore the nature of oral history, investigating how all participants—interviewers, interviewees, and later listeners and others users—make sense of the interview with cues such as temporal markers and existing knowledge. His article, “How is Oral History Possible? On Linguistically Universal and Topically Specific Knowledge,” draws on his analysis of a set of interviews with Holocaust survivors remembering and commemorating this historic event. At OHR, we love when our multi-disciplinary authors introduce us to new ways of approaching oral history.

Why is the study of language a useful approach to help inform oral history theory, method, and interpretation?

My background is in sociology and not in linguistics and my answer is certainly influenced by this disciplinary orientation. Language is interesting for me primarily as people’s resource for accomplishing social life and its miscellaneous scenes and situations. As Harvey Sacks observed: “It was not from any large interest in language or from some theoretical formulation of what should be studied that I started with tape-recorded conversations, but simply because I could get my hands on it and I could study it again and again, and also, consequentially, because others could look at what I had studied and make of it what they could, if, for example, they wanted to be able to disagree with me.” Sacks founded the method, conversation analysis, which looks at the detailed organization of the ways talk features in interaction, and his groundbreaking work from the 1960s and 1970s (he died in 1975) is extremely inspiring to me and thousands of other researchers worldwide. Yet only a handful of works on oral history have drawn on this approach. 

An oral history interview is indeed a conversation within a specific social setting with its local organization, relevancies, rules, and norms. As I explain in my article, by attending to the interactional details of oral history interviews, we can learn more about “the past” as a shared object that can be talked about, contested, commemorated, and accounted for. We can also learn more about what constitutes the tacit knowledge in oral history interviewing, which is the background for both the “production” (i.e., methodology) and “recognition” (i.e., interpretation) of oral history. The sociologist Harold Garfinkel pointed out that the production and recognition of social activities—such as asking a question, remembering, telling a story—rest on the same sets of practices. We use the same culturally shared resources to produce features of social life that we in turn use to recognize them as meaningful. I can see that someone else is telling a story because I am capable of storytelling; I can see that someone is asking a question because I can myself ask a question competently. In this sense, the theory of oral history, its methodology, and its interpretation are crucially intertwined, with serious attention devoted to the organization of talk and social conduct. Using conversation analysis can lead to a better understanding of oral history as a social praxis.

Tell us about the interviews you work with in your study.

I selected the interviews from the USC Shoah Foundation’s Visual History Archive, which contains more than 50,000 videotaped interviews with Holocaust survivors and witnesses. I used this resource for two main reasons. First, as one of the largest digital oral history archives, it deals with a topic of extreme moral significance, and the topic of commemoration and remembrance is highly important in this context—for the narrators, interviewers, but also the general public as a “moral universal” (to use Jeffrey Alexander’s phrase). My second motivation was more practical. Since 2010, I have been working as a coordinator at the Malach Center for Visual History at the Charles University (Prague, Czechia), an access point to the Visual History Archive and other databases related to genocides and violent traumatic past. I knew the collection and many individual interviews rather well, and I could conveniently access the interviews in Czech and Slovak languages, taking into account my linguistic capabilities.

Your article describes linguistically universal and topically specific knowledge. Tell us what these two terms mean and how you used them in your analysis.

While introducing the archives to interested researchers, students, teachers, journalists, and other audiences at the Malach Center for Visual History, I have started thinking in very practical terms about the various motivations, needs, and interpretive frameworks that are distinct and common among these users. While working with the interviews, I have also noticed that narrators and interviewers work together in the course of an interview to produce, among other things, what I call “commemorative sections”: segments of interviews that have remembrance or commemoration of the past events as their topics. In the article, I set out to analyze such segments, and I try to specify what makes them intelligible to audiences such as the users who arrive at the Malach Center to listen to interviews.

My suggestion in the article is that the comprehensibility of commemoration and remembrance in oral history interviews rests on two sets of practices. The first set constitutes “linguistically universal knowledge”—the competence of any speaker of a given language. For instance, it entails grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. In these cases, you would not need to know anything about the past, the Holocaust, or World War II, to recognize that the narrator speaks about something that had happened in the past and was commemorated several years later. However, there are many examples in the interviews when such knowledge is necessary—the speakers mention specific years, locations, or events that the interviewer and the listeners have to work with to collaboratively produce a meaningful narrative. These constitute the second set of practices that I call “topically specific knowledge.”

It is part of my argument that these two sets of practices are socially distributed, as Alfred Schütz taught us about all knowledge: not only culturally, geographically, or across the social structure (e.g., in “social classes”), but also temporally across different generations. It is quite possible that the topically specific knowledge, relatively ordinary and unremarkable for us today, is not going to be part of the make-up of future audiences. Although databases such as the Visual History Archive establish a record of the past “for perpetuity,” it will inevitably happen that these materials will at some point start losing the transparent intelligibility they had for the interviewer and interviewee (and that they still have for us today, more than two decades after the recording). The knowledge that used to be taken for granted by the interview participants just will not be there anymore. Our question then might be: how can oral history practice incorporate, explicate, and provide some amount of the topically specific knowledge? Is it even reasonably possible as part of the interview? Or should it be one of the tasks for the presentation and contextualization of the interviews in archives and databases? I don’t really answer these questions in my article, but I believe that I open up a space where they can be posed, and I offer an analytic and descriptive vocabulary that could be useful in seeking answers. 

What other types of language analysis might be useful for understanding the nature of oral history?

As with most kinds of human social activity, oral history is profoundly related to language. Of course, it is talked into being. There are several established approaches to language in society that could analyze recorded oral history interviews, including conversation analysis, discursive psychology, gesture studies, and discourse analysis. In turn, oral history scholars and practitioners can also gain a lot from these perspectives. From my point of view, informed by the principles of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis that form the framework of my article, we should remain as close as possible to the participants’ displayed orientations. What we know for sure is that a moment of oral history was captured on camera 25 years ago: how did they do it, together, right there, at the time, with the resources at hand? And how are we making sense of it today as listeners, with our own tasks and interests? Focusing on language and its use makes it easier to ground the analysis in what can be documented and evidenced in the recorded materials, and deal with the evident and witnessable order rather than with the hidden and imagined orders (to borrow Eric Livingston’s distinction). Marcel Proust has noted that “all action by the mind is easy if it is not subjected to the test of reality.” The careful study of language in social life, considering the participants’ concerns rather than our theoretical disciplinary agenda, provides us with such a “test of reality.” And any kind of research that examines talk as well as other aspects of social conduct, such as gaze or bodily movements, while taking them seriously and non-ironically as constitutive of the setting, studying them in their real lived time, will certainly be useful for a better understanding of the phenomenon of oral history.


Jakub Mlynář is a researcher at the University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland and the Charles University (Czech Republic). His current research focuses on the use of digital technology in classroom interactions, sociological aspects of Artificial Intelligence, and on the situated aspects of oral history, narrative, and identity.

Featured image from Flickr user Valery Kenski used with CC BY 2.0 license.

5 Questions About Floodlines

We ask authors of projects reviewed in Oral History Review to answer 5 questions about why we should read their projects. In our latest installment of the series, Vann Newkirk II discusses his podcast Floodlines produced through The Atlantic, which focuses on the the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

Sheldon Yeakley’s review of the Floodlines podcast is available online and in OHR issue 49.1.

What’s it about and why does it matter?

Floodlines is a story about what happened to the people of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We follow those who lived through the catastrophe of the levees breaking and, through their lives, look at what a human-created disaster says about America. We believe Floodlines matters because the people who shared their stories with us matter.

How does oral history contribute to your project?

Floodlines is available online wherever you get your podcasts.

Some of the archives and projects that meant the most to us in our research, such as the Neighborhood Story Project, the House of Dance and Feathers, and the Lower Ninth Ward Living Museum are all based on a bed of rigorous and rich oral histories. Our goal was not to replicate those works nor to reinvent the wheel, but to credit them and draw inspiration from them as north stars for our methods. We created a systemic interviewing process that we hoped would be sensitive to traumatic experience, and in the making of the podcast joined those interviews with contemporaneous news footage from Katrina and historical archives to help create the sense that the listener is always inside the moment being described.

What do you like about using oral history as a methodology? 

In my opinion, oral history carries so much information that other mediums cannot. Writing conveys a level of factual information and words, but oral histories contain emotion and texture. I’m also just interested in how people talk. I’m interested in why they talk, and in tone and the relationship between them and an interviewer. I think many times, the information encoded there is more useful in understanding the past than information you get from writing or even images.

“Writing conveys a level of factual information and words, but oral histories contain emotion and texture.”

Why will fellow oral historians be interested in your project? 

I won’t say “fellow” here because I am just an amateur playing at the form, but I hope that oral historians are interested in the podcast because of the richness of information that I think is part of all of our interviews, and because the team really worked hard to get it right. We wanted to do work with both rigor and care for the people who shared with us, and I hope that this community of professionals finds value there—and also lets me know what they think.

What is the one thing that you most want the audience to remember about the project?

I hope that people are able to see themselves and their own circumstances in the stories of other people. I hope that people recall moments like our interview with Michael Brown and listening to Le-Ann think through it, because to me those moments are fundamentally about empathy, and how it—or the lack thereof—shapes our society.


Vann R. Newkirk II is a senior editor at The Atlantic. He has covered the battles for voting rights since the 2013 Shelby County Supreme Court decision, the fate of communities on the front lines of climate change and disasters, the Black vote in the 2018 and 2020 elections, and wrote the September 2019 cover story for the Atlantic on black land loss. He is the host of the Atlantic’s podcast Floodlines, a narrative series about Hurricane Katrina. His forthcoming book, Children of the Flood, a chronicle of Black America’s fight against climate crises, will be published by Random House.

5 Questions About Seeds of Something Different

We ask authors of books reviewed in Oral History Review to answer 5 questions about why we should read their books. In our latest installment of the series, Irene Reti, Cameron Vanderscoff, and Sarah Rabkin discuss their book Seeds of Something Different: An Oral History of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Read former OHR editor Troy Reeve’s review of Seeds of Something in our latest issue.

What’s it about and why does it matter?

Seeds of Something Different is a sweeping and ambitious book. First of all, it is a compelling history of UC Santa Cruz, a unique experimental college campus founded by a small team of innovators in the 1960s. Gathered on a stunning sweep of land overlooking the California coast, these visionaries imagined a new and different kind of university—one that could reinvent public higher education in the United States. Published at a time when the basic tenets of education are once again being rethought, Seeds will be of interest to anyone engaged in that project. The book offers useful insights not only for readers who know and love this unique campus tucked into the redwoods, but for anyone who cares about the past and future of public higher education.

But for oral historians, Seeds of Something Different: An Oral History of the University of California, Santa Cruz also offers an inspiring model for stitching together archival oral history to tell a riveting tale. We composed Seeds almost entirely from excerpts from two hundred oral histories collected by the UC Santa Cruz library’s Regional History Project (RHP) over the past fifty years, as well as other archival oral histories and primary sources preserved in the library’s collections.

One of the oldest oral history programs in the United States, RHP, founded in 1963, helped create the Oral History Association itself. Elizabeth Spedding Calciano, the project’s founding director and initially its sole staff member, was UCSC’s thirteenth employee, joining the architects and planners housed initially in the campus’s temporary offices at nearby Cabrillo College, the community college that preceded UCSC in Santa Cruz County, and later in a converted barn on the city’s historic Cowell Ranch.

Seeds weaves together excerpts from interviews with students, staff, faculty, community members, and campus leaders to tell a dramatic story in multiple acts, featuring diverse perspectives, complete with recurring characters, surprising plot twists, unlikely endings, and new beginnings. It is authentic history from the bottom up.

Printed on elegant semi-gloss paper with a cover photo by Ansel Adams, who was UCSC’s first official campus photographer, the two 8×10 volumes feature more than 250 images from the library’s historical archives. The entire set (indexed and with extensive footnotes, a timeline, and bibliographic material) runs 925 pages.

Irene Reti, Cameron Vanderscoff, and Sarah Rabkin, Seeds of something different : an oral history of the University of California, Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz: Santa Cruz University Library, 2020).

Transcending nostalgia-driven reminiscence or university-relations marketing, Seeds presents a penetrating portrait, through the lens of one rather unusual college campus, of the social movements and historical changes that have swept through the United States and the world over the past several decades. The book locates UCSC’s history in a context involving a half-century of pivotal events including the Vietnam War; the civil rights movement, feminist and queer movements, recessions, elections, and more. “What I appreciate most about Seeds,” notes UCSC’s Professor of History of Consciousness Jim Clifford, “is that it finds ways to make UCSC’s past always be about its future. By featuring dialogue, debate, and change… it sidesteps nostalgia and narrates a radically open history.”                    

How does oral history contribute to your book?

We combed through 40,000 pages of oral history transcripts to choose potential excerpts. We three editors are all oral historians and writers; one of us is a professional editor, one is a photographer and book publisher, and one is a musician. All of these skills proved to be invaluable. The book was designed and published through the UCSC Library on a shoestring budget with unusual editorial independence. Only one of us was a full-time staff oral historian; the other two were freelancers. Seeds offers an example of what a small oral history program can put together with determination and creativity.

Through an iterative process, we built a fitting structure for the narrative and populated it with quotations that created the feeling of a “round table,” as if our narrators were engaging in conversation with each other across time. We wanted to emphasize anecdotes in and of their time—sensory details and compelling stories that keep the reader in what writer John Gardner in The Art of Fiction calls “a vivid and continuous dream.” So we chose excerpts that we hoped would inspire and provoke, making judicious use of relatively abstract and theoretical segments in cases where those effectively provided meaning and context. We conceived of the book as a kind of musical composition or a radio documentary in written form, with no Voice-of-God narrator.

During the five years we spent wrestling with this mass of material (we came to refer to our unwieldy project as “The Dragon”), we began to think of Seeds as a literary endeavor, and plotted the book around dramatic points in the campus’s history. These include, for example, its utopian beginning; a campus rocked by the counterculture; an enrollment crisis that threatened a campus shutdown; a chancellor lacking leadership abilities who was ultimately forced to resign; a controversial reorganization and remaking of the campus’s college system; battles and tensions over diversity and difference of all kinds; affirmative action and backlash; a major earthquake in Santa Cruz, and tensions between the campus and the community over growth.

What do you like about using oral history as a methodology?

One of the great strengths of oral history is its power to make room for ambivalence and creative tensions. We wanted to use the multivocal power of oral history to present a more complex, nuanced story than could be told in a single written narrative. At the same time we took care to bring out a sustained, coherent conversation through skillful editing. The resulting discussion in Seeds is by turns celebratory, passionate, humorous, ecstatic; sometimes anguished, angry, elegiac. The characters converse with each other across the years—not always in agreement, but certainly in dialogue. This is a book with voice. We’ve been told it’s a page turner.

Irene Reti opening the first box of Seeds to come back from the printer at the UCSC Library’s Special Collections.

Why will fellow oral historians be interested in your book?

Seeds offers a powerful model for oral history programs seeking to connect with their communities by overcoming the sometimes intimidating impression that can be presented by undigested archives. Far more accessible and appealing than a mass of archival transcripts, a book like this draws in the public in a way the raw sources cannot. Seeds now serves as a gateway to the rich archives available to researchers who want to dig deeper into the library’s collections; several UCSC courses have already adopted it as a teaching tool; others have featured it  in community-based discussions about local history. Thanks to the book’s publication, our program’s profile is now higher than it has ever been. Just after the pandemic began, we held a series of six book-launch events on Zoom that attracted hundreds of engaged people. The book stimulated fascinating discussions about both the past and future of UCSC. It is a tribute to the power of oral history to start conversations and strengthen community.

Finally, Seeds is good history and it’s fun to read!

What is the one thing that you most want readers to remember about the book?

Oral history can be as compelling and immediate as a live concert or street theater. Don’t underestimate its literary and artistic power.

5 Questions About Queen’s Memory Podcast

We ask authors of projects reviewed in Oral History Review to answer 5 questions about why we should explore what they made. In our latest installment of the series, Natalie Milbrodt and Melody Cao discuss the Queens Memory Podcast Season 3: Our Major Minor Voices.

See Bridget Bartolini’s review of the Queens Memory Podcast, Seasons 1-2, in our new issue of OHR.

What’s it about and why does it matter?

The stories in the third season of the Queens Memory Podcast, “Our Major Minor Voices,” document the experiences of our borough’s rich and diverse Asian communities in their own voices.

Each episode features stories about identity and belonging from this broad array of people who have made valuable contributions through their cultural traditions, belief systems, and linguistic diversity. Bookended by the season introduction and finale, the series includes eight bilingual episodes representing the most widely spoken Asian languages in Queens: Bangla, Hindi, Korean, Mandarin, Nepali, Tagalog, Tibetan, and Urdu.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, these communities have been in turmoil. Already grappling with longstanding issues such as income inequality, immigration barriers, and racial stereotyping, Asian Americans now faced concerns for their personal health and public safety.

In this unique moment, we aim to document the stories of these vital communities and capture snapshots of our ever-changing neighborhoods as they are now.

How do you use oral history and make novel use of media in your podcast?

We use our podcast as an opportunity to collect oral histories in an area where we want to grow our collections. In this case, we have an NEH grant to support the collection of stories from our Asian American neighbors in Queens. That funding allows us to hire talented producers who can conduct those interviews in Bangla, Hindi, Korean, Mandarin, Nepali, Tagalog, Tibetan, and Urdu, as well as English. In some cases, these are the first additions to our collections in those languages. 

We are so excited to share these producers’ beautifully written, edited, scored and mixed podcast episodes, but we are just as thrilled to archive and share their behind the scenes, full-length interviews too. Many of the producers have never contributed to an archive before and they are being very patient with all of the metadata we are requesting from them for each of their interviews!

One of the interesting challenges in producing the same episode in two languages has been the translation and voicing of not only narration, but also of the interviews themselves. In some cases producers have worked with their interviewees to record translations of their own interview segments featured in the podcast. It’s so nice to have the real person’s voice in two languages! In other cases, producers have cast professional actors, or even family and friends to voice the translated portions of their episodes. They did their best to capture the emotion and intent of what our interviewees were communicating. There were also interesting challenges matching intergenerational differences between speakers who, like in our Korean episode, almost sound like they are speaking different languages based on how many decades ago they left their countries of origin. We also decided as a team that we wanted to hear an interviewee’s real voice for a while before overdubbing with a voiceover. Our intention is to uplift and amplify voices that do not always get the attention they deserve so it was important to us that we followed through on that by literally keeping the volume up as they spoke!

What do you like about using oral history as a methodology?

As a tool for understanding History, oral histories are powerful because we can connect with them emotionally. Those moments of emotional connection imprint lasting impressions (learning!). And when we learn History by way of personal accounts of lived experiences, our empathy response helps us understand that we, too, are part of History and we can begin to see our own circumstances with a broader perspective. 

The small details that come through in someone’s recalled memories often stay with us for years after hearing them. As humans, we are hardwired to understand the world around us in the format of stories. So if we at the Queens Memory Project want to increase empathy and decrease social isolation, connecting people with different life experiences through their life stories seems like a good approach.

As a tool for understanding history, oral histories are powerful because we can connect with them emotionally.

Why will fellow oral historians be interested in the podcast? 

The voices and stories in these episodes are irresistible. They tell us so much about the world while focusing on this small collection of individuals. And for folks who enjoy beautiful audio production, they are in for a treat with the scoring and mixing the team has put so much care into creating.

What is the one thing that you most want the audience to remember about the podcast?

We want people to know what a partnership this podcast has been with all of its contributors. That extends beyond our production team to the dozens of community partners who have contributed their knowledge, shared introductions, and helped in other countless ways to ensure these episodes are true reflections of life in Queens, New York.

 

5 Questions About Making Gay History

We ask authors of projects reviewed in Oral History Review to answer 5 questions about why we should explore their projects. In our latest installment of the series, Eric Marcus discusses the Making Gay History Podcast.

Read Kae Bara Kratcha’s review discussing the recent season of Making Gay History Podcast drawing on the Studs Terkel Radio Archive.

What’s it about and why does it matter?

Image courtesy of Eric Marcus

The Making Gay History (MGH) podcast brings LGBTQ history to life through the voices of the people who lived it, drawing principally on the oral history archive Eric Marcus recorded for the two editions of his oral history book, which was first published in 1992 under the title Making History (the 2002 edition was titled Making Gay History). MGH’s episodes create intimate, personal portraits of both known and long-forgotten champions, heroes, and witnesses to an aspect of American history that’s too often been relegated to the shadows.

The MGH podcast provides a window into that history through the stories of the people who helped a despised minority take its rightful place in society as full and equal citizens. Our goal is to encourage connection, pride, and solidarity within the LGBTQ community and to provide an entry point for both allies and the general public to its largely hidden history.

How does oral history contribute to your project?

We use recorded oral history in a podcast format, which is still somewhat unique. But I don’t think we make novel use of media in our podcast. What we do is use novel media. And it’s only novel because so few oral histories were recorded with the kinds of people and stories we’ve featured in Making Gay History over the past five years. Aside from the recordings in my archive, we partnered with the Studs Terkel Radio Archive to feature some of their recordings. And MGH has also uncovered and shared never-before-heard archival interviews with iconic figures in LGBTQ history including Sylvia Rivera, Marsha P. Johnson, and Bayard Rustin.

What do you like about using oral history as a methodology? 

I’ve always loved hearing people’s stories. This was long before I even knew what oral history was. And then I was commissioned to write an oral history book and fell in love with learning about history through individual stories. It brought history to life in a way that dry history books never could. And now I’ve gotten to share these oral histories in an audio format that lets the people I interviewed tell their stories in their own voices, which adds multiple dimensions to what would otherwise be two-dimensional transcript.

I want people to remember the stories of the people we feature—their heartbreaks, their triumphs, their struggles, and ultimately their humanity.

Why will fellow oral historians be interested in your project? 

From a purely academic perspective, the Making Gay History podcast provides an example of how recorded oral histories can be used to share stories in a format that’s highly accessible and powerfully affecting. And I’m not speaking of simply taking recorded oral histories, cutting out a 20-minute chunk, for example, and slapping on an introduction and conclusion. These are highly produced episodes that are edited for clarity and brevity with the goal of never changing what the interviewee intended to convey. We have the added benefit of the fact that I recorded the interviews and I’m here to provide descriptive and historical context. Even so, I’ve had to rely on contemporaneous notes that I took at the time of the interviews to set the scene for each of the episodes. In our special season on “Coming of Age During the AIDS Crisis,” I think oral historians will be interested in listening to what happens when the oral historian becomes the subject. In this case we used my own recorded oral history as a framework for the storytelling.

What is the one thing that you most want the audience to remember about the project?

I want people to remember the stories of the people we feature—their heartbreaks, their triumphs, their struggles, and ultimately their humanity.


Eric Marcus is the founder and host of the award-winning Making Gay History podcast, which mines his decades-old audio archive of rare interviews — conducted for his oral history book of the same name about the LGBTQ civil rights movement — to create intimate, personal portraits of both known and long-forgotten champions, heroes, and witnesses to history. His many other books include Is It A Choice?, Why Suicide?, and Breaking the Surface, the #1 New York Times bestselling autobiography of Olympic diving champion Greg Louganis.

Eric is also co-producer of Those Who Were There, a podcast drawn from Yale University’s Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies. He is the founder and chair of the Stonewall 50 Consortium, an organization that brings together 240 nonprofit institutions and organizations committed to producing programming, exhibitions, and educational materials related to LGBTQ history and culture. He is a founding board member of the American LGBTQ+ Museum.

Photo of a gothic chapel

Holly Werner-Thomas on Experimenting with Senses

In OHR‘s upcoming Spring Issue, Holly Werner-Thomas shares her methods of detailing all five senses within an oral history interview in her article, “Sensory Roadmaps: How to Capture Sensory Detail in an Interview and Why Doing So Has Exciting Implications for Oral History.” Here she shares her zine, featuring ethnopoetic transcription and experimental writing forms, which showcase her interview with author Mark Thomas.

By Holly Werner-Thomas

In my OHR article, “Sensory Roadmaps: How to Capture Sensory Detail in an Interview and Why Doing So Has Exciting Implications for Oral History” (Spring 2022), I argue that focusing on the five senses allows oral historians to capture stories that are more evocative and emotionally true than oral histories—so often focused on “big events”—that skip over such detail. I describe why this is important for what we can learn about people’s lives today, but also state that this focus on the sensory is an exciting prospect for storytelling outcomes. 

But what are some of those storytelling outcomes? To me at least, they include nonfiction writing, ethnopoetic/poetic transcription, and performance. Here, I focus on the first two, using the interviews I conducted with Mark Thomas (on November 14 and 19, 2018, at the author’s house in Washington, D.C.; full disclosure: Mark is my husband) to show how I got “into his head” to write a short profile of him. I also transcribed interview segments using a technique first developed by anthropologist Dennis Tedlock that Tedlock called “ethnopoetic transcription.” My own storytelling outcome, in this case, also included a zine I put together, embedded here, which is just for fun, and displays the visual nature of the (transcribed) poetry. As for the performative aspect of the (transcribed) poetry, much has been written about it (see for example, Della Pollock, Remembering: Oral History as Performance), but the poetry of oral history is evident even in its written form on the page when using Tedlock’s method, (see below). I hope that it is also evident that no matter how seemingly insignificant, descriptive detail brings listeners and readers closer to events imbued with emotion and perspective that have the power to teach us about lived experience, and that focusing on the five senses is also simply beautiful.

Boy From Leeds, by Holly Werner-Thomas, 2020

 

Experimental Nonfiction Writing

I borrow my approach for the brief experimental profile piece I wrote for my zine from a nonfiction writer I cite in my article (Katherine Boo, Behind the Beautiful Forevers: Life, Death and Hope in a Mumbai Undercity, 2012). Boo, though she does not reveal how, so thoroughly understands the points of view of the people she writes about, that she writes with confidence from their perspectives as if inside their heads. Her nonfiction therefore often carries the psychological depth of great fiction, where writers are free to invent. For example, in this passage from page 43:

“Abdul felt protective of the undersized scavenger. The boy got excited about unusual things, like a map of the city he’d recently seen outside an airport workers’ canteen. Back at Annawadi, Sunil talked about that map as if it were a gold brick he’d found in the gutter, and seemed surprised when other scavengers took no interest. Abdul recognized this tendency to get punchy about discoveries to which other people were indifferent. He no longer tried to explain his private enthusiasms, and figured Sunil would learn his aloneness, in time.” – Katherine Boo

As readers, we cannot know how Boo learned how Abdul felt about the scavenger, described in the first sentence: did Abdul tell the author, did she observe him, or both? In the the last sentence, we don’t know whether Boo observed Abdul so long that she noted a change in his conversation to other people, or, again, whether it was a detail about himself that he related. Either way, her paragraph on Abdul and Sunil is a masterclass in interpretive research (including interview/conversation combined with observation) that she translates into an elevated form of nonfiction prose where she provides us access to the interior lives of her subjects.

For my own very short experimental profile piece, “The sound was the focus (chapel),” (beginning on page 8 of the zine embedded above) I combined a bit of historical research with what I learned about Mark’s life, both as a schoolboy at Leeds Grammar School in the 1970s, and more generally (in this case as a fan of Leeds United) in our interviews. I researched only part of the first sentence of the piece, about the Gothic/Victorian buildings, and combined that information with my own knowledge of industrialized Leeds. Otherwise, the writing is a translation of our interviews, with the last paragraph a mix of conversational samples of Mark’s language (“Elland Road” is the soccer grounds where Leeds play; “Hot Shot Lorimer” was the nickname of the great 1970s player, Peter Lorimer; “the winning strike” is a British turn of phrase). I combine these with what I imagined his thoughts—as a boy entering obligatory morning chapel—might be, which is also why I use the phrase “no doubt” in the last sentence.

Experimental Profile Piece

Embedded in PDF of Zine above, page 8

“The sound was the focus (chapel)”

Leeds Grammar School is a Gothic building that dates from 1552, but the school’s small stone chapel is probably Victorian, which means it was built around the same time that this northwestern Yorkshire market town industrialized. 

The chapel has an ornate stained-glass window, and carved wooden pews made by a local carpenter whose trademark was a little carved mouse, but it is the organ that Mark remembers most, and that the chapel’s ceilings were high, which created an echo when he and the other boys marched over the cold flagstones after shoving their school bags into their desks and before class. Typically, he said, his music teacher played the organ quietly as they shuffled in, “single-note-type music rather than big music,” which was reserved for holiday spectacles like Christmas, Whitsun, and Easter in which Mark participated, when he was very young, as a soprano in the school choir. He sang the descant for a carol called “Once in Royal David City,” as his son would decades later at a British Embassy in an American city. Otherwise, Mark said, the religious services, especially the school prayer, were “part of the wallpaper.” 

“Looking back now, to me it feels like something out of, The Name of the Rose or something, you know? You’ve got this sort of group of people standing up and saying: 

Our Father who art in heaven, 
Hallowed be Thy name, 
Thy kingdom come, 
Thy will be done, 
On earth as it is in Heaven.

But as a kid, it was just sounds to us.”

Because Mark didn’t know the meanings of half of the words—DOMINUM  NOSTRUM and REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM—that he was asked to repeat out loud, his breath visible in the cold, his school cap left on a peg near his desk, his thoughts, no doubt, about that afternoon’s rugby match, or whether his dad would take him to Elland Road that Saturday, where he hoped he could watch Hot Shot Lorimer score the winning strike against Chelsea.


The senses Mark recalls here are of a multitude of sounds (the organ, the Latin prayers, the echoing flagstones underfoot), of feeling (cold, formality, tradition), and of sight (the chapel, the organ and organ player, the stained glass, the carved wooden mice). Again, I contrast them with where a restless schoolboy’s mind might be. But the larger point is that only by focusing on the five senses can I gain this depth of insight into this narrator’s boyhood, where not even first-hand observation would be available to me, as it was for Katherine Boo in Mumbai, and is for nonfiction writers in general.

Ethnopoetic/Poetic Transcription

Because the poetry of the spoken word is evident when people use their five senses in describing their memories, focusing on sensory experience also breathes new life into the possibilities of ethnopoetic transcription developed by Tedlock in the 1970s. He wrote that,

“…the relatively casual conversational narratives, which are the more ordinary business of the oral historian, are themselves highly poetical and cannot be properly understood from prose transcripts. The meaning of spoken narrative is not only carried by the sheer words as transcribed by alphabetic writing but by the placement of silences, by tines of voice, by whispers and shouts.” – Dennis Tedlock

Among his instructions for an ethnopoetic transcription of an interview, Tedlock suggested that, CAPITALS can be used to indicate loud talk; small type to denote soft speech; that long dashes [—] indicate lengthened vowels while short ones at the ends of lines [-] mean that the speaker interrupted him or herself; also that other instructions can be put in (parenthesized italics).

I would add, however, that Tedlock borrowed the term “ethno” in what he labeled “ethnopoetic” transcription from his training as an ethnographer to lend heft to his insight into the poetry of the spoken word. Today I would ask if “ethnopoetic” truly best describes what is a form of spoken word poetry, a genre of poetry that is also rooted in oral tradition and performance. Transcription as spoken word poetry might therefore more simply be called “poetic transcription.”

Using Tedlock’s instructions, or what he calls his “Guide to Delivery,” I transcribed a few passages of my interviews with Mark to see what they would look like and hear what they would sound like, and it is striking, how naturally they lend themselves to both poetry and performance. Here is a poetic transcription of a section of my interview with Mark where he describes washing his face in the mornings before he left his house for his paper “round” when he was twelve years old (in the embedded zine beginning on page 4):

Paper Round (a cold morning in a northern city)

A Poem

There’s a thing I remember doing,

when I LEFT the house on my paper round,
which is, I would have,
before I went out, 
I washed my face with soap. 
And I guess I just, 
         I just got up and got ready. 

I think 
I didn’t – 
it’s not like I went out and then came back and had a shower or something. 
So, uh, 
got up and I did 
whatever, 
you know, 
ablutions, 
I did quickly 
and left, 
right? 
So, I was, 

               I was already in school uniform, 

um, 
maybe 
minus the tie,
or something.
But I was already dressed.
And so, 
anyway, 
              I would wash my face with soap in the morning. 
I mean, 
I was an adolescent, 
I guess I had greasy skin or whatever, 
so it was something that I felt I needed to do. 
And I remember going outside and walking down the drive, 
and 
you know that feeling you have when you’ve washed off all the grease from your face 
and 
             it’s kind of creaky? 

And I LIKED that feeling,
and it would often be COLD, 
and I remember, 
you know, 
I’d sort of GU––––RN, 
you know? 
I would SORT OF MAKE FACES, 
[makes faces]
and I’d FEEL my skin kind of cracking, 
kind of like it does when it’s real, 
when your skin’s dry, 
when you just cleaned it. 
And it’d be cold, 
and I’d be breathing out, 
and there would be condensation. 
You could see your breath
and, 
and, 
I’d be doing that. 
And it was that, 
            that was the feeling of waking up, you know, on a cold morning in a northern city. 
And so that’s a really strong memory I have. 
I used to really like doing that.


In my OHR article, I write that in a literary sense, oral historians tend to focus on plot (“Tell me what happened then”) over explicit sensory description (“What did it smell like?” “What sounds do you remember?”). As we read the short profile of Mark at school chapel when he was a boy in Leeds and listen to the verbatim transcript-cum-poem, we can see that by helping narrators to evoke the five senses in an oral history interview, we allow the ultimate reader—or listener—to feel the texture of another person’s life, which is the basis for most good stories.

For more, see my zine, “Boy from Leeds”, above.


Holly Werner-Thomas is an oral history consultant and independent scholar. Her documentary play, The Survivors, won Columbia University’s Jeffrey H. Brodsky Oral History Award in 2020. The play is based on the interviews of gun violence victims she has collected for her ongoing campaign, “The 40 Percent Project: An Oral History of Gun Violence in America,” which will be housed at the Columbia Center for Oral History Archives (CCOHA) starting this year. She is a graduate of the Oral History Master of Arts program at Columbia University and has conducted major oral history projects for The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Vera Institute of Justice, The National Building Museum, and others. She is currently co-chair of the upcoming symposium entitled, “Assessing the Role of Race and Power in Oral History Theory and Practice,” in collaboration with the Oral History Association and the Oral History Center at UC Berkeley, slated for June 2022. She can be reached at: holly@hollythomasoralhistory.com. 

Featured image by Stanley Walker, Leeds Grammar School Situated on Moorlands Road it was built in 1858-59 by E.M Barry; now used as The University Business School. Used courtesy of a CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

Newer Posts
Older Posts

Oral History Review