Communications
To the Editor:
Marc Raphael has used his experience as
an interviewer for the Columbus
Jewish History Project to write a short
analysis of the opportunities and
difficulties surrounding oral history in
an ethnic community (Autumn 1977).
Much of what Professor Raphael writes is
solid and well-reasoned. In certain
technical areas, however, he stated as
fact what is at best opinion or pre-
sented information which is less than
accurate.
Raphael's most significant contribution
is a thorough discussion of how a
good oral history program can overcome
the problems inherent in any oral
history interview. He correctly warns
the researcher that the veracity of aural
evidence, just like that of traditional
historical sources, should never be
accepted without subjecting that
evidence to the "normal critical canons of
historical research." Absolutely.
He is also careful to point out that in any
oral history situation, the interviewer,
as well as the respondent, is an active
participant, whose questions, attitudes,
biases, and phraseology will in part
determine the success of the interview.
The key to a good interview is not so
much an eloquent or glib respondent
as it is a well-prepared interviewer.
Raphael relates how he structured his
sessions to include test questions to
which he already knew the answers.
He also says, correctly again, that an
interviewer can gain the confidence
of a respondent by starting an interview
with the least sensitive matters.
Most importantly, he details his
ingenious background research which mini-
mized the potential for pure
reminiscence in any interview.
Unfortunately, this lively discourse is
marred by several technical mis-
statements which should be corrected or
at least amended. It is simply not
true, as Raphael writes, that
"voices recorded on the finest tape at the
slowest speed (1-7/8) and then stored in
a file drawer or cabinet will dis-
appear completely in a few years."
Tape has not been around long enough
for us to know how long it will be
before the recorded signal naturally
disappears, but a few years is well
short of the mark. Moreover, it is mis-
leading to indicate that the speed at
which the recording is made is the
paramount determinant of longevity.
Improper temperature and humidity
will do great harm even to those tapes
recorded at the fastest speed (7-1/2
ips). Anyway, many oral history programs
now prefer to use cassettes
(rather than the Jewish Project's
reel-to-reel method), mostly because of
cost and convenience, and all cassettes
spin at an invariable, slow 1-7/8 ips.
Professor Raphael also argues that the
problem of meandering or reticent
respondents can sometimes be solved by
"turning off the recorder, chatting
informally," and trying to relax
the respondent. Perhaps, but in many cases
the recorder itself is the source of the
respondent's nervousness. Willa K.
Baum, a noted theorist and practitioner
of oral history and author of Oral
History for the Local Historical
Society (Nashville, 1975, 2nd ed.
rev.), notes
that repeatedly switching the recorder
on and off merely calls attention to the
machine. Better to turn the recorder on
and leave it on, in the hope that it
will become unobtrusive. Then, too,
keeping the recorder on avoids the chance
of receiving "off the record"
information, a practice which, if repeated, can
rob the interview of both substance and
flavor.
Communications
119
The transcription of oral history
interviews poses its own set of problems.
Raphael indicates that transcription is
both time-consuming and expensive.
He argues that the cost of transcription
should not interfere with an oral
history project since untranscribed
tapes can be used by a researcher. This
is all true. But Raphael might have
mentioned that there is an intermediate
answer to the dilemma posed by
transcription and that is to index tapes. In
this relatively simple procedure, a tape
is arbitrarily divided into segments of,
say, five minutes each or one hundred
feet each, and a short descriptive of
each segment is written as a guide to
the researcher. Indexing is a real help
to any user and a fine alternative to
transcription.
Finally, Raphael asserts that "the
goal of transcribing should be a faithful
reproduction of the oral record; any
deviation from this record is an error."
He urges transcribers not to
"improve" the record by inserting punctuation,
changing verbs to agree with their
subjects, or omitting meaningless phrases.
How to edit a transcript properly is a
subject of great debate among oral
historians, but Raphael here assumes a
decidedly minority position. Willa
Baum, again, in Transcribing and
Editing Oral History (Nashville, 1977)
argues that even those who view the tape
itself as the primary record gen-
erally support the use of correct
punctuation. Other oral historians edit much
more heavily for style and content. One
consideration here is the arrange-
ment made with the respondent, who
should know before taping begins how
and by whom any editing is to be done.
Naturally, even the scrupulous editor
might some day be accused of distorting
the record instead of clarifying it;
thus, the extent to which editing should
be done is highly debatable. Never-
theless, a conscientious job of editing,
within well-conceived standards, can
aid the researcher's effort to
understand the tape rather than just see it re-
produced on paper. As Raphael notes, the
tape itself should always be
available to help resolve any disputes.
The Ohio Historical Society Steven P. Gietschier