Content uploaded by Cheryl Le Roux
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cheryl Le Roux on Aug 31, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Cheryl Le Roux
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cheryl Le Roux on Apr 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
XVII International oral history conference: Buenos Aires 2012
Confidentiality and anonymity in oral history research: the question of
empowerment, autonomy and beneficence
Prof Cheryl S LE ROUX
University of South Africa, College of Education, PO Box 392 UNISA 0003 South Africa
lrouxcs@unisa.ac.za
+27 82 9453876 (Contact)
+27 86 642 1628 (Fax)
Theory, method and the teaching and learning of Oral History
Legal and Ethical Dimensions of the Practice of Oral History.
Abstract
Oral history researchers are guided by specific codes of ethics. A primary feature of
these codes is the issue of informed consent which ensures research participants’ right
to privacy, confidentiality and anonymity. In this article I argue that the blanket
application of the principle of anonymity to all oral history research could well be
counterproductive to the purported aims of this type of research. Four rationales for
doing oral history are discussed and each is positioned within the dominant
1
philosophical framework that informs the purpose of the research and the way it is
approached. Examples are extracted from the descriptions of these categories to
explain where the principle of anonymity could be at variance with the research aims. It
was found that when oral history research sets out to contribute to historical
understanding and knowledge, validate participants’ lives, contribute to democracy and
facilitate socio-political transformation, enforcing anonymity has the potential to
demoralise or denigrate the research participant and jeopardise credibility and
researcher participation. I do not propose that anonymity be waived in all oral history
research, but rather that researchers question the extent to which the application of the
principle restricts them from achieving their mandate of affording research participants’
dignity, respect, autonomy and beneficence.
Keywords: oral history research, qualitative research ethics, anonymity, empowerment,
autonomy
Investigadores de historia oral se guían por códigos éticos específicos. Una de las
características primarias de estos códigos es la cuestión del consentimiento informado,
el cual garantiza el derecho a la intimidad, a la confidencialidad y al anonimato de los
participantes de una investigación. En este artículo sostengo que la aplicación
generalizada del principio de anonimato en todas las investigaciones de historia oral
podría ser contraproducente para los objetivos pretendidos de este tipo de
investigación. Se discuten cuatro categorías lógicas para elaborar una historia oral y
cada una de ellas se encuentra en el marco filosófico dominante que informa sobre el
propósito de la investigación y la forma en que ésta se lleva a cabo. Ejemplos sacados
de las descripciones de estas categorías intentan explicar donde el principio del
anonimato podría estar en desacuerdo con los objetivos de la investigación. Se
encontró que cuando una investigación de historia oral se propone contribuir al
entendimiento histórico y el conocimiento, validar la vida de los participantes, contribuir
2
a la democracia y facilitar la transformación sociopolítica; la imposición del anonimato
podría potencialmente desmoralizar o denigrar al participante de la investigación y
podría arriesgar la credibilidad y la participación del investigador. No propongo la
renuncia del anonimato en todas las investigaciones de historia oral sino que los
investigadores cuestionen hasta qué grado la aplicación del principio los restringe de
cumplir su mandato de permitir la dignidad, el respeto, la autonomía y la beneficencia
de los participantes de una investigación.
3
Confidentiality and anonymity in oral history research: the question of
empowerment, autonomy and beneficence
Introduction
Goettsche (2001: 1) comments that ‘When we forget the past we lose the anchor that
keeps us from drifting; when we forget the sacrifices made for our freedom we start
taking that freedom for granted’. History is undisputedly important and in countries with
deeply contested histories, such as South Africa, it is vital to collect and preserve the
testimony of ‘ordinary people’ as a way of adding meaning and giving depth to our
understanding of the past as a counterpoint to the ‘official’ narrative.
Oral history research is a recognised methodology within the discipline of social history.
Its primary purpose is to collect, record and contextualise specific experiences from an
individual’s complex life. Its process and application have roots in qualitative research
methodologies and, consequently, it is conducted in the spirit of critical enquiry and
social responsibility, with the necessary attention to scientific rigour and the adherence
to ethical principles and codes. Ethical challenges in social research arise from
concerns about the way the people who are involved in the research will be affected by
its processes and the results (Mertens & Ginsberg 2008: 484). Ethical considerations
that immediately come to mind in oral history enquiry are those that relate to respect for
persons (such as social justice), beneficence, privacy, confidentiality and anonymity,
and the negotiation thereof by obtaining informed consent from the research
participants prior to engaging with them in the research. It is generally conceded
(Skotness 1995; Field 1999) that the collection of oral history narratives is an attempt to
give a voice to the socially marginalised, irrespective of race, culture, gender, sexual
orientation or social status. People’s oral history is a vital contributor to the processes of
democratisation and social transformation – especially in contexts where oppression
and subjugation have been commonplace.
4
In this article I argue that, given the nature and purpose of oral history research, and the
need to preserve, store and make available information obtained from respondents for
future review and further research, the process and outcome of applying the principle of
confidentiality and negotiating informed consent could be significantly different from
what is generally applied in qualitative research where interviewing respondents is a key
data collection method. It is important to establish what is unique in the research
process and how – or if – oral history research differs from regular qualitative research,
as well as whether it indeed requires that the norms and principles ensuring credible,
rigorous and ethical research be applied differently.
To explore this thesis, I intend to discuss the status and purpose of oral history research
specifically as it applies to oral history research in the educational context where
researchers explore the experiences of retired teachers who taught in the apartheid era.
I posit that oral history research is more than a mere collection of narrations from the
past and that the products of oral history research should contribute to the body of
historical knowledge and understanding of a country’s (and an individual’s) past. This
argument will be based on an examination of the literature that relates to the nature and
purpose of oral history research and the place of oral history in society; a review of the
principles of research ethics as they apply to qualitative research; and establishing
which of these norms and principles should be applied to oral history research in the
context of this study, and in what manner.
The field, purpose and nature of oral history research
Mapping the field of oral history research is complex, mainly because this method of
research encompasses and draws on so many disciplines, and is influenced by a
variety of underpinning philosophies. The primary role of oral history research is to
gather, analyse, report on and preserve historical information that has been collected in
the form of personal narratives, testimonies and memories about individuals’ life
experiences. These recollections need to be understood within the cultural and
5
structural settings of the time, and enable researchers to understand how individuals
lived through and were affected by social, political and economic events and
circumstances that were constituted by prevailing ideologies.
The purpose and nature of oral history research is generally to facilitate historical
reconstruction and to supplement existing ‘official’ historical evidence by providing the
perspectives of [usually] nominal individuals on events: perspectives that would
otherwise be lost to posterity (Bloor & Wood 2006). More recently, the restorative and
legitimising role of oral history research has also been noted (Ross 2003; Skotness
1995; Wieder 2004) and oral history has been described as a means of making sense
of and reconciling with the past (Downs 2009: 21). Shopes ([nd]: 3) adds that oral
history research provides valuable sources of new knowledge about the past and that it
has significantly enriched the work of social historians by broadening the focus and
providing information about everyday life and insights of ordinary people that are not
found in traditional sources.
Because oral history research entails working with people, a number of legal, moral and
ethical obligations and principles apply to the research. Primarily, these principles are
aimed at protecting the individuals involved and the products that ensue from the
research from abuse and misuse.
Principles and standards relating to oral history research
Legally, researchers need to ensure that research participants are respected, treated
with dignity and are not harmed through ie during or as a result of the research. In
addition, issues that could become contentious in oral history research, such as
copyright and ownership of information and its distribution, the right to access
information, protection from defamation and the right to privacy, are generally
addressed by the legislation of individual countries. Oral history researchers thus need
to be conversant with these policies and aware of how they could influence and apply to
their research.
6
While legal rights are derived from the laws of society, moral rights are grounded in
moral reasoning. Apart from having a legal claim to protection from harm and abuse of
person or property, individuals also have recourse to moral rights. The distinction
between moral and legal rights is not one that is unambiguous, as many philosophers
such as J Bentham (1748–1832), WN Hohfeld (1879–1918) and HL Hart (1907–1992)
have argued (Campbell 2011). In most instances, moral rights have influenced the legal
system and have resulted in the passage of related legislation (Trent 2011) – for
example, copyright legislation. John Mill (1806–1873) advanced the notion that moral
and legal rights were, analytically, closely connected. Arguing that ‘when we call
anything a person's right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in
the possession of it, either by the force of law, or by that of education and opinion’, he
suggested that those things that ought to be protected concerned the fundamentals of
human wellbeing, and were things that a person ought to have on grounds of
usefulness or value (Campbell 2011). According to current usage, the term ‘moral rights’
refers to authors’ and artists’ rights in relation to control over the use of their work and
the basic, inalienable rights derived from being human (Trent 2011).
The question arises: What do legal and moral rights have to do with oral history
research? The importance of raising the issue of moral and legal rights is that new
resources – original material – are generated during the process of doing oral history.
Certainly, most of the oral history material is co-constructed or co-authored by the
researcher and the narrator, and, therefore, original works are unquestionably
produced. To be of value to society at large and to future researchers, these works are
must be preserved and made available to broader audiences. Both legal and moral
rights apply to authored works, as clarified above. Ardito (2002) explains that ‘copyright
law protects property rights entitling authors to publish and economically benefit from
their published works. Moral rights safeguard personal and reputational rights, which
permit authors to defend both the integrity of their works and the use of their names’.
Oral history researchers clearly cannot be ignorant of the provisos that apply to the
authorship, preservation and dissemination of these works and, consequently, need to
7
be mindful of the legal and moral rights of the research participants and the work that
emanates from their collaboration.
Oral history researchers as qualitative researchers are obliged to adhere to a strict
ethical code of practice that promotes professional standards in relation to the process
of doing oral history and the processing and preservation of data. Certainly this is
commendable practice, which should not be compromised, but what makes oral history
research unique is its specific purpose and nature that requires that the conditions
under which, and the context within which, the research occurs should be taken into
account when considering the application of ethics protocols. In instances where
researchers’ research designs and protocols have to be cleared by institutional research
ethics committees, who are inclined to apply the general codes of ethics stringently and
without necessarily understanding the unique nature of oral history research, this could
be problematic and give rise to dissension.
Codes of ethics which have been designed for qualitative research are based on ethical
codes established for biomedical research (Van den Hoonaard 2003: 142) and have a
history dating back to the Nuremburg Code of 1949 (Henderson 2005: 2). Primarily,
researchers are obliged to adhere to the ‘do no harm’ principle and are required to treat
research participants with respect and dignity, and to obtain informed consent from the
participants prior to engaging in the research. Informed consent is the principle that
relates to issues of privacy, anonymity and confidentiality (Henderson 2005: 1).
Several contemporary researchers (Adams 2008; Boschma, Yonge & Mychajlunow
2003; Henderson 2005; Martens & Ginsberg 2008; Tilly & Woodthorpe 2011; K’Meyer &
Crothers 2007) have cautioned against the blanket application of anonymity in oral
history research and have argued their point from a variety of angles. Basically, what
these authors are saying is that the universal endorsement of anonymity may not be
consistent with the aims and scope of all oral history research and may, indeed,
undermine the sense of ownership, autonomy and empowerment that oral history
purports to facilitate.
8
How and why oral history research is undertaken and the nature of the discourses that
emerge from the research are largely informed by the research paradigms underpinning
the research and the philosophy underlying the individual researcher’s own thinking
about oral history (Gluck, Ritchie & Eynon 1999: 2), knowledge and knowledge
production. An overview of selected contemporary paradigms that could better inform
oral history research is thus warranted.
The place of oral history in contemporary society: paradigms underpinning oral
history research
Prevailing research paradigms inform researchers’ thinking about knowledge and the
nature, purpose and construction of knowledge (Williams 1998). Over the past fifty
years, the philosophical paradigms underpinning the theory and practice of oral history
research can be broadly described as a) a positivist paradigm, in which the ‘revival of
memory’ typical of the post-war collections of oral histories as a source of ‘a history of
(or for) the people’ dominated; and then, since the 1970s, b) a post-positivist or
postmodern paradigm, in which conceptualisation of memory and cognisance of the
subjectivity and plurality of individuals’ life and life’s experiences. In the latter paradigm,
we have seen oral history being practised as a process to contribute to the
democratisation of society, as a process constituting transformation or as a means of
realising social advocacy (see figure 1). In the context of this study, which entailed
conducting oral history interviews with retired teachers who had taught during the
apartheid era – many of whom who had endured or had been subjected to gross
discrimination or had been unmindful of the rampant inequality and bias in the
provisioning of education – it was necessary to explore the way in which the norms and
principles of anonymity and confidentiality were applied, especially in view of how they
contributed to the process of democratisation and the transformation of a divided
society.
9
<INSERT FIGURE 1>
There is no clear chronology for ascendancy to or transition between one or the other
paradigm; at best, what emerges is that a particular paradigm is chosen that best fits
the research focus or purpose at a particular time and in a particular context.
The argument that I advance in this article is that oral history research is a unique form
of qualitative research, given its distinctive nature and purpose. Therefore, we need to
consider whether some of the ethical principles that apply to qualitative research in
general might not need to be applied differently in the context of oral history research.
To explain and argue this point, four rationales for doing oral history research will be
outlined briefly.
Rationale 1: doing oral history to preserve memory
Oral history is as old as history itself. There can be little doubt that the collection and
transfer of oral narratives – long before there was any written language – would have
existed among all primitive societies. However, the modern concept of oral history is
ascribed to developments that took place in the 1940s. Early oral history initiatives
undertaken at this time constituted a systematic, disciplined attempt to record on tape –
and thus preserve and make available for future research – the recollections of
individuals deemed to be of historical significance, such as leaders in business, social
life and politics (Shopes [nd]: 2). The pioneering work of the American historian and
journalist, Allan Nevins, needs to be acknowledged in this regard.
However, oral history as the preservation of historical memory continues to be
undertaken to ensure a legacy of factual information not available elsewhere. This type
of oral history can be described as a struggle against forgetting: against forgetting
traditions, customs, past domestic and working ways of life, and even linguistic and
dialectic traditions that are in danger of being lost to posterity. In this form, the purpose
of oral history research can be described as the collection of factual data where the
10
element of interpretation and explanation is minimised and is not the focus of the
research. As such, this process is essentially informed by a positivist research paradigm
which aims at establishing credible, verifiable, factual knowledge.
Apart from collecting historical information of general interest from ordinary people in
communities – individuals who are not necessarily the ‘elite’ of society – there is also
the possibility of expanding this work to collecting the histories of communities. Local
historians gather the historical evidence in a process of ‘doing history'. This offers an
accessible and sociable method of collecting and committing to a repository, information
about the recent past (Smith 2008). Oral history data collected to protect memory from
loss is collected from the elderly members of society. Because the oral history
researchers who retrieve these recollections can only go back one lifetime, the limits
move forward in time with each generation (Moyer 1999). In the oral history research
studies which informed this research, if the documenting of the narratives of teachers
who taught during apartheid is not seen as a matter of current urgency, the individual
experiences and rich recollections will be at risk of becoming lost forever. In addition –
and possibly more sadly – will be the fact that the efforts of many of these individuals
who prevailed despite their circumstances will go unacknowledged and unappreciated.
Apart from doing oral history research as ‘the preservation of historical memory’, there
is another purpose for collecting evidence of this nature. Because history is criticised for
embedding the ideas and assumptions of those by whom it was recorded, revisions to
this ‘official’ history can be provided by calling upon individuals to share their personal
recollections, perspectives and experiences of historical events. Oral history research of
this nature calls into question the often unquestioned ‘truthfulness’ of historical events
(Bos 2011). The data collected for this purpose is not confined to the factual, but also
allows for narrator reflection, explanation and reflection that personalises the data.
When the legal, moral and ethical principles applicable to oral history research are
considered, we need to decide which of these principles applies specifically to oral
history research in the particular context, and how these principles could influence the
11
research. In many cases, the data collected for the purpose of preserving memory are
archived either as transcriptions, edited narratives or – in keeping with technological
advances – as audio or video recordings (edited or in their raw state). Archivists need to
consider carefully how the material will be logged, administered, accessed and
protected from misuse, as well as the purposes for which the archived materials may be
used. A primary concern in relation to the archiving of material would be the matter of
copyright, the ceding of copyright and ownership of copyright (Ward 2003). Legal
directives in relation to the copyright of the collected materials should be determined
and adhered to, but this issue might not be free from ethical challenges. Codes of ethics
invariably mention the principle of beneficence – maximising the benefits of the
research to the participants involved (Henderson 2005): what benefit is it to the
individual or the community if the ownership of the product – the outcome of the
research – is ceded to a research funding organisation, an individual (the researcher) or
an academic institution?
In proposing that individuals and communities may have a moral claim to the right to
information (Britz 1998: 11), the question needs to be asked how the moral right (and
concomitant duty) to share knowledge with others should be applied in this context. The
right to information or knowledge is an expression of the moral principle of autonomy
that enables individuals to shape their own lives (Britz & Lor 2003: 160). The right of
individuals and groups (communities) to use and control self-generated information
should also be considered. In this respect it now becomes pertinent to question whether
anonymity is or should be an ethical given. What if the narrator wishes to be named?
Does the application of anonymity not undermine the autonomy of the narrator and
result in the loss of ownership? Does imposing anonymity not deprive the individual of
the opportunity to leave a personal legacy for future generations? Having one’s name
attached to a document, an interview transcript or a video provides a kind of
permanence: intransience. Is it ethical to deny the narrator this bequest to posterity? It
could also be argued that in the quest for evidence-based, ‘objective’ data, revealing the
name of the author would contribute to the credibility and authenticity of the information
12
and thus the principle of anonymity would be at odds with this pursuit (Tilley &
Woodthorpe 2011: 19). Perhaps upholding anonymity is unnecessary or even
undesirable in the circumstances briefly sketched above.
On the other hand, the waiving of anonymity – if this were to be considered – would
have to be carefully considered by the researcher, who remains the primary advisor in
the decision. Is revealing the name of the author desirable? In the process of
negotiating the collection of the narratives of the experiences of teachers who taught
under the apartheid regime, there were individuals who declined being interviewed
since they were apprehensive of the possible consequences – even when assured of
confidentiality and anonymity. Clearly, fear for retribution remained a salient concern.
Perhaps their cautious attitude emanated from the fact that they were also anxious that
others could be implicated in their narration (Adams 2008: 184) which could result in
reprisal or claims of defamation (Ward 2003). In all cases – even when the interviewee
enters into a negotiated consent to participate in the interview – the researcher has a
primary ethical responsibility to ensure that the research participant is protected from
possible harm and should consider and advise the participant whether disclosure of his/
her identity would be appropriate or favourable.
Underpinning the arguments put forward in relation to the application of ethical, moral
and legal standards to oral history research conducted for the purpose of preserving
memory are the interconnected issues of copyright, beneficence, anonymity, autonomy,
credibility, ownership and personal validation.
In what follows, three rationales for oral history research within the postmodern
paradigm are explored individually. However, owing to similarities between the issues in
the postmodern paradigm, the discussion of ethical, moral and legal challenges faced in
oral history research are discussed collectively, after these three rationales have been
presented.
Rationale 2: doing oral history to contextualise subjective experience
13
Under the banner of new social theory, since the 1970s postmodern oral historians have
viewed oral history research as an empowering process for interviewer and narrator
alike (Gluck et al 1999: 4). The life of the interviewee is validated and the focus is on the
individualisation and subjectivity of memory. The postmodern orientation acknowledges
the multiple meanings of culture and experiences. The discourses emerging from such
research relate to the construction of memory, to the implications of narrators’ various
situations in terms of location and context, and an appreciation of the interview as a
linguistic event subjected to textual analysis (Gluck et al 1999: 5; Yon 2003: 412).
Oral history from a postmodern paradigm focuses on the particular, the subjective
individual, and the contextualisation of knowledge in place and time. There is a belief
that human agency has the potential to ameliorate the effects of power and is central to
the notion of resistance to power (McCarthy 1994: 14). Although two of the chief
protagonists of post-structuralism and critical social theory – which are likened to
postmodernism (Rafael 1997: 32-33) – namely Habermas and Foucault, argue the
status and significance of research participants’ views, there appears to be agreement
that narrators’ perspectives are valuable if the researcher is able to assist them in
gaining distance from their own views (McCarthy 1994: 15-16).
The primary purpose of postmodern research is to benefit – generally through
empowerment – those who participate in it. The benefit is derived from the
transformational potential of critique directed not only at social structures, but also the
social relationships – especially those within which power resides. Despite the good
intentions of the research aimed at emancipating and empowering individuals,
researchers are cautioned to ensure that the emancipator and empowering ideals do
not become oppressive in themselves (Rafael 1997: 35). This caution needs to be
heeded when the research is planned, since the underlying assumptions have direct
implications for the purpose of the study; the review of the literature (which will be
examined for evidence of the relationship between power and knowledge, what counts
as knowledge, where power resides and how it is reproduced); the participant–
14
researcher relationship (ensuring that they are engaged in an egalitarian manner);
method of enquiry; ethical principles applied (using dialectic processes, respecting that
a multiplicity of realities can be constructed); and the presentation of the findings (noting
that knowledge is contextual) (Rafael 1997: 36-39).
Van Manen (2002: 253) cites philosopher Charles Young’s critique on postmodernism,
stating that the postmodern individual (and consequently, the postmodern researcher)
‘is less and less inclined to recognize sources of meaning, criteria of truth and
standards of value that lie outside the realm of the self and personal identity’. Certainly
this caution raises issues that relate to the ethics of how the oral history study is
planned, conducted, analysed and reported on if the researcher is committed to
producing scientifically rigorous and ethical research.
Rationale 3: doing oral history to contribute to the democratisation process
Some researchers focus their endeavours on working with marginalised groups who, it
is argued, represent the voiceless ordinary person whose contributions to the writing of
the history of the people have been omitted – most often due to political hegemony. The
contributions they make by sharing how they experienced hardship or conflict during
their life are seen to constitute a process that contributes to the democratisation of
society. As such, oral history gives a voice to the voiceless, with the underlying
assumption that there is a link between ‘voice’ and ‘dignity’ (Ross 2003: 327). In the
process of gathering the data, a complex and nuanced popular historical memory is
created, which provides people on the ground with public legitimacy (Skotnes 1995: 63-
66; Wieder 2004: 23) and which provides society with a record of how ordinary people
experienced and were affected by historical events.
In the South African context, the value of oral history – a particular example being the
collection of narratives relating to the gross violations of human rights heard before the
15
South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission shortly after the political
changeover – was seen as being a valuable opportunity to promote reconciliation,
democratisation and bring about socio-political transformation (Field 1999: 2-3). Similar
examples are found in the post-slavery and post-colonial discourses elsewhere in Africa
(Mbembe 2000), and subsequent to the aftermath of the Zimbabwean liberation war and
state-orchestrated responses to the unrest in Matabeleland after independence in 1980
(Werbner 1998).
Although it is tempting to take life historical testimony as an accurate, factual
representation of lived experiences, in reality the narrators’ accounts are merely
expressions of how individuals at the time of the interview feel and think about the
historical events and times experienced (Frish 1990: 6-10). Grele (1991: 247-250)
describes oral histories as being ‘doubly-constructed’ within at least two different
historical contexts: the context of the experience itself, when perceptions were first
transformed into understandings; and the later context of the interview, when old
understandings were reconstructed into new ones. Oral history is thus in no sense the
unmediated voice of the past.
In terms of the above, within the framework of using oral history research to promote the
democratisation of society, it thus presents potential challenges and risks. All oral
history research has at least two contributory authors: the interviewer and the narrator,
and the interviewer’s role is to initiate the interview; define the purpose; and guide the
process with questions and comments, all of which ultimately determine the outcome.
The respondent’s narrative is often edited – for purposes of public presentation – or
potentially reconfigured during the analysis stage. The effect of the researcher on the
construction of the narrative cannot be underestimated and there is the danger of
distorting and manipulating the meaning of life histories provided by those who
previously were marginalised – in effect, subjecting them to a second bout of
marginalisation (Skotnes 1991: 67).
Rationale 4: doing oral history to support transformation
16
When approaching oral history research from a transformative paradigm, the central
question is how the research can contribute to the enhancement of human rights and
social justice. The consequence of adopting this approach is that the nature of reality is
viewed differently from when it is considered from, for example, a postmodern
perspective. Postmodernists would argue that there is no objective reality, while the
transformative paradigm rejects cultural relativism and embraces the critical
examination of versions of perceived reality in terms of the cultural and societal
parameters that have traditionally permitted those in positions of formal power to define
reality for those who do not share this privileged position (Mertens & Ginsberg 2008:
486). The design decisions of oral history research within a transformative paradigm
would question the choice of topic, the selection of the respondent, the framing of the
research question, the process of data collection and analysis strategies, and the
presentation of the findings. The relationship between the researcher and the members
of society being interviewed needs to be examined, as well as the extent to which the
researcher understands and responds to the cultural complexity of the community;
essentially, the researcher is expected to raise questions about power and privilege and
acknowledge the validity of interviewees’ perceptions of reality (Mertens & Ginsberg
2008: 486-487).
Researchers who focus on social justice and finding remedies for inequity and similar
issues face unique ethical challenges in relation to their research. Primarily, the
potential participants in this research are likely to be vulnerable. Although the
participants and researcher might not differ in respect of age, gender, race, ethnicity or
language, the power differential will undoubtedly be skewed in favour of the researcher.
It is here that unique ethical conundrums arise. Mertens & Ginsberg (2008: 491) warn
that power differentials surface in many guises and in all stages of the research
enterprise. Foremost among these power differentials are the selection of the
representatives from the community being researched, how the research will be
conducted, the funding, ownership of data and the dissemination of results. Logical
reflection on such research highlights the fact that it is not necessarily the most
17
vulnerable members of the communities who will be interviewed to establish their
perceptions regarding the topic of research, but perhaps the most vocal or articulate,
who might not necessarily speak on behalf of the communities they represent, but
rather for themselves. The complexity of the power dynamic between the interviewer
and the narrator also has implications for the analysis of oral history narratives. The
ethical rigour of the research is determined by the researcher’s awareness of these
issues and the way in which they are addressed.
Oral history research within a postmodern paradigm, under which the above-mentioned
three rationales for oral history fall, principally aims to benefit, empower and emancipate
the marginalised in society. It is assumed that there is a relationship between providing
individuals with a voice and affording them dignity and respect (Ross 2003: 327). This
type of oral history also aims to validate the experiences of the ordinary person
(Mertens & Ginsberg 2008) and to help individuals make sense of the past and bring
some measure of reconciliation with the past (Down 2009). The aim is to bring about
reconciliation, democratisation and socio-political transformation and justice (Field 1999:
2-3).
Among the core ethical principles of oral history practice are empowerment, respect,
dignity and social justice. Perhaps it is these principles that apply in particular to the
above-mentioned rationales for doing oral history. I propose to deal collectively with the
ethical challenges as they relate to these identified justifications for oral history
research, since dealing with them individually would result in unnecessary – and
frustrating – repetition.
Owing to time or funding constraints, researchers are often pressured to undertake and
complete their research in record time. Oral history research from a postmodern
perspective aims to emancipate and empower; to give a voice to the voiceless; to afford
the most vulnerable respect and dignity – but in reality, researchers are drawn to
approaching the most willing, the most vocal or the most articulate members of the
18
group being researched in order to facilitate the task at hand: gathering data. Ironically,
as a result the voiceless remain voiceless; marginalised; ignored. Researchers clearly
need to question and reflect on the issues of power and privilege, and to seek ways in
which their research could contribute to validating the voices of social peripherals
(Mertens & Ginsberg 2008: 486). Owing to the nature of the oral history research
involving teachers who had taught under the apartheid dispensation in South Africa,
which was conducted by a cohort of postgraduate education students at a South African
university, the issue of funding was not a factor which affected the selection of research
participants.
As a transformative, empowering and democratising process, the issues of social justice
and beneficence should be foremost on the researcher’s agenda (Adams 2008; Mertens
& Ginsberg 2008: 487). The credibility and validity of research within this context
depend to a large extent on the researcher’s ability to relate to the context within which
the research is undertaken, to constantly enquire into the ‘integral human interplay of
rational and emotional relationships’ (Adams 2008: 178-181) and to be aware of
prejudice and the potential ethical violence that could be directed to the respondent
(Adams 2008: 178, 181, 186). In this type of research, the individual triumphs of the
interviewees need to be celebrated and the tragedies taken in – in a way that
contributes to the welfare of the individual (Adams 2008: 178). Again, the question could
be asked whether empowerment, validation and beneficence can really be achieved
when anonymity is upheld. The vast majority of retired teachers who participated in the
study were amenable to their names being mentioned in the transcripts and the
narrative reports: they were proud of their achievements, and appreciative of the fact
that they had been approached to be interviewed. Many mentioned that the interview
was – in some way – a validation of their achievements; they were thus grateful for the
opportunity to relate their experiences.
As oral history research is often sensitive in that disclosure of identity could render the
individual vulnerable to ridicule, victimisation or further exploitation, it could be asked
19
whether the choice to waive confidentiality should not reside ultimately with the narrator.
In instances where the narrator has triumphed under difficult circumstances and takes
pride in his/her achievements – and thus could be an example to others – surely the
issue of relinquishing confidentiality should be provided as a choice for the narrator to
make. Again, excluding the narrator from such a pivotal decision could render him / her
voiceless a second time, and thus, ironically, marginalised again. However, it could be
that institutional ethics protocol requirements – when applied stringently (as mentioned
previously) – discourage or constrain researchers from considering the waiving of
confidentiality as an option. In such instances, the view may be held that research
where this occurs be considered disreputable.
<INSERT FIGURE 2>
Adams (2008: 185) suggests that the ‘silencing demand’ of imposed confidentiality may
jeopardise the interviewee’s desire to narrate. People are not mined for data; they need
to be acknowledged, valued, respected and their voices legitimised – issues that are all
part of the democratising process (Adams 2008: 186), and which were observed by the
researchers in this study. The credibility of the narrative could be said to depend on the
narrator’s reputation – a case of ‘what is said by whom’. Often an individual is
approached to participate in a study based on his/her knowledge or role. To ensure the
usefulness of the narrative, might it not be expedient to consider waiving confidentiality,
with the consent of the respondent? Since the purpose of oral history research is to
contribute to historical understanding, knowing who the narrator is – his/her position and
role in the event – could contribute towards validating the narrative (Ritchie 2000).
Boschma et al (2003: 131) suggest considering the possibility of a ‘two-step’ approach
to establishing informed consent. The second ‘step’ affords the respondent the
opportunity to waive confidentiality, subsequent to the actual interview, transcription and
member-checking process. At this stage the narrator will be in a better position to
decide whether he/she should choose to forgo anonymity and privacy or not. Several
20
oral history researchers (Adams 2008; Boschma et al 2003; Downs 2009; Mannay
2011; Smith 2010; Swauger 2011; Tilley & Woodthorpe; Wood 2006) have been asked
by interviewees during the research process whether their names can or will be
attached to the research. In the contexts described, the researchers have indicated
interviewees’ willingness, and perhaps even enthusiasm, to be named. Clearly the
challenges raised above reflect aspects that contemporary researchers are already
being required to engage with.
Conclusion
Oral history research as a form of qualitative research was at one stage treated as a
research ‘orphan’: it was accused of being superficial and lacking in credibility, and the
data was criticised for being biased, contradictory and unreliable. What followed was a
quest for legitimacy. Today there can be little doubt that oral history research – as an
established research method – has validated itself. One of the reasons for this
legitimisation could be that oral history researchers have access to several codes of
ethics that apply specifically to doing oral history research. These guidelines propose
ways of ensuring that the interviewing process is conducted in a professional, respectful
and non-threatening manner, and that history is not misused or misrepresented.
In an academic context, we have seen oral history playing a role in healing, bringing
focus to people’s lives, contributing to transformation and democratisation, and helping
others better understand contexts and issues that they themselves have not
experienced and might perhaps not even know about. People’s stories need to be
heard; many cry out to be heard. And, while some choose to remain anonymous, others
prefer to have their stories linked to their names as a way of saying ‘I was there:
celebrate my accomplishments with me; understand my suffering’.
In this article I have attempted to outline some of the rationales for doing oral history
research in its current form. I have positioned each rationale within its dominant
21
theoretical paradigm in an attempt to clarify the nature of, purpose in and approach
towards doing oral history. I have argued that the codes of ethics guiding oral history
research could be viewed as constrictive and unresponsive to its unique research
requirements and aims. In certain instances, the blanket application of aspects of the
ethics code – in particular, the principle of anonymity – could be counterproductive to
the envisaged aims of doing the research in the first place. It is perhaps easy to identify
withTaylor and Patterson (2010: 5) who describe qualitative research as ‘messy and
unpredictable’, and with Brinkman and Kvale (2005: 169) who indicate that it is
‘contextual and situational’. Such descriptors serve to add significant credence to the
notion that the application of ethical principles in qualitative research goes beyond fixed
institutional guidelines (Swauger 2011: 498). Indeed, perhaps this is a matter with
which research ethics committees - who are not necessarily familiar with the nature and
context of oral history research - need to become better acquainted. This will place
them in a position to make informed decisions.
The contexts cited in the article have been selected to indicate that, at times, upholding
anonymity is both problematic and perhaps undesirable. Ethics codes are indeed a
reminder of our limits in conducting research; but there are times when researchers
need to reflect carefully upon the limits of applying such codes in prescriptive ways.
Adherence to such principles may, perhaps, be counterproductive to their mandate. In
such instances, it would be advantageous to reassess the norms of confidentiality and
anonymity with a view to applying them differently. Codes of ethics do not require
researchers to abdicate their professional responsibilities in carrying out research that is
true to the goals the code of ethics proposes, namely affording our research participants
dignity, respect, autonomy and beneficence.
References
Adams, TE. (2008). A review of narrative ethics. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(2),175–194.
22
Ardito, SC. (2002). Moral rights for authors and artists. [online]. Available at
http://www.infotoday.com/it/jan02/ardito.htm [accessed 25 November 2011].
Bloor, M. & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods. London: Sage.
Bos, BA. (2011). Historical memory and the representation of history: forging
connections between national historic sites and gender history. [online]. Available at
http://cm.revues.org/836 [accessed 24 November 2011.
Boschma, G., Yonge, O. & Mychajlunow, L. (2003). Consent in oral history interviews:
unique challenges. Qualitative Health Research, 13(1): 129–135.
Brinkman, S. & Kvale, S. (2005). Confronting the ethics of qualitative research. Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, 18: 157–181.
Britz, JJ. & Lor, PJ. (2003). A moral reflection on the information flow from South to
North: an African perspective. Libri, 53: 160–173.
Campbell, K. (2011). Legal rights. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. [online].
Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-rights/ [accessed 21 November 2011].
Downs, Y. (2009). Ethics and narrative research – a contradiction in terms? in
Narrative, memory and identities, University of Huddersfield Repository. Huddersfield:
University of Huddersfield. 21–30.
Gluck, SB., Ritchie, DA. & Eynon, B. (1999). Reflections on oral history in the new
millennium: roundtable comments. The Oral History Review, 26(2): 1–27.
Goettsche, B. (2001). The importance of the past. [online]. Available at
http://www.unionchurch.com/archive/071501.html [accessed 23 November 2011].
23
Field, S. (1999). Memory, the TRC and the significance of oral history in post-apartheid
South Africa. Johannesburg: University of the Witswatersrand.
Frish, M. (1990). Shared authority: essays on the craft and meaning of oral and public
history. New York: State University of New York Press.
Grele, RJ. (1991). Envelopes of sound: the art of oral history. New York: Prager.
Henderson, RW. (2005). Informed consent in the development of case studies.
International Journal of Case Method Research and Application, XVII(3): 1–9.
K’Meyer, TE. & Crothers, AG. (2007). ‘If I see some of this in writing, I’m going to shoot
you’: reluctant narrators, taboo topics and the ethical dilemmas of the oral historian. The
Oral History Review, 34(1): 71–93.
Mannay, D. (2011) Taking refuge in the branches of a guava tree: the difficulty of
retaining consenting and non-consenting participants’ confidentiality as an indigenous
researcher. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(10): 962–964.
Mbembe, A. (2000). Memory and African modes of self writing. Paper presented at the
International Conference, Memory and History: remembering, forgetting and forgiving in
the life of the nation and the community. University of Cape Town.
McCarthy, T. (1994). The critique of impure reason: Foucault and the Frankfurt School,
in M. Kelly [ed]. Critique and power: recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate.
Cambridge: MIT.
Merrill, B. & West, L. (2009). Mapping the contemporary research of biographical
research, in B Merrill & L West [eds]. Using biographical methods in social research.
London: Sage.
24
Mertens, DM. & Ginsberg, PE. (2008). Deep in ethical waters: transformative
perspectives for qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work, 7(4): 484–
503.
Moyer, J. (1999). Step by step guide to oral history. [online]. Available at
http://dohistory.org/on_your_own/toolkit/oralHistory.html#WHATIS [accessed 21
November 2011].
Rafael, AR. (1997). Advocacy oral history: a research methodology for social activism in
nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 20(20): 32–44.
Ritchie, DA. (1999). Reflections on oral history in the new millennium: roundtable
comments. The Oral History Review, 26(2): 9–16.
Ritchie, DA. (2000). Oral history evaluation guidelines. [online]. Available at
http://www.oralhistory.org/do-oral-history/principles-and-practices/oral-history-
evaluation-guidelines-revised-in-2000/#1.1 [accessed 23 November 2011].
Ross, FC. (2003). On having voice and being heard: some after-effects of testifying
before the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Anthropological Theory,
3(3): 325–341.
Skotnes, A. (1995). People’s archives and oral history in South Africa. S.A. Archives
Journal, 37: 63–73.
Smith, G. (2008). Making history. [online]. Available at
http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/oral_history_2.html#resources
[accessed 24 November 2011].
25
Smith, J. (2010). The ethics of oral history. [online]. Available at
http://exchanges.history-compass.com/2010/01/26/the-ethics-of-oral-history/ [accessed
25 November 2011].
Swauger, M. (2011). Afterword: the ethics of risk, power and representation. Qualitative
Sociology, 34: 497–502.
Taylor, J. & Patterson, M. (2010). Autonomy and compliance: how qualitative
sociologists respond to institutional ethical oversight. Qualitative Sociology, 33: 161–
183.
Thompson, A. (2007). Four paradigm transformations in oral history. Oral History
Review, 34(1): 49–70.
Tilley, E. & Woodthorpe, K. (2011). Is it the end for anonymity as we know it?
Qualitative Research, 11(2): 197–212.
Trent, A. (2011). The philosophy of moral rights. [online]. Available at
http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8652096_philosophy-moral-rights.html#ixzz1eirsCY8P
[accessed 24 November 2011].
Van den Hoonraad, WC. (2003). Is anonymity an artefact of ethnographic research?
Journal of Academic Ethics, 1(2): 141–151.
Van Manen, M. (2003). Toward a discourse of heteronomy. Phenomenology and
Pedagogy 10:252–256.
Ward, A. (2003). Is your oral history legal and ethical? [online]. Available at
http://www.oralhistory.org.uk/ethics/index.php [accessed on 23 November 2011].
26
Werbner, R. (1998). Memory and the postcolony: African anthropology and the critique
of power. London: Zed.
Wieder, A. (2004). Testimony as oral history: lessons from South Africa. Educational
Researcher, August/September, 23–28.
Williams, E. (1998). Research and paradigms. [online]. Available at
http://www.umdnj.edu/idsweb/idst6000/williams_research+paradigms.htm [accessed 25
November 2011].
Wood, EJ. (2006). The ethical challenges of field research on conflict zones. Qualitative
Sociology, 29: 373–386.
Yon, DA. (2003). Highlights and overview of the history of educational ethnography.
Annual Review of Anthropology, 23: 411–429.
27