Ethics and Interpersonal Relationships in Oral History Research
Oral History Association
Ethics and Interpersonal Relationships in Oral History Research
Author(s): Valerie Yow
Source: The Oral History Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer, 1995), pp. 51-66
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Oral History Association
Stable URL: http:
www.jstor.org/stable/4495356
Accessed: XXXXXXXXXX:32 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact XXXXXXXXXX.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http:
about.jstor.org/terms
Oral History Association, Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Oral History Review
This content downloaded from XXXXXXXXXXon Thu, 09 Mar XXXXXXXXXX:32:04 UTC
All use subject to http:
about.jstor.org/terms
Oral History Review 22/1 (Summer, 1995): 51-66
Ethics and Interpersonal Relationships
in Oral History Research
Valerie Yow
As oral historians, we enter a home or workplace and ask peo-
ple questions that can make them see their lives differently. We
come in a special role-as collectors and preservers of accounts
of human experience for generations to come-that can inspire peo-
ple to speak honestly and fully about their experiences. They may
entrust us with information they would not normally tell a strange
because they see us as having a special relationship to them, as
someone who will tell their story to a wider audience or future
generations, as they have told it to us.
How do we handle this trust? The Oral History Association's
Principles and Standards state succinctly: "Interviewers should
guard against possible exploitation of interviewees and be sensi-
tive to the ways in which their interviews might be used."'I The
American Historical Association's statements on professional con-
duct are also clear in insisting on the interviewer's obligation to
protect na
ators: "The interviewer should guard against possible
social injury to or exploitation of interviewees and should conduct
interviews with respect for human dignity."2 Along similar lines,
codes of ethics in sociology, anthropology, and psychology em-
phasize the researcher's responsibility to avoid harm to human
VALERIE YOW is the author of the recently published Recording Oral History: A
Practical Guide for Social Scientists (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1994).
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Sally Smith Hughes and Lu-
Ann Jones, and an insightful critique by Linda Shopes.
i Principles and Standards of the Oral History Association, Section "Responsibility
to Interviewees," 2, item 7.
2 American Historical Association, Statement on Standards ofProfeissional Conduct,
Section "Statement on Interviewing for Historical Documentation," item 4, 1992.
This content downloaded from XXXXXXXXXXon Thu, 09 Mar XXXXXXXXXX:32:04 UTC
All use subject to http:
about.jstor.org/terms
52 ORAL HISTORY REVIEW
subjects. Indeed, the stance has become pro-active, admonishing
researchers to protect subjects.3
At the same time, social scientists are commanded by the guide-
lines of their professions not to distort or suppress research find-
ings. As historians, we are aware that evasiveness and omissions
of documented evidence destroy the credibility of the history we
write, rendering it useless as a contribution to understanding the
historical phenomenon under scrutiny.
Because of the nature of oral history research, specifically the
one-on-one contact with living persons, dilemmas often arise ove
which takes priority-the na
ator's well-being or the respect fo
evidence. What happens when consideration for the na
ator's well-
being conflicts with the presentation of important evidence? When
telling the truth about the past (as we see it from the evidence)
might damage the reputation of someone who has moved on in a
life and now confronts different dilemmas? When the researcher's
good feelings about a community or awareness of its needs com-
petes with the obligation to tell a truth that might harm that com-
munity in some way? When the goal of a full account prompts the
interviewer to ask questions that might cause the na
ator pain?
What happens when the na
ator's feelings are hurt because the
interviewer he or she thought was a friend has gotten the needed
information and ended contact? When is the interviewe
writer justi-
fied in manipulating, deceiving, or inflicting harm on the na
ato
in the interests of a presumably "greater truth?"
We can follow with certainty the professional guidelines in most
interviewing situations, but in many cases solutions are anything
but clear-cut. This essay considers some of the subtle, puzzling
ethical issues that so often complicate our work, blu
ing the hard
edges of certainty about what is the right thing to do. I will dis-
cuss these in the context of specific problems encountered in the
course of interviewing, preparing a document for publication, o
publishing a history based on interviews.
My framework for considering these dilemmas derives from
3American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists (Amended
June 2, 1989), Principle 9, "Research with Human Participants." American Sociological
Association, Code of Ethics, Section I, "The Practice of Sociology," Subsection B, "Dis-
closure and Respect for the Rights of Research Populations." The Council of the American
Anthropological Association, Statements on Ethics, Principles of Professional Responsi-
bility, Section 1, "Relations With Those Studied."
This content downloaded from XXXXXXXXXXon Thu, 09 Mar XXXXXXXXXX:32:04 UTC
All use subject to http:
about.jstor.org/terms
Ethics and Interpersonal Relationships 53
cu
ent writing and practice emphasizing awareness of the com-
plexity of context in this kind of interviewing. Humanists in the
social sciences have been very much concerned with relationships
between researcher and the researched.4 Feminist scholars across
social science disciplines have called attention to the possibility
of exploitation of researched persons.5 This new methodology de-
mands that we be mindful of the effects of the research both on
ourselves and on the people researched. We seek to become more
aware of the political situation in the interpersonal relationship and
of the political context within which interviews can be used. We
analyze the effects of differences in gender, race, class, status, age,
and culture. The stance that there is a researcher and there is a
subject is replaced by the conviction that two people, each
ing-
ing a different kind of knowledge to the interview, share equally
in a process of discovery.
With this paradigm in mind, I discuss here ethical issues com-
mon enough in oral history research that many will seem general-
ly familiar to this journal's readers. But each oral history is the
product of a unique and dynamic relationship between na
ator and
interviewer, and there is no one answer for how a dilemma should
be handled. By considering a number of specific cases, I hope
to suggest some possible approaches to dealing with conflicting
responsibilities.
Presentation of the Na
ator in Published Writing
As we pry into our na
ators' private lives or the secrets of
their public or professional lives, we often have to consider the
effects of making public the whole story. When I was researching
4 See, for example, He
ert C. Kelman, "Privacy and Research With Human Beings,"
Journal of Social Issues XXXXXXXXXX): XXXXXXXXXXFor reflections on effects of the research process
on the researcher, see Renato Rosaldo, Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analy-
sis (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989).
SDaphne Patai, in "Ethical Problems of Personal Na
atives, or, Who Should Eat the
Last Piece of Cake?" International Journal of Oral History 8 (Fe
uary 1987): 5-27, goes
beyond professional guidelines in raising questions about possible exploitation of na
a-
tors. See also Judith Stacey, "Can There Be A Feminist Ethnography?" in Sherna Gluck
and Daphne Patai, eds., Women's Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History, (New York
and London: Routledge, XXXXXXXXXXArlene Daniels, "Self-Deception and Self-Discovery
in Field Work," Qualitative Sociology 6: XXXXXXXXXX): XXXXXXXXXXKathryn Anderson, Susan Ar-
mitage, Dana Jack, and Judith Wittner, "Beginning Where We Are: Feminist Methodolo-
gy in Oral History," Oral History Review 15 (Spring, 1987): XXXXXXXXXX.
This content downloaded from XXXXXXXXXXon Thu, 09 Mar XXXXXXXXXX:32:04 UTC
All use subject to http:
about.jstor.org/terms
54 ORAL HISTORY REVIEW
the history of a hospital, I encountered a situation involving a nega-
tive presentation of personalities that I thought I could solve in
a way at once ethical and compassionate. The institution had a dual
headship: medical director and administrative director. There were
personality clashes between the two, as I soon found out in sly
innuendos offered on-the-record, or in whispered conversations
after the tape recorder was turned off. I respected the general rule:
one must not suppress evidence, but on the other hand, one can-
not use information told confidentially and without a release form.
Therefore, I did not feel I could make specific use of this informa-
tion. Furthermore, I came to believe that personal animosity was
not so to blame for these confrontations so much as a structure
that did not clearly delineate powers clearly. Thus the history I
wrote suggested that the lack of clarity in the structure of authori-
ty did not permit smooth functioning.6 I told the truth as I saw it,
in a way that I damaged no individual's reputation. I admit that
I took some comfort in that, and here my own emotional needs
may have impinged: I was dimly aware that in coming to a more
structural conclusion I had been swayed to some extent by my desire
to avoid individual characterizations or judgments. But still, I
thought that conclusion was the closest to the truth that I could get.
In another situation, I soon realized from the accounts told
to me that an individual's personality had indeed had consequences
for the institution. A
ogant and insensitive, this individual had
on several occasions exace
ated conflicts that might have been
solved quietly and amicably. I approached the testimony critical-
ly: social groups-work groups, families, communities-always
have some gossip floating around. But when someone in powe
behaves destructively, as indicated by co
oborating evidence, that's
more than gossip