Take your time and make sure the correctness. It's all multiple choice
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: 09-03-2017 04:32 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
[email protected]. 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 128.32.10.164 on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 04:32:04 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 stranger 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 narrators: "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 128.32.10.164 on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 04:32:04 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 over which takes priority-the narrator's well-being or the respect for evidence. What happens when consideration for the narrator'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 narrator pain? What happens when the narrator'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 interviewer/writer justi- fied in manipulating, deceiving, or inflicting harm on the narrator 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, blurring 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, or 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 128.32.10.164 on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 04:32:04 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Ethics and Interpersonal Relationships 53 current 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 bring- 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 narrator 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 Narrator in Published Writing As we pry into our narrators' 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, Herbert C. Kelman, "Privacy and Research With Human Beings," Journal of Social Issues 33 (1977): 169-95. For 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 Narratives, or, Who Should Eat the Last Piece of Cake?" International Journal of Oral History 8 (February 1987): 5-27, goes beyond professional guidelines in raising questions about possible exploitation of narra- 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, 1991) 111-119. Arlene Daniels, "Self-Deception and Self-Discovery in Field Work," Qualitative Sociology 6: 3 (1983): 195-214. Kathryn 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): 102-127. This content downloaded from 128.32.10.164 on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 04:32:04 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. Arrogant and insensitive, this individual had on several occasions exacerbated 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 power behaves destructively, as indicated by corroborating evidence, that's more than gossip