Quiktales

History Articles
Blended Voices: Crafting A Narrative From Oral History Interviews

by Rebecca Jones

Excerpt from Oral History Review, Volume 31, No. 1

Between the oral interview and the written manuscript is a long, meandering journey in which a narrative is crafted. The oral history interview is the starting point in the process of creating the narrative, but the journey continues through transcribing and editing to publication. Editing the transcript for publication is the subject of this article. All historians and researchers who publish oral history interviews or extracts from interviews face choices and dilemmas about the way to edit an interview for publication. Presented here is a case study of one approach to editing oral history. I will discuss some of the issues encountered in the journey from interview transcript to publication of Blended Voices (2001,) a book based on oral history interviews with migrants living in the southeastern suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. Rather than delving into the intricacies of punctuation, grammar, and sentence manipulation, I will explore some of the choices faced when "translating" the verbatim transcript into a published manuscript. The principle that motivated these choices is an understanding of editing as part of the joint construction of a narrative by both the narrator and the writer/oral historian in which a public text is created from a private one-to-one conversation. The joint construction is, in effect, a relationship between narrator and writer influenced by the power relationships inherent in oral history and governed by ethical responsibilities. In editing oral history, we, as authors, have to balance responsibilities to the narrator, to the audience, and to the content of the stories. The decisions we make in balancing these responsibilities are dependent on the purpose of the project.

While much discussion has occurred about the important process of transcription, much less attention has focused on the practice of editing, extracting, refining, and rearranging the transcript for publication. Michael Frisch remarks, "Given [its] importance, it is surprising—or perhaps not so surprising—that the process of editing transcripts for publication is shrouded in mystery." While attention continues to focus on transcription, which shares many issues with editing, others have began to explore more fully the importance of the editing process in the production of oral history and its implications for the relationships between the interviewer, narrator, and audience. There is no definitive formula for creating a written manuscript from oral interviews; a different project may require different decisions to be made. I present here just one approach to oral history, in the hope that the decisions we made and the insights we gained may assist other people undertaking oral history projects to engage with the challenges of editing oral history for publication, which can only enhance the practice of oral history. The historian acting as interviewer, editor, and writer is common in many oral history projects; therefore, throughout this article I have assumed that the same person or people are performing these multiple roles.

All published oral histories have undergone some form of editing, extraction, and condensing. The dilemma for the writer of a published text is to what degree is it appropriate to edit the words of a narrator? Some historians assert that editing unnecessarily increases the distance between the narrator and the reader, and some even argue that reworking segments of an oral history interview to appear in standard English is tantamount to an "act of vandalism." Baum asserts, derisively, that heavy editing can result in "a glowing autobiography in the style of a high school graduation speech." While faithfully reproducing the spoken word in a textual form may be desirable in the transcribing phase, and appropriate for certain oral histories that are not published or are aimed at an academic audience or a particular cultural group, I argue that this is inappropriate for interviews or extracts that are published for general readership. When publishing for a general audience, extensive editing is necessary to create a document that is not only readable and accessible, but also conveys the flavor of the experiences.

Read Rebecca Jones' full article, "Blended Voices: Crafting A Narrative From Oral History Interviews"

Note: Original annotations were not included in this excerpt.

Quiktales Rating: 2