Shyler Hendrickson
Shyler Hendrickson is a fourth-year History student at the University of Guelph.
Click here for his interviewee, Ann Hersey's page, and a link to the audio file of the full interview.
|
Shyler Hendrickson's Reflection on his Involvement in this Project
So much of the work that I and my peers do as students of History, is stifling. Not that we don’t love the work that we do, but it tends to lead us to cloistered libraries, and archives, where we seclude ourselves among stacks of books and old records, from which we draw the information we use in our research. This project allowed for a departure from this more traditional way of practicing history, and allowed us to continue to do the work we love to do, whilst offering us new experiences and skills as a result.
Coming into the course I wasn’t really sure what to expect from working on the project, but we were well prepared for it by our professor, and the required readings we did in the weeks leading up to our initial interviews. I was surprised by the amount of additional preparation, and considerations, both technical, and ethical, that went into conducting an oral history. I was also introduced to the concept of “Shared Authority”. When you create or conduct a history project as a researcher, you have complete authority over the project. The decisions about content, length, what to include, exclude, and how to disseminate the result, are yours to make, but when you’re conducting an oral history, you’re sharing the responsibility of those decisions with your interviewee. This was a difficult concept to adopt at first. |
A sentiment that is fairly common to historians entering into the work of oral history for the first time:
“While I recognized that collaboration was central to the interview process – interviewers and their interviewees work together to create a living history of the past – I did not plan to share authority with my interviewees in any other ways. A lack of funding, and hence a limited amount of time, forced me to establish a clear set of priorities.”[1]
- (Stacey Zembrzycki, Sharing Authority with Baba)
The others and myself were faced with a very similar situation, having only a limited time to prepare, conduct, and then compile the interviews we would be doing, That being said, I initially created a scenario in my head of what the interview would look like. It would be efficient, regimented, and the questions I would ask would divulge the information I needed to finish my project. As I soon found out, this would not be the case.
This was ultimately not my project, and in fact, when one visits the CWRC site, the first name to appear on the project I specifically worked on, is not mine, but in fact Ann’s, my interviewee. After my first meeting with Ann, I understood that ultimately, what I would take away from the interview, would depend largely on how I could work with Ann, in compiling information, and not extracting it from her the same way I might a textbook. Furthermore, I had to give consideration to what Ann was comfortable sharing. Not only with me, but with her peers, and mine, and potentially with the world at large. One of the notable oral historians we examined in class was Donald A. Ritchie, who makes it very clear, that empathy is essential when conducting an oral history interview. The level of connection and sincerity both interviewer and interviewee establish and bring to the interview, affects both the questions the interviewer feels comfortable asking and those the interviewee feel comfortable answering.[2]
On the one hand, this is a con of doing oral history in comparison to more traditional histories, as it slows down the process of compiling and conducting research. You don’t typically have to consider the thoughts and opinions of an individual, who has already published information for the academic community. On the other hand, though, oral history exists to provide information for the historical record, that isn’t already available from other sources.[3] In this way, I understood the work I was doing as not simply drawing from the historical record but contributing to it. This was a refreshing departure from virtually all of the work I had produced in my time at the university and made the project incredibly rewarding to participate in. That being said, preparing an oral history project brought with it challenges I had yet to encounter in studies up to this time.
The process of transcribing a section of an interview is frankly very tedious. However, it is a very important part of a project such as this. The audio recording of my interview with Ann is riddled with background interference, making it sometimes difficult to hear her. Therefore, the transcription is able to fill in most gaps that might emerge as a result of the recording. Interestingly, however, I found that returning to the interview and transcribing it after the fact, allowed me to pick up and examine certain parts of speech, both my own and Ann's, that weren’t obvious to me while engaged in conversation. When you write down a conversation, it is much easier to notice specific language and terminology used, pauses are more noticeable, and you can tell by the flow of the transcription, whether or not the interview itself was flowing well. When I asked a question that Ann felt she could speak to, the interview flowed eloquently, When I asked a question that she couldn’t answer as fully, it was obvious based on the breaks in the transcription. As a researcher who likely will be engaged in work such as this again, this was very helpful for me to asses and adjust my own performance as an interviewer, and make changes to the way I compose and ask questions in the future.
Going into the project we were all made acutely aware of the issues associated with memory when conducting an oral history. As it stands, there is still debate within the historical community today about the efficacy of oral histories, as they supposedly involve more human fallibility than traditional research materials. That being said, it was important going into the interview, and in writing the project that we understand that many individuals might adjust their stories for aesthetic reasons, and/or convenience. Furthermore, as our interviewees were within or entering late life, many names, dates, and events might be misremembered or completely forgotten. As historians, we are not in the business of perpetuating misinformation, so it calls to questions of how, and to what degree we triangulate the stories of our subjects.[4]
The concern that engaging in oral history dispenses with traditional practices and values focused on being objective, has existed as long as oral history itself. However, oral history offers things that enrich the historical record, that traditional histories cannot. The narrator in an oral history answers (ideally) the questions of the interviewer, but they are engaging in a telling of their story, history, from their perspective.[5] This is something that is gaining more and more attention in history. The knowledge that our historical record is missing a vast number of perspectives. Women, Indigenous people, LGBTQ+ individuals, It is only in the last half of the twentieth century that these groups began to have their voices added to the record.
Touching on a similar theme, I did research both before and after my interview with Ann, and frankly, there was little in the way of evidence in the traditional sense that I could use to substantiate what she told me. This led me to understand why projects like this one were so important, as they spoke to histories that were still important, yet had in many cases been exempt from the historical record. While we should be dedicated in establish as accurate a depiction of the past as possible, we cannot also in good conscience dispense with histories such as Ann’s simply because no-one at the time took the care to write it down in a book. Furthermore, oral histories allow for those who engage in their telling and retelling, to come to terms with events or occasions that have affected their lives in one way or another. Abigail Perkiss speaks to this when reflecting on her work conducting an oral history based on the experiences of survivors of Hurricane Sandy:
“It was at that moment that I began to understand the transformative potential of this project. This work would reach far beyond a pedagogical exercise for these students. It would be an opportunity for them to give voice to their own experiences and the experiences of their friends and neighbors as they recalibrated their lives.”[6]
- Abigail Perkiss, 395.
Another consideration I had to come to terms with was the use of technology in conducting and presenting this history. Before the internet, if someone wished to view a project such as this they would have had to visit the University and see the physical copy. Now, the project is available online for the public. This raises a host of concerns regarding the ability of the University to control the information contained and it’s use.[7] On the other hand, in making the history more accessible to the community at large, Ann’s story can now enrich the communities history and sense of pride in a way it couldn’t have thirty years ago. In continuing to use digital tools for work such as this, it is important to be aware and exercise the necessary amounts of caution in digitizing these projects.
Ultimately my experience working on this project can be described as very positive. It allowed me to exercise the skills I had honed in my time at the University of Guelph in a practical way, that felt more tangible and rewarding than the projects I had traditionally worked on. My knowledge grew with every session, and my frame of reference for history, and the way it is changing in the 21st century has expanded as a result of the work. I hope to continue to work towards ensuring that our history as a nation will grow into one that includes all perspectives, and all stories, because we don’t as a society get to pick and choose the histories we want to remember.
For more of Shyler's work, click here to read his reflection on Dennis Kearns' lifestory.
Endnotes
[1] Zembrzycki, Stacey. “Sharing Authority with Baba.” Journal of Canadian Studies 43, no. 1 (2009): 55. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.43.1.219.
[2] Ritchie, Donald A. Doing oral history: A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, 86.
[3] Ibid., 35.
[4] Shopes, Linda. “After the Interview Ends: Moving Oral History Out of the Archives and into Publication.” The Oral History Review 42, no. 2 (2015): 302. https://doi.org/10.1093/ohr/ohv037.
[5] Portelli, Alessandro. “The Peculiarities of Oral History.” History Workshop Journal 12, no. 1 (1981): 98. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/12.1.96.
[7] Sheftel, Anna and Stacey Zembrzycki. “Slowing Down to Listen in the Digital Age: How New Technology is Changing Oral History Practice.” The Oral History Review 44, no. 1 (2017): 99. https://doi.org/10.1093/ohr/ohx016.