Oral History and Biographical Method. Common Framework and Distinctions Resulting from Different Research Perspectives

Abstract

<jats:p>Reflections undertaken in this article are a direct result of the research into the fate of Children Born of War (CBOW) in Poland and relate to the methodological, epistemological and ethical tension experienced while working with the interview partners and analyzing their biographical accounts. The encountered difficulties became a root cause of the critical reflection and an impulse to an attempt to systematize the knowledge about the mutual relations of two research traditions: oral history and biographical method which have coexisted over the past few decades, interfering and penetrating each other to such an extent that many researchers began to equate them or consider one of them as a part of the other and vice versa. The chaos of terms and concepts was of great importance in this process. The text also presents similarities and differences of the two approaches both in an epistemological and ethical sense. The attitude towards the narrator, which is mainly the result of different scientific goals that researchers aim at in both research fields was recognized as the fundamental difference. However, underscoring the differences has no purpose of setting boundaries, but it is a postulate to be more careful and bear theoretical and methodological self-awareness of researchers, it is also meant to foster mutual learning and inspiration, which can positively affect the quality of research and analysis. </jats:p>

Sosyal Bilim Araştırmalarında Sözlü Tarih Yöntemi

“…Bu yöntem nitel araştırma yöntemlerinde görüşmede kullanılan standart bir soru listesinden ziyade, kaynak kişilerin biyografik süreçlere ilişkin anlatılarına odaklanmaktadır. Görüşme yönteminden farklı olarak anlatıcıların olaya veya konuya yaklaşımı temel ölçüt olarak değerlendirilmektedir (Gałęziowski, 2019). Sözlü tarih yönteminde veri toplamak için özellikle olaya tanıklık eden kaynak kişilerden yararlanılması doğru verilerin birincil kaynaktan elde edilmesine katkı sağlamaktadır.…”

Together or apart? Doing biographical research and oral history in an interdisciplinary context

“…Out of such a meeting of expectations, a dialogue is born, which, on the one hand, is a relationship, and a life story, on the other hand. It assumes equality of both sides, despite all differences that are between them, and it manifests itself in shared authority and collaboration (Gałęziowski, 2019: 91). It is precisely the ‘shared authority’, that is, sharing power at various levels, which constitutes one of the main features of oral history.…”

“…Hence, what is vital – and inseparable in the entire procedure of obtaining the source – is the interviewee’s consent to have his or her oral account archived and stored under certain conditions to be re-used in the future by third parties. 6 This bureaucratic procedure (obtaining informed consent) shows a particular type of shared authority, that is, giving the research participants the decision (power) regarding their story and its further use (Gałęziowski, 2019: 94). In this way, it can give them a sense of security (a feeling that they will not be mistreated) and agency (it is they who ultimately decide whether and for what their account will be used).…”

Retrieving Lost Knowledge: Researcher, “Native Researchers” and Shifts in Participatory Action Research

“…Some methodological obstacles manifested while the author was arranging and conducting the interviews, and eventually only 10 interviews can be classified according to the methodological approach of Schütze. 9 Other participants gave narrative interviews, but their analysis and interpretation can only be supported by some of Schütze's theoretical classifications and instruments (Prawda, 1989;Włodarek & Ziółkowski, 1990;Kaźmierska 1996Kaźmierska , 1999Kaźmierska , 2008Kaźmierska , 2012Kaźmierska , 2013Kaźmierska , 2014bKaźmierska , 2018Czyżewski, 1997Czyżewski, , 2016Schütze, 1997Schütze, , 2012aSchütze, , 2012bSchütze, , 2016Rokuszewska-Pawełek, 2002;Gałęziowski, 2019;Waniek, 2019). Among the collected empirical material there are 8 interviews conducted in pairs (with 16 participants).…”