ზეპირი ისტორიის თეორიული და მეთოდოლოგიური კვლევის საკითხები

აბსტრაქტი

სტატიიდან აღებული ავტორის ინგლისურენოვანი რეზიუმე:

Key words: oral history, methodology, elite/unelite, critical, grounded.

Methodology of oral history, as of the modern scientific sphere, has various sources. Since the 40s of the XIX century the practice of the oral history has been popular in the western academic circles. After choosing a genre of the oral history the next step for a scientist is the selection of the theoretical basis. Despite of the use of the various theoretical approaches in the researches the survey of existing literature singles out three main methods: elite/unelite, critical and grounded. The subject of the elite/unelite theory is the elite oral history against the unelite oral history or who is merited to be recorded. Oral history of elite people is opposite to the oral history of ordinary people – interview practice from “down to up”, earlier supporters of which are British scientists of the 50s and the 60s of the past century.

American oral historians catched up this idea only in the 60s. Many programmes of oral history aimed at recording point of view of the witnesses of the history. Such kind of work was a certain combination of topics of interviews with ordinary people as well as with prominent ones and its basic theoretical principles were clarified as far as possible. Basic source of the critical theory is a sphere of the literary criticism. Though afterwards it became a part of many humanitarian and social sciences und oral history was used within their boundaries. In the USA critical theory has many supporters but it has mere influence over Europe, especially over the UK and over Italy.

In the works of these scientists class questions are leading. Critical theory is provided with the conception of the ideas and views of the people without official rank. Grounded theory at the beginning demanded of the scientists the approach to the chosen topic without ideas thought out beforehand. Scientists can set up their own conclusions and ideas of the research of a person or a group of people on the basis of analysis and checking the material obtained during the research. As Straus and Juliet Corbin point out the scientist doesn’t start the project with early thought out approach (except the case when the aim is to analyze in details and to deepen existing theory) but tries the assumption to be emerged from the information, hence, the grounded theory stems from the information.

The method of the research of the grounded theory has its characteristic traits, which influence over the investigation greatly. The important fact is that some followers of the grounded theory demand of the scientists not to use questions and certain themes thought out beforehand. In the beginning of the research we tried to review theoretical topics of oral history. On this occasion we are discussing problems of recording of oral histories, which are important in obtaining high-grade materials. For getting a successful interview it is significant to have a conversation in domestic situation. Style of the interview must be impartial, sincere and friendly, if needed even provoking.

Each interviewer is obligated not to keep a respondent in tension, to listen with attention and to stimulate the respondent to be frank. Skill of listening is to be worked out and an interviewer needs a hard work to work out this ability. To some extent an interview is a performance. Not only an interviewer tries to get ready well, but a respondents worries as well, thinking how to demonstrate memories of the distant past. Nobody wants to look absent-minded or with lack of the talent of expression. In this process interviewers must be co-participants and help respondents to be frank and exact. During giving the information of names, dates and etc., the interviewer has to show a route.

In help to overcome isolation, undesire, bad mood, in being frank and self-critical the interviewer plays a decisive role for the respondent. Each type of interview has its rules and norms: to fulfill preliminary work, maximal readiness, to prepare impartial questions, not to interrupt the respondent, to expand the topic of the answer, to know properly recording equipment, to work out exactly obtained recordings and to take into account ethics. For the successful ending of the interview it is necessary to find a “final” question, which will stimulate the respondent and will make him to think on the past, to compare new events with the old ones, to make important conclusions and to look for future, to analyse if there are the topics not being discussed.

Sometimes a respondent is expecting the questions that an interviewer has to put but he hasn’t done it. A frank interview can be very emotional, for this after the interview an interviewer must take much time and have a conversation without recording equipment. A respondent should feel how important his interview will be for oral history project and should be sure of the significance of the work he has done. The respondent must be informed how his interview will be used and will be kept. It is not correct for the interviewer to leave the respondent simply taking with him the story of a person’s life, his frank opinions, sometimes very personal observations.

In this work we tried to make out the theoretical and methodological questions of oral history which in our opinion is important for recording and preparation of an interview. And for these reason psychologists, sociologists and other researches of the social field, have again analysed forms of the oral expression and has declared subjectivity of the oral history. They have sensed the methodology of oral history and accordingly have given preference to qualitative interviews rather than to quantitative ones, as after years repeat of the history is turned into a form of self-interpretation. People remember not only their own past but they try to realize it and strive for rationalization to live better in the present together with the past.

გამოქვეყნებულია ჟურნალში „სჯანი“, ტ. 13 (2012), გვ. 233–244. ნაშრომის გახსნა