"I would be an audience before whom she could make an honest analysis of her life" (pg. 31, "Like It Was")

    I think that initial quote pretty much sums up the importance of an oral history interview. As in interviewer, I must make sure whoever I interview is comfortable and knows that I will not be judging them about what they say. The interviewee should be encouraged to be open and honest about their experience and their personal reaction to it. This also leads to another point made in the chapter about avoiding "leading questions". Interviewers should have questions prepared, but they should not be "assuming" questions that would make the interviewee afraid to disagree with the interviewee. At all times, the interviewee should feel comfortable expressing their deepest feelings about whatever topic they are speaking on.
    So far after watching a little of FoodInc., I think I want to do something with school lunches, but that will all depend on my group and such. Yet if I do get to explore this topic, I would like to interview a child, a adult (perhaps a parent), and maybe a lunch aide/server. In doing this, I have to be sure not to push my thoughts and opinions on them (frankly, I am disgusted with the food that is served to our kids now at school). I want their true, untainted opinions about the issue. I know this will be hard for me, but I will try my best.  I also think that this part could turn out more like a feature story like the chapter reading suggested. Because I will be collecting histories from different perspectives, my part may be more topic-driven, yet I will be sure to follow the same rules/suggestions and make sure my interview stays like a monologue, not a dialogue. The whole point of an oral history is to get the interviewee to talk as much as possible about the topic at hand.  The interviewer needs to be sure not to talk to much, as this will delude the perspective and thoughts of the interviewee.
    After reading this, I am actually really excited about starting my research/oral history project. I think it will be really fun and enlightening. I have never really done anything like this, and I can't wait to start.

Confession: I am obsessed with the History Channel.

     When my husband and I first moved into our house last year, we didn't have cable for the first few months. It really didn't bother me that much because we were busy setting things up and buying stuff for the house. Yet as soon as we got cable, we realized how much we were missing. I came home from work on the day of installation to him sitting on the couch with the remote.
    "Babe, you gotta watch this show."
    It was Swamp People on the History channel. Since that show, we have both been hooked on the channel and 90% of the shows we watch are on it. I have always been a fan of history as a subject in school, but now I just love it. My husband and I religiously follow Swamp People, American Pickers, and Pawn Stars--all shows that I was reminded of while reading through "What is Oral History."
    The first quote that stuck out to me was "oral history is, at its heart, a dialogue." Al of the shows I mentioned are just that. Swamp People is more of a reality show because we never meet the "interviewer" ,yet we still get to find out relevant facts and histories because of the director and producer of the show. The characters talk about the dangers of their profession and they frequently talk about the history of it. In the other two shows, American Pickers and Pawn Stars, we kind of know the interviewers because they are characters in the show. The American Pickers stars go around the country looking for antiques and in the process meet and talk to the owners of said antiques. I must say they come across some characters. These owners then tell their personal connection to the item and the actual history of it. In Pawn Stars, the pawn shop owners ask questions to the clients who come in with items to sell or pawn. This is all dialogue, and though it is not called "oral history" per say, I don't see how it couldn't be lumped into that genre.
    The next quote that stuck out to me was "Just because someone 'was there' doesn't mean they fully understood 'what happened', and this really relates to the reliability of the narrator. An interviewer must make sure the interviewee is a credible source to the best of their ability. No one is perfect, but an effort must be made. This is also something the both of the stars in American Pickers and Pawn Stars must consider. If they are not sure about information an owner is telling them about an item, they get their trusted professional appraisers to weigh in. It is always interesting to see who is and who isn't telling the whole truth about their items.
    The last point that reminded me of my shows was that a better interview will be produced if it is given adequate time and if it be done some place comfortable. In American Pickers, the stars stress to establish a connection with the people they are buying from because then they can bargain comfortably with them. This would be the same idea if I were to do an oral history about something with a person. If the subject is touchy or overtly personal, the last thing I want to do would be to jump right into it and be too blunt. The interview must be given time to develop in order to provide a reliable, complete, and compelling oral history account.
    All in all, now I understand why I like these shows so much. I have always been a fan of history, and with personal stories intertwined in these shows, I am able to learn and obtain even more. I can place faces and places with dates and times in history and now it is much more personal experience for me.

     Throughout my elementary and secondary schooling, at least through County College, I was told to keep my thoughts, my feelings, and me (as in the word I) out of my writing. My academic writing and research could have nothing to do with what I thought.
    WHAT? WHAT SENSE DOES THAT ACTUALLY MAKE? In the words of one of my professors, "Hang out with that for while."
    Been long enought yet? You'll come to see and understand that it really makes no sense. Ask a writer, or a student for that matter, to write and tell them it can't be personal.  WHAT EXACTLY IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE THEN?
    It wasn't until I started my Writing Arts classes that I was encouraged to literally infuse my thoughts, feelings, and opinions into my own papers. At first it was a foreign, difficult concept for me, but through the semesters I have become better with it.
       One teacher in particular that I have this semester, encourages us during each class period to make sure we are writing about our own stories, experiences, and opinions in our papers. He wants to read more of our reasoning and ideas. Recently, he even suggested that I start one of my papers with a personal story that was embedded later in the paper. He believed it was strong, and that it would pull any reader in. This emphasized the value he placed on narrative. He even goes so far as to argue that "All writing is narrative", and I would say that is true.
    While reading "Situating Narrative Inquiry" by Clandinin I was continually reaffirmed that narrative needs to be included in all writing, and I don't believe there is any way around it. Consider the following quote/passage from Clandinin,
        "Narrative researchers use narrative in some way in their research. Narrative
        inquiry embraces narrative as both the method and phenomena of study. Through
        the attention to methods for analyzing and understanding stories lived and told, it
        can be connected and placed under the label of qualitative research methodology.
        Narrative inquiry begins in experience as expressed in lived and told stories" (5).
To me, this quote is saying, why should researches leave out details about their journey through the research process? Why not tell about the struggles, the joys, and the opportunities. Not only would this engage the reader, but it may inspire them to take the same kind of journey for their own writing. Is that not what good writing is supposed to do? Inspire it's readers. There is so much that strict, academic writing hinders, and the professional educational society needs to be more aware of it.
    Another thought from Clandinin that stuck out to me was the following:
        "As researchers begin to embrace those
        they research as humans rather than as objects of study and as they struggle to make
        sense of the narratives that such interactions produce, they begin to embrace other
        ideas about how to make data interpretable and how to provide interpretations of
        data that are coherent, that resonate with the data, and that are true to them" (14).
To my understanding, Clandinin was trying to express the importance of treating humans like, well, humans. Humans are imperfect. Humans are unreliable. Humans are naive. Humans are selfish. Humans are ________ (etc.) Everyone has a story, and it is that story that readers will relate to. In addition, by situating any type of research in a narrative form, the information will be more understandable and also more teachable to another group of researchers or readers yet to come. Good, solid writing stands the test of time, just like certain accounts of history, which happen to be told in story form, do. Perhaps academia should read some more and take some cues from historia? (yea, that's not a word, but it sounded good).
    Another quote/passage that I liked from Clandinin was found in his conclusion. It was kind of like a disclaimer for the whole chapter. He summed up the importance of more narrative in the academic discourse community, but also acknowledged that the practiced, drilled "positivism" will never leave or allow narrative to fully take over--
        "This chapter does not argue for an academy-wide move to narrative. Nor, in contrast
        to positivist social science, does it assume that there should be unanimity
        among narrative practitioners on key points of philosophy, method, or argument.
        This is both a strength and weakness of the movement toward narrative—a
        strength because multiple views make for closer attention to a wider variety of
        human experience; a weakness because it seems unlikely that narrative will
        ever come to dominate the academy in the way that positivism has done since the
        beginning of the 20th century" (28).
Honestly, I don't think narrative needs to fully take over institutions, but I do think educators need to practice it themselves and allow their students to do the same. In a world that is moving so fast, why not slow down with a personal connection? Let the reader feel closer to the writer if only through words on a page.