ABSTRACT

This article examines the ethics of anonymizing interviewees who asked to be named in oral history research. Drawing on my experiences administering a large oral history project with Vietnam veterans, I examine four stages of oral history practice—recruitment, the interview, analysis and interpretation, and publication—and argue that (un)naming interviewees fundamentally changes the terms of their consent. (Un)naming reopens ethical dilemmas at the core of oral history practice: the incongruent goals of the interviewer and interviewees; empowering interviewees and contesting experience; misaligned understandings of sensitivity and taboo; observation and defining off-the-record, interpretive conflict; and unconscious advocacy. However, the digital era creates new and unforeseen consequences of naming interviewees in our research, and our responsibility to protect interviewees from potential ramifications outweighs the ethical dilemmas that (un)naming pose. (Un)naming also reveals complex power dynamics between the interviewer and different interviewees, indicating that interviewers should be more attentive to power differences within the interview group. The most ethical framework for naming may be an individualized approach, led by careful negotiations with each interviewee about the meaning and consequences of their participation in our research.

摘要

本文探讨了匿名要求在口述历史研究中被提名者的匿名性。根据我与越南退伍军人一起管理大型口述历史项目的经验，我考察了口述历史实践的四个阶段-招聘，访谈，分析和解释以及出版-并认为（取消）对受访者的命名从根本上改变了他们的同意条款。（Un）命名重新开启了口述历史实践的核心伦理困境：访调员和被访者的目标不一致；赋予受访者权力和竞赛经验；对敏感性和禁忌的理解不一致；观察并定义记录外的解释性冲突；和无意识的倡导。但是，在数字时代，在我们的研究中命名受访者会带来新的和无法预料的后果，我们保护受访者免遭潜在后果的责任超过了（取消）命名所带来的道德困境。（取消）命名还揭示了访调员和不同受访者之间复杂的权力动态，表明访调员应更注意采访组内的权力差异。最合乎道德的命名框架可能是个性化的方法，与每个受访者就他们参与我们的研究的意义和后果进行认真的谈判，以此作为指导。