The interaction between the researcher and the narrator within and beyond the interview space.

Abstract

Research Objective. This article explores the dynamics of interaction between the researcher and the narrator within the methodology of oral history in Ukraine. Oral historians in Ukraine work with extremely difficult topics related to trauma, war, and displacement. Often, we are the first to hear a person’s story in all its harrowing detail. Naturally, this leads to significant methodological and ethical challenges in this field, particularly in the context of the growing interest in documenting oral testimonies of war.

Research Methodology. The study is based on reflections on personal experiences of conducting interviews, discussions with colleagues, and conversations with former narrators about their feelings when giving interviews for a project on a traumatic topic.

Scientific Novelty. The novelty of this study lies in identifying aspects of the researcher-narrator interaction and the impact of these relationships on the interview process. The article focuses on the interaction between the researcher and the respondent, raising issues of physical and mental safety for narrators, the necessity of anonymization, and the preservation of respondents’ agency. It examines the author’s experience in the projects The War Childhood Museum and Those Who Stayed: Testimonies of Kharkiv and Kharkiv Region Residents, as well as personal reflections on the researcher’s responsibility towards those whose stories are recorded. Special attention is given to the issue of obtaining mature testimonies and the role of time in shaping a reflective experience.

Relevance of the Topic. The relevance of this study is linked to the rapid expansion of oral testimony collection initiatives since 2014, particularly following the full-scale invasion of 2022.

Conclusions. The article offers a critical analysis of new methodological challenges arising from the popularization of oral history and outlines possible ways to adapt the scientific approach to new realities. The author poses the question: should efforts be made to preserve the methodological purity of oral history, or should the expansion of tools be allowed to accommodate new social and technological conditions? This includes considering the conclusions of the Belmont Report, which defines ethical standards for behavioral and medical research.