"Indocumentation" as the essense of Oral History

Digital Indexing enhances oral history collections that otherwise cannot be easily accessed. We often use a “shoebox” metaphor to emphasize the importance of indexing: A collection of digital audio or video that is not indexed is in a digital shoebox, which is not much better than a real shoebox of un-digitized cassette or video tapes forgotten in a closet somewhere. By annotating and indexing discrete passages of audio/video, we create access to collections that would otherwise be cumbersome if not impossible to make use of.

Today, I want to take a moment to talk about the recording: The recording itself not only provides “access” to some living memory because it is in a re-playable medium, but it is a form of documentation. It occurs to me that the creation of new documentation is the essential element that makes recorded interviews so powerful. The moment things take documentary form—whether and email, an oral history recording, or even a produced documentary film—is when they have the potential to become part of a larger discourse. This moment of incarnation, or perhaps “indocumentation,” is where ideas become things we can really talk about, but also do something about…

Locative Metadata

When we index at Randforce, we develop controlled vocabularies (also known as thesauri) for annotated passages of audio and video. Technically, the objects we are indexing are metadata themselves. (Thus we create meta-metadata!) For discussion purposes, the objects we are indexing are a/v clips.

We often conceptualize the process of indexing to be less like "labeling" something (i.e., what is it called?) and more like "putting it somewhere" (i.e., where does it belong?) and we sometimes call this "sorting the laundry." The proverbial laundry baskets are created by us indexers and the objects influence its creation in a meaningful way. It seems to me, that when these terms are fed back to the object, they are a unique type of metadata.

I'd like to propose that this type of metadata being created might be called "locative metadata". Locative metadata, conceptually, is more than an attribute of the object. Locative metadata implies "where it is" relative to other objects in the collection, not just what it is about. Locative metadata might also be a purely digital concept exactly because an object can reside in more than one location at a time (without needing to take up additional space). In this sense, library subject headings--from the book's perspective--is locative metadata, as are hyperlinks to an object from the objects' perspective.

Launching a New Tab.. Tip of the Day

This post may not be about oral history content management, but is certainly topical (for me, today). If you are putting links in your blog, remember to double check that your off-site links open a new tab or window, so that the page being read remains readily available. You can do this by adding a small piece of code.

So if I link to another post in my blog, I will just assume that readers will find their way back here and I won't burden them with an extra tab...

Read an earlier post! (And see you later!)

However...

If I'm sending them away, like to this YouTube video...

Watch this YouTube Video!

I'm going to wait here for them in the old tab. In the latter link, I added target="_blank" next to href="http://www...." in the Html just before "Watch this YouTube Video". Now we know.

Anecdata: Oral History Methods in the Sciences

[The following is the abstract I just submitted for the Oral History Association conference in Cleveland in October. If you haven't gotten your abstract in, today is the last day...]

Anecdata: Oral History Methods in the Sciences

Although oral history is increasingly accepted as valid form of evidence, it is still a foreign concept in the the sciences. Yet all the arguments Portelli makes for "what makes oral history different" must not apply only to the humanities. This is especially true now, as digital tools allow for more direct and robust indexing of recordings. In the study of Ecological Restoration (ER), researchers are trying to understand complex problems with limited data. Even where advanced theory and modeling has been established, there are gaps in knowledge and a lack of input amongst all relevant stakeholders. Through a partnership with members of the Ecosystem Restoration through Interdisciplinary Exchange (ERIE) Program at the University at Buffalo, we are exploring the use oral histories to evaluate ER projects in terms of the human values driving them. We are applying methods of annotation and theme mapping used in our oral history practice to the open-ended recorded interviews of ER practitioners. In this paper, we will discuss how use of a database approach to content management not only serves as a means of efficient access to oral history collections, but also turn anecdotes literally into data.

Examining Assumptions about OHA Meetings

The deadline for submissions for the Oral History Association Annual Meeting is rapidly approaching (Jan 20). If you’re not in OHA already, consider joining and/or coming to the meeting in Cleveland in 2012. OHA is a great group of people from all sorts of backgrounds, and we always look forward to these meetings, where we meet new folks and reunite with our oral history friends.

http://www.oralhistory.org/

I plan to present a paper again and to support Melanie as she carries forward the torch of “So, What Do You Do?” (SWDYD). We introduced SWDYD at the OHA meeting in Louisville in 2010, as an alternative to the 90 minute sessions with 3-4 paper presentations followed by Q&A. SWDYD is focused on getting an overview of several people’s projects at once in a more casual setting, as opposed to “giving papers” (or reading them word for word!). Inspired by concepts like “Speed Dating”, “Pecha Kucha Nights”, and THATcamp’s “Dork Shorts”, we wanted to create something for OHA that would introduce a short-form, yet structured event that emphasizes getting participants into meaningful dialogue. The past two years we had a diverse group of presenters giving their 6-minute talks about what they do in oral history in the first session, followed by a set of round-table discussions in the second session. We are currently working on tweaks and upgrades for SWDYD for Cleveland 2012! Stay tuned for that…

Starting with Indexed Summaries

The assumption that working with oral histories requires transcription first is one we have been examining for years through our practice of digital indexing. Transcriptions can be a powerful resource to accompany recordings, but we choose to approach oral history analysis differently.

With the availability of database-driven models for oral history content management, we start with summary annotations and create indexes, and work from there. Selective or full transcription is always an option, and in the meantime, summary-passage architecture for content management is an efficient and functional way to engage oral history recordings. In addition, the resulting text can be less dense than a transcription, more contextually meaningful, and still be suitable for all sorts of publications and for further development.

In a nutshell, we respond to the “unexamined assumption” with another question:

Does it make sense to transcribe everything you have so you can find the few passages you really want? Or does it make more sense to index a collection first and then transcribe what you need when you need it?

For us, the latter makes more sense and this is where digital indexing begins.

The Unexamined Assumption

"In order to be able to access oral histories, transcription is a prerequisite."