Page 105 [105]
OCR
104] Digital Media and Storytelling in Higher Education Trust between the researcher and the interviewee can only be established through cooperation. Although the interview setting contains fixed content nodes, the conversation can be flexible. The researcher and the interviewee should act as equal partners in the research process, which helps to broaden and deepen the topic in detail. However, the creation of collaborative knowledge raises the issue of shared authority (Frisch, 1990, cf. Leavy, 2011). Shared authority can be seen in data recording and in the interpretation of events, and allows for the narrator to correct the researcher if the researcher misinterprets a phenomenon. In oral history research, the subjects are not referred to as the data provider or respondent, but rather the term narrator or participant is used. These expressions refer to the nature of the research, the role of the interviewer as the narrator-interpreter, and the collaborative construction of knowledge. The researcher must take care to separate the analysis of the researcher and that of the narrator when publishing research findings (Leavy, 2011). Positivist researchers criticize oral history researchers based on the bias and lack of objectivity present in the research methodology. At the same time, oral history videos and audio recordings are personal narratives that constitute a data corpus accessible to any researcher for content analysis. By transcribing and coding the narratives, certain content elements can be quantified and typical patterns can be identified based on their frequency. However, text analysis can also be complemented by observational metacommunication analysis in oral history research, as the body language and prosody of the interviewee can also provide additional information. Leavy (2011) argues that the methodology of oral history research in the social sciences is strongly based on the qualitative methodology of grounded theory, as data collection and analysis leads to further data collection and analysis, eventually leading to the development of theory from systematic data analysis. Mitev (2015) argues that the advantage of grounded theory is that it allows the researcher to approach social, context-dependent behaviors in a structured way, as it systematically increases the sample in the process of data collection and requires the constant interpretation and comparison of data. This approach is relevant for the methodology of oral history research. Researchers of personal narratives in the social sciences, especially in sociology and history, situate individual micro-narratives in a broader sociocultural and economic-political context. In cultural anthropology, comparative culture studies and any field of the humanities with a historical-social research orientation (e.g., theater history or dance history), oral history narratives provide important sub-data for the reconstruction of a cultural construct. The traditional form of oral history is narration through interviews within the framework of organized research, recorded in audio or video format and systematically stored in archives. Video technology and the emergence of video-sharing portals have made it possible to record and share historical testimonies: edited versions of in-depth interviews recorded about a historical
