When I decided to use audio extracts of my oral interview with Bob Rust I wanted the extracts to fall in line with the ethic I had developed for the whole site.  I wanted them to be short but informative- I wanted them to summarise Bob's thoughts on a particular subject but I wanted them to be concise and accessible.  However, I found that merging the ethic I had developed for my website with the ethics surrounding oral history interviews resulted in some major moral dilemmas. Allowing the interviewees to shape history, giving them the opportunity to speak and be heard, giving primary importance to their subjective personal experience told in their own words are fundamental concepts to consider in the production and use of oral history.  At the same time, the need to hold the audiences attention and interest, the development of short and concise extracts which are easy to listen to and decipher are vital to successful use of audio on the internet.  I wanted my use of sound to be punchy, short , and easy to listen to, but I did not want to manipulate Bob's voice to the point where it could not be described as Bob's words. 

Whilst grappling with these dilemmas I read Michael Frisch's chapter "Preparing Interview Transcripts for Documentary Publication" in his book A Shared Authority.  The points he raises in this chapter provided me with some valuable insights.  Firstly his comment:

We would miss much of the content, historical value and meaning in any           extensive interview were we limited only to what is articulated in specific "soundbites" (Frisch, 1990, p.84)

This forced me to accept the limitations of what I was setting out to do.  I would not be able to convey all the extent and detail of Bob's thoughts on all the varying topics the interview covered in a few short extracts. That would be impossible.  Instead, I had to be selective. I had to choose a few key concepts and accept that I would be leaving a lot of potentially interesting material out.  

Having realised the necessity of being selective I decided to devise some themed headings under which I could group together some extracts from my interview with Bob. After listening to the interview several times I devised six relevant headings: 

· Thoughts on the Mass-Observation Project's Aims
· Thoughts on the Purpose and Benefits of Writing for the Project
· Perceptions of  audience
· Issues of authorship
· Connections with other forms of writing found in everyday life
· The Mass-Observation Project as Life History

By imposing this structure under which I would group my extracts I was immediately enforcing my own interests and biases on the interview.  Initially this worried me, I wanted the extracts to reflect Bob's thoughts and feelings and not my own.  However, I realised that a fundamental part of the whole process of oral history interviewing is collaboration.  The fact that Bob was talking in response to my questions meant that my influence on Bob's expression were integral to the interview from the beginning and because I was part of that process I was actually in a good position to impose a structure on the interview. 

However, choosing the actual extracts to go under these headings was problematic. I did not know whether it would be ethical for me to re-order parts of the interview, whether I should cut irrelevant chunks out of sentences or just how far I could go to create a succinct interview extract. I found Michael Frisch's comments a source of help on the subject:

The integrity of a transcript is best protected, in a documentary use, by an aggressive editorial approach that does not shrink from substantial manipulation of the text.  One must respect the original enough to come to know it deeply, and this knowledge must be a benchmark for measuring the validity of any digest, excerpt, or editing.  But on this basis, one must also be able to abandon the pretense of literal reproduction, in order to craft the document into a form that will answer to the needs of successful presentation and communication (Frisch, 1990, p.84)

Remaining true to Bob's expression does not mean literal word after word reproduction. As in any conversation, a particular theme or concept that the interviewee is expressing is interwoven with other points. Separating these points from one another to produce a coherent narrative is not unfair manipulation of the text.  Instead it is a necessary editing tactic if the finished product is intended to communicate each concept effectively.  In order to successfully edit Bob's writing I had to abandon any pretense of "literal reproduction" and accept that I may need to cut and re-order his words whilst being careful to remain faithful to the interview as a whole. 

There were a few more general editorial policies that I needed to establish. I had to decide whether to include my questions within the extracts.  This was a difficult decision.  If I removed my voice altogether then I would not be allowing my audience to see how my questions had influenced Bob's replies.  However, in the end I decided that leaving my voice in would make the extracts too lengthy and would also interrupt the flow of speech.  I opted to remove my questions from the equation and concentrate on Bob's words.

I also had to decide how to handle the bits of everyday speech which can be difficult on the ear: false starts, stutters, 'ums' and 'ers', constant repetition of phrases such as 'you know' or 'kind of'.  I felt that editing them out completely could leave me with a robotic inhuman voice bearing no resemblance to Bob. I decided that I would use my discretion on each extract, removing them only if they interfered with the "listenability" of the extract, and leaving them in where I felt they may have some kind of meaning (i.e where an 'er' may represent hesitancy or some other emotion).
Before beginning to shape the extracts I wrote the following list of policies for my own reference:

· Be willing to re-order or group together differing parts of the interview in order to create a coherent narrative 
· Remove parts of sentences that are irrelevant or do not make sense
· Edit speech where it becomes a stumbling block to comprehension (e.g. remove false starts, 'ums' and 'ers' or stutters when it makes listening difficult but leave in where they aid the comprehension of Bob's mood, attitudes etc)
· Always edit the extract in relation to the essence of the interview as a whole, do not attempt to twist extracts by taking them out of context
· Always remove interviewer's voice

The result was 10 extracts (grouped under my six headings) which varied in the degree of editing undertaken.  Some of the extracts required minimal editing.  For example, in the second extract grouped under "Purposes and Benefits" (see appendix A), I simply removed my questions from the narrative.  The result was coherent and succinct enough to require no further interference.

Some of the extracts needed portions cut out of the text. For example, in the extract placed under "Aims of the Project" (See Appendix B), I removed a part of the sentence which I felt was ambiguous and difficult to understand (part edited out for website is underlined):

The aims of the project I still see as the original aims that I read about when I started reading about it. Telling it as it is rather than how people think it is.  This idea of the people speaking with their own voice and not with the voice of Rupert Murdock or Halmsworth or the Berry Brothers (Interview extract)

I felt the "the original aims that I read about when I started reading about it" was a slightly awkward phrase and  "Telling it as it is rather than how people think it is" would leave the audience wondering who the "people" Bob refers to are.

Some of the extracts involved substantial revision and re-organising.  This is illustrated by the third extract grouped under "Audience" (see Appendix C). The first part of the paragraph "I'll get it down in black and white so that it's there on the records so one day somebody can say "Oh yeah, look he said that and he was right"-or wrong!" came 16 minutes into the interview in response to my question "So when you write you're not thinking about who will find this interesting in the future for example?". The second part  "And I think that all that I'm doing is recording my own view on history as its happened to me…" came 30 minutes into the interview in response to my question "Do you think the Mass-Observation Project is historical?". The final part "You know we never think that what we are doing is making history…" came 31 minutes into the interview in response to my question "So do you see the Mass-Observation Project as having historical aims, i.e do you think it's aiming to record history in a certain way?" .  I felt that although Bob's replies came at different stages in the interview in response to different prompts they all combine to provide a coherent narrative that reflects the general message he was giving in the interview.  

However, I am aware that a high level of care and responsibility needs to be applied to re-ordering text in this way, because without a deep knowledge of the it is possible to re-order the narrative in a way that is unrepresentative.  Worryingly, it is possible to completely alter the message given by the interviewee.  In the course of my interview with Bob there is a point where he says "I've never thought about the future use of anything that I've written".  This sentence put me into a dilemma because elsewhere in the interview he talks about wanting to get his writing into the public arena and seems aware of the future uses of his work.  My reading of the interview is that he is aware that he is writing for future generations but this does not necessarily affect the way he writes for the project. His primary concern is simply to write about his experiences. Therefore I decided not to use the sentence "I've never thought about the future use of anything that I've written" because I felt that it was misleading when taken out of context.  However, this is a very delicate and difficult editorial decision to have made and there is always the possibility that my reading may be wrong.  There is no easy answer to this dilemma the only way around it is to make your editorial decisions accessible to your audience to allow them to decide the rights or wrongs of your decisions for themselves.

In conclusion, I think that my experience of editing has taught me that a high level of care needs to be taken when undertaking extensive editing of an oral history interview.  The level of responsibility that is involved in making editorial decisions means that such a task must not be undertaken without thorough research into the messages and meanings that exist within the interview itself. Technologically advanced software allows us to make extensive (but undetectable) changes to the spoken word. This means that an editor has an ethical responsibility to make his/her editing decisions public, so that the audience can make informed judgements regarding the validity of what they are listening to.
 

Appendix A

Extract from interview transcript  used to shape 2nd website extract grouped under "Purpose and Benefits" (parts edited out for website are underlined)

Some people have described writing to the archive in terms of it gives them a voice, it gives them a way to express their opinions, would you agree with that?
 I think that yeah the archive probably gives people a way of expressing their opinions when they've got no other outlets.  I was fortunate I was a member of the trade union for thirty years and a lay officer for 25 of them so I had plenty of meetings and committees where I could make my voice heard and the same with membership of the labour party being involved in local politics- I didn't need it [the Project] to make my voice heard, but I can understand people who are not organisationally involved who would see it as a way of getting their humble opinion out into some concrete form, cos it might be taken notice of eventually.
So is that not true for you then?
 Its true of me to some extent but not so much.  I suppose it is actually becoming more so now because I've given up my political involvement because I got disenchanted with local politics.  Every time you vote all you get is a politician. The trade unions went in to a decline and I no longer work so I don't have anything to do with membership any more so I think probably now the archive is my outlet for my opinions.
Do you think that it has any therapeutic benefits?
 I think all writing is a therapy. It's a way of unwinding, it's a way of letting them buggers out there know that there are people who still think and who don't mind getting it down on paper and being counted.
And do you feel that it gives you an exercise for your mind? Do you find it stimulating?
I think all writing is a great mental exercise.  I always enjoyed it as a form of recreation

Website Extract:
I think that the archive probably gives people a way of expressing their opinions when they have got no other outlets.  I was fortunate I was a member of the trade union for thirty years and a lay officer for 25 of them, so I had plenty of meetings and committees where I could make my voice heard and the same with membership of the labour party and being involved in local politics.  I didn't need it [the project] to make myself heard, but I can understand people not organisationally involved who would see it as a way of getting their humble opinion put into some concrete form where it might be taken notice of eventually.  Its true of me to some extent but not so much. I suppose its becoming more so now because I got disenchanted with local politics.  The trade unions went into decline and I no longer work so I don't have anything to do with membership anymore so I think probably now, the archive is my outlet for my opinions.  I think that all writing is a therapy, it's a way of unwinding, it's a way of letting them buggers out there know that there are people who still think and who still don't mind putting it down on paper and being counted.  I think that all writing is a great mental exercise, I always enjoyed it as a form of recreation  
 

 Appendix B

Extract from interview transcript  used to shape website extract grouped under "Aims of the Project" (parts edited out for website are underlined)

So what would you describe as the aims of the Mass-Observation Project?
The aims of the project I still see as the original aims that I read about when I started reading about it. Telling it as it is rather than how people think it is.  This idea of the people speaking with their own voice and not with the voice of Rupert Murdock or Halmsworth or the Berry Brothers

Website extract:

The aims of the project I still see as this idea of the people speaking with their own voice and not with the voice of Rupert Murdock or Halmsworth or the Berry Brothers
 

 Appendix C
Extracts from interview transcript (page 7 and 12) used to shape 3rd website extract grouped under "Audience" (parts edited out for website are underlined in blue)

p.7
So when you're writing you're not thinking about who will find this interesting in the future for example?
No I've never thought about the future use of anything that I've written, you know, I think well that's what I think and I want somebody to know that that's what I think despite what anybody else may say, and I'll get it down in black and white so that its there on the records, so one day someone can say "Oh yeah, look he said that, he was right"- or wrong!

p.12
Do you think that the Mass-Observation project is historical?
 Er, what is history? Anything that has happened is historical. I think that all that I'm doing is recording my view on history as it has happened to me.  I did think in the very beginning that it was rather daunting to write for history and then I suddenly realised that today is now and yesterdays history and I have gone on from there.
So do you see the Mass-Observation Project as having historical aims i.e do you think it's aiming to record history in a certain way?
 I don't see the archive is recording history in a certain way I just think it records peoples views of history as it is happening.  You know we never think that what we are doing is making history, you'll often hear commentators say "this is a history making situation", but I often wonder if the people involved in it are thinking it's a history making situation or is it just another job of work that they should be getting on with and doing properly?

Website Extract:

I'll get it down in black and white so that its there on the records so one day somebody can say "Oh yeah, look he said that and he was right" - or wrong! And I think that all that I'm doing is recording my view on history as its happened to me.  I did think in the very beginning that it was rather daunting to write for history, and then I suddenly realised that today is now and yesterday is history. We never think that what we are doing is making history, you'll often hear commentators say this is a history making situation but I often wonder if the people involved are thinking it's a history making situation, or is it just another job of work that they should be getting on with and doing properly?

 Bibliography
Published Sources
Berger Gluck, S (1999) "Reflections on Oral History in the New Millennium: Roundtable Comments" in Oral History Review, Vol 26, No.2 pp1-24

Frisch, M (1990) A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History, Albany: NYP

Nethercott, S & Leighton, N (1990) "Out of the archives and onto the stage" in Perks, R & Thomson A (eds) The Oral History Reader, London: Routledge, pp.457-464

Read, Peter (1994) "Presenting voices in different media: print, radio and CD-ROM" in Perks, R & Thomson A (eds) The Oral History Reader, London: Routledge, pp.414-420

Unpublished Sources
Interview with Bob Rust 11 February 200 in the Mass-Observation Archive by Anna Green

McMichael A, O'Malley, M & Rosenzweig, R (1999) "Historians and the Web: A Beginner's Guide" on AHA Perspectives Online, http://chmn.gmu.edu/chmn/beginner.html

Smith, C (1998) "Can You Do Serious History on the Web?" on AHA Perspectives Online, http://chmn.gmu.edu/chnm/smith.html