arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Story alteration in oral history retellings

Jakub Mlynář et al.

Narrative Inquiry2025https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.24018.mlyarticle
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Abstract The digitalization of oral history (OH) has resulted in the availability of multiple interviews conducted with the same narrator under different circumstances. To explore the comparability of such materials, we analyze interviews with a Holocaust survivor from the Fortunoff Video Archive (1979) and the Visual History Archive (1997), focusing on instances in which she tells the “same” episode. We demonstrate that life-story segments before and after the episode provide clues for sense-making and reflexively constitute the narrative environment. The specific interactional features of OH as a situated practice contribute to the story’s recognizability and discursive alteration. Similarities and differences are detectable due to the coherence established by the social setting of OH, including its availability in a digital archive, which guarantees comparability and incorporates a broader chronology. The main contribution of our paper is methodological, as it outlines an apparatus for the comparative analysis of OH across multiple databases.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.24018.mly

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jakub2025,
  title        = {{Story alteration in oral history retellings}},
  author       = {Jakub Mlynář et al.},
  journal      = {Narrative Inquiry},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.24018.mly},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Story alteration in oral history retellings

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.