When I first started doing oral history projects, I thought IRBs were a burden. But working with IRBs over the years has always been helpful and made my approach, from first contact, to disclosures, to follow ups, much more sensitive, humane, ethical and considerate.
I am reflecting on this after hearing from a family friend (a shooting survivor) who sought my advice after their interactions with a historian re-traumatized them. The historian didn't run their research thru an IRB and in their eagerness to get an interview, was thoughtless.
What became clear as well is that the historian didn't clarify how the interview would be used and published. And the historian, by including details of the traumatic events in their initial email, didn't think about the real human being on the receiving end of the correspondence
While the motto of some oral history projects (and the discipline) is "anyone can do oral history," not everyone can do oral history well or ethically or thoughtfully. Training is required. Vetting is necessary.
Listening to interviewees is a skill (that needs developing). And being aware of how the interview might affect the interviewee is vital. Doing the work of remembering is difficult and emotional and can be very hard on interviewees *especially* when the subject matter is fraught.
