Rethinking Oral History: Insights from the Kraków Conference | Patrick Urru
I spent the week of 16–19 September 2025 in Kraków for the 23rd International Oral History Conference, held at the Auditorium Maximum of Jagiellonian University. This event brings together oral historians from around the world and invites them to reflect on the methodology from different perspectives. The theme this year, “Rethinking Oral History”, was not just a slogan but a real challenge: how do we adapt our practices in a time of rapid technological change, growing ethical concerns, and new expectations from the communities we work with?
For me, the conference was also an opportunity to present the oral history project developed by the IFLA Library History Special Interest Group. The aim of our initiative is to preserve the professional memory of IFLA as it approaches its centenary in 2027. We are interviewing past Presidents, Secretaries General and other key figures to document their experiences, decisions and reflections. These interviews are not only for commemoration; they are intended as a resource for researchers, educators and professionals. The workflow we follow is clear: preparation and consent, recording (usually via Zoom), transcription, metadata creation and deposit in trusted repositories, with dissemination through IFLA’s platforms and open channels. Ethics are central: participants review transcripts, can request embargoes, and know exactly how their material will be used. This structure reflects the values of oral history: respect, transparency and care.
But the real value of Kraków was the chance to step outside the boundaries of our own project and see what others are doing. The theme rethinking oral history came alive in many sessions. One of the strongest threads was technology. Artificial intelligence dominated discussions, not only as a tool for transcription and translation, but as a system that can analyse tone, map themes and even infer emotions. These tools promise efficiency and new ways to work with large collections, but they also raise serious ethical questions. If an algorithm claims to detect sadness or confidence, what does that mean for consent and interpretation? The consensus seemed clear: use technology where it helps, but do not let it replace human judgement. Oral history is built on trust and dialogue, not on automated analysis.
Another important topic was accessibility and inclusion. One session that struck me deeply presented an oral history project involving deaf participants. It challenged the assumption that oral history is only about spoken words. When speech is partial or absent, meaning depends on gesture, pauses and visual cues. This reminded me that words do not carry everything. For our own work, it reinforces the need to capture video as well as audio, to describe non-verbal elements accurately, and to design workflows that respect different forms of communication. It also highlights the importance of accessibility: captions, transcripts, clear rights statements and interfaces that do not exclude users. These are not optional extras; they are essential if oral history is to remain inclusive.
The role of archives was another recurring theme. Archives are no longer static repositories; they are becoming dynamic platforms that offer transcription, translation and tools for creating summaries or thematic maps. Some even allow uploads from independent researchers and generate outputs for teaching or outreach. This evolution opens exciting possibilities for access and engagement, but it also raises questions about provenance, version control and responsible reuse. Archives are not neutral; they reflect the choices of those who build them. For IFLA, this means thinking carefully about infrastructure and policy. We need a repository that can host audio and video, support multilingual description and guarantee long-term access without depending on commercial platforms that may not be available everywhere.
Among the most stimulating moments of the conference was Michael Frisch’s masterclass, Between the Raw and the Cooked: New Tools, Capacities, and Approaches for the Oral History Kitchen. Frisch used the metaphor of the kitchen to explain how a good transcript is like a raw ingredient: from it, you can prepare many dishes: an article, a podcast, an exhibition, a teaching resource. The point is not to reduce an interview to a single definitive product but to enable multiple responsible uses. He also spoke about “shared authority” and the move towards an “instrumental sensibility”, where oral history is not only archived or turned into a documentary but actively used in different formats. This perspective resonated with me because it aligns with what we want for the IFLA project: to create material that is preserved but also usable in many ways.
Equally memorable was Rib Davis’s keynote, which linked oral history to the climate crisis. Davis argued that oral history has the flexibility to address urgent contemporary issues without losing its ethical foundations. He reminded us that the method’s strength lies in its ability to hold complexity and to connect personal experience with wider social change. This is a useful lesson for any project, including ours: if we want our interviews to matter, we must think about how they will be heard and used, not only by specialists but by a broader public.
Of course, the conference was not only about theory. It was also about practical challenges and solutions. Many discussions returned to the basics: informed consent, clarity about rights, and the need to maintain trust in an era of rapid technological change. These principles are as relevant to a small community project as they are to an international initiative like ours. They are what make oral history distinctive and what will keep it credible in the future.
As I left Kraków, I felt that the conversations there had strengthened my conviction that oral history is not static. It is a method that evolves, questions itself and adapts to new realities. Our project at IFLA is part of this movement. It combines careful planning with openness to innovation, prioritises ethics and diversity, and seeks to make the results accessible to everyone. It is not only about celebrating a centenary; it is about creating a resource that will help future professionals understand the past and prepare for the future. And it is about ensuring that the voices of those who built and sustained IFLA remain audible, not as distant echoes, but as living testimonies that continue to inform and inspire.
