In 2001, a quite renowned and widely read journalist named Ed Moloney was selected to lead Boston College’s new Belfast Project: this oral history project attempted to record and archive interviews with important members of both the Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries, given the aging nature of those groups. There is a ton of infighting about who sought out who, and who recommended the people most involved: you can read about that above, but when the Project launched, Ed Moloney was set to direct/unilaterally oversee former IRA man – and history PhD recipient – Anthony McIntyre’s interviewing of Republican participants and former Progressive Unionist Party member Wilson McArthur’s focus on the Loyalists. Interviewees included several seriously high-profile militants, but the two most well-known for their participation/interviews were Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes: the former was sentenced for bombing the Old Bailey and the latter (allegedly) orchestrated Belfast’s Bloody Friday. Both were prominent in the Belfast IRA.

Now, the interviews were conducted with certain guarantees. Practitioners of oral history often have very rigorous ethics reviews; essentially, their methodology, data management/storage, and utilization of any material they gather must be clearly delineated to principal investigators, department boards, or similar institutions of academic power. Certain aspects of these policies are supposed to be clearly communicated to the interviewees through standardized “consent forms”. There were two central promises. Firstly, these interviews would remain… well, either “secret” or “unreleased” depending on which member of the Project you ask, until the death of the participants. Secondly, the consent form’s original wording included a phrase promising protection within the confines of American law (p. 265).

The Belfast Project began unravelling in late 2009/early 2010. Two events are often cited, though obviously the involved participants strongly disagree at whose feet the blame falls. Ed Moloney was set to publish a book, Voices From the Grave, in 2010. It focused on oral material from a pair of sources, one of whom was Brendan Hughes. About a month prior, journalist Allison Morris interviewed Dolours Price and published the results. Both Moloney’s book and Morris’ interview had their respective subjects implicating still-living Republicans – including Gerry Adams – in an unsolved disappearance. For the sake of brevity, I will recommend further reading on that particular situation below: it’s a tragic story, involving a mother of ten who was allegedly murdered by the IRA for disputed reasons, and her body hidden away. Later in 2010, the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) instituted judicial proceedings to unseal the interviews from Boston College’s Library. BC… complied? Again, we need to address the wording here in part two: the Library team turned the work over to an American judge, who decided to release the relevant materials to the PSNI. Four years later, one Republican was arrested in relation to the unsolved disappearance, while Gerry Adams was also detained and brought in for questioning.

(2) What went wrong and how you might do better

Im sure it’s not difficult to see the cavalcade of errors which continuously built up upon themselves. I suggest we break those down one by one as they happened. We’ll look at the error that occurred, who those errors put at risk, and how YOU – whether you’re a high school student, undergrad, or PhD candidate – might learn from these mistakes to conduct better research. Best place to start, as always, is with guidelines laid out by the professionals! Check out the OHA (Oral History Association) and OHS (Oral History Society) if you want to read for yourself!

One disclosure before I start: my work is in conflict studies, which means working with at-risk peoples. As such, I treat the rules quite harshly; read the following knowing that I come from that place but that, at the same time, the issues raised could easily lead to ethical problems for researchers doing traditionally “safe” oral interviews.

(I) Proper Oversight

In the case of the Boston College Tapes, it seems clear who the buck stops with at all times. In ethical oral research, this “chain of command” is crucial. Often, it’s a bidirectional process, with the researcher proposing their standards to an interlocutor (such as a Principal Investigator or Department Chair) or a larger Departmental Ethics Committee. In my experience, it’s often both, passing through the former to the latter and back again. The interviewer then takes the reins and conducts work in the field. Moloney was effectively hired to oversee the interviewers, exerting control over the project in a role most similar to that of a PI. However, the question of who directly oversaw the Project at Boston College is murkier. Breen-Smyth’s article quotes a BC professor nominated to the Belfast Project Oversight Committee.. but this Committee never actually met, and the quoted professor was shocked when Moloney began publishing relevant materials (pp. 263-264). A strange chain of command, then, existed between Moloney, the BC Burns’ Library, and the Administrative Offices of the University. When everything came tumbling down, it’s no wonder fingers got pointed in every direction. This failure put everybody at risk: the University, the researchers, and the participants. It honestly plays into every other problem mentioned below.

How could you do better? Well, luckily for most of us, it’s pretty easy. Major research universities have policies in place for student researchers and require consistent documentation passing back and forth between the student, their advisor/PI, and a larger ethics body. They often pre-produce formulaic versions of consent/request forms. If you attend an institution that does not have these resources – or are a high schooler, for example – you should always double check with the instructor whose assignment requires you to involve a research participant. Failing that, ask a department head. Failing that? Honestly, sometimes the best answer is to err on the side of caution and decide whether your work needs oral histories at all: if you decide it does, the burden of these ethical consideration – and the implications for failing to meet them – fall not only on you, but the people you involve.

(II) Bias or Conflict of Interest

This issue comes up in many forms. Maybe the most prominent examples are scientific studies funded by corporations or lobbying interests fishing for a result. In the study of history, it is absolutely okay to accept grants or funds for targeted research: in fact, I applaud you for managing it. But those funds require disclosure to the ethics committee/your higher ups and are often part of the information included in the application for informed consent. There’s also the issue of personal bias. Interviewing communities of power about marginalized communities while belonging to the former; having a particular ideological alignment that is known to the public; being on familiar terms with certain interview subjects: all of these are potential issues that you should report up the chain. It does not mean your application will be rejected outright. It’s important for keeping the people agreeing to help you safe and will validate your research as it’s disseminated.

There are two particular instances of bias in the Project, though they are of different stripes. First, the research utilized former members of the militant Republican and Loyalist communities to interview their respective “sides”. That might seem a clear bias, and I suppose it is. However, it’s a great example of how murky this type of work becomes. Insular resistance communities don’t always open up to outsiders, especially so soon after the end of a conflict. There’s nothing wrong with this arrangement prima facie. However, the responsibility falls on the coordinating researchers to ensure that interviews are conducted fairly, ethically, and that original transcripts don’t include purposeful revision. More concerningly, Ed Moloney’s popular text A Secret History of the IRA (2002) included claims about Gerry Adams involvement with particular Belfast IRA events; the book that helped sink the Project included interviews re-substantiating Moloney’s earlier arguments. That type of prior research would interest the Oversight Committee during a formal application process… had such a committee ever been formed. Who suffered from these failings? Definitely third parties, who did not realize sensitive information about their lives was being handed out. Worse, the Project’s legacy hampers the ability of future historians to engage with these communities and sows distrust towards promises of confidentiality.

Luckily for most of us, this issue is also easy to manage! Lay out your research clear and concisely. When starting a project involving other people, make sure to clearly delineate your research methods, goals, and why the work is important. Usually this will be required anyway – both as something to submit to your oversight committee and as part of the consent form – but it also allows you to identify bias. After that, draw up a list of potential conflicts: are you interviewing people you have a personal connection to, or within a community you engage with? Again, this doesn’t make you wrong. It’s for the protection of your interviewees and helps individualize your work.

(III) Data Management

Oh yeah, now we’re getting into that sexy stuff you didn’t know you signed up for. Does buying a lockbox, utilizing encryption, and constantly worrying that your laptop isn’t secure bother you? Well oral history might not by your bag. Let’s talk data management and dissemination.

The Boston College Tapes attempted to utilize a coded system to protect its subjects. Interviews were maintained in an archival space at BC, though the speaker/interviewee was only referenced by a series of characters that – unless you knew the structure – were essentially useless. That’s pretty involved, but it’s not uncommon when protecting sensitive research materials of this type. The problem is that the code is only as safe as the people responsible for it. The system itself worked: however, the legal proceedings which turned the tapes over to PSNI officers meant that the links between coded names and actual individuals were traceable. The nitty-gritty of that is laid out more clearly for interested individuals in Radden-Keefe’s Say Nothing (2018). But it raises the question: how secure should you make your work, and how secure can anything ever really be? In terms of impact, this was really the kicker. The revelation that these tapes existed, whether the responsibility of Moloney or other actors, meant that security forces had an inroad to obtaining them. This wasn’t so much a failing of storage/management, per se, as it was one of dissemination. Usually, sensitive materials require a length of time before they are publicly utilized beyond the initial researcher’s project. In this case, Moloney’s 2010 text did release after the death of a participant… but it opened up the rest of the work to public scrutiny. As such, while BC failed to maintain its hold of the tapes in face of legal pressure, the actual dissemination which outed the Project wasn’t their fault.

Well, for the rest of us, it’s not hugely likely that an international policing net will drop. However! Depending on your level of involvement, there are some really easy standard practices that everyone should take… even for their personal security. Any electronic devices that have access to your materials need a unique password. Log out of your email when you finish. Keep physical transcripts separated from hard drives/digital backups of those materials. Buy a locked cabinet or small file-box. If your work is legitimately harmless, you can practice: make up your own silly code that separates transcripts from their parent copies, and see how hard it would be for someone to figure out how you did it. These are standard practices for the protection of your materials regardless. If you’re actively working with at-risk people, you should ask your ethics committee what they suggest, and how they have managed it in the past. Caveat, as, this section in particular begs the question: what if my institution is the one who turns my work over? I legitimately cannot help, as the question of the University’s larger role in these scenarios would make this outrageously long post even longer, though I’d be happy to expound upon what BC did/what the arguments for or against them were in the comments.

(IV) Informed Consent

Let’s finish up with the most important point of all, shall we? Consent needs no introduction. If you are doing something with another person, consent is the holy principle. Doesn’t matter what, when, where, or why. Engrave consent into your brain. The word that we should cover in this context, however, is informed. There are different standards based on how at-risk your interviewees are, in terms of how you're expected to prepare. However, every interviewee receives a similar consent form containing information about the project. This often includes: your research methods/goals, the project's benefits/risks, what compensation your interviewees might receive, how to request their interview not be used, and personal details about yourself and your investigative team.

The issue of informed consent spelled disaster for the Belfast Project. As seen earlier in the Breen-Smyth article, the lack of functional oversight meant that consent forms lacked proper context. Specifically, a phrase concerning the amount of protection offered by the study suggested that participants were only covered to the extent American law allowed. This phrase disappeared from the forms that were eventually sent out. I cannot express how huge of a red flag that is: it omits a very serious concern many participants might have had. The legalese behind why the academy is subject to these overarching laws is, again, debatable and can be discussed further. However, the people in charge of the Belfast Project failed to adequately relay relevant information in its consent forms. Full-stop, that is a breach of ethics. Researchers are required to explain in concise and approachable language the risks and benefits interviewees face. By omitting the potential for international legal challenge, Moloney's team failed to present their work honestly. Adding the caveat that subjects' records wouldn't be released until after the participants death does not relieve the researchers of this duty either. Participants implicating third party individuals would not be aware of potential legal risk and - as clearly ended up happening - would be at the mercy of Boston College's ability to maintain secrecy. Those who passed away were the only ones who received the relevant benefits from the promise. Everyone else? Hung out to dry.

Consent is something researchers of all levels and stripes should practice! It's a continuous affair of evaluation and re-evaluation. Are you a high schooler conducting a class project that requires interviewing a family member about an event from their lives? Good place to start! Ask yourself about the risks related to your participant. Is the event tragic or emotionally difficult? Maybe you're asking about their feelings on 9/11 or their experience in war. When requesting their participation, you should calmly and clearly state that you are aware of the potentially traumatic nature of the questioning, make them aware of your research purposes, and guarantee them full control over whether the interview continues or not. That sounds simple, right? But you'd be shocked how often it doesn't happen. Consent doesn't end with the initial form: the researcher needs to arrive prepared with questions that direct the conversation in a meaningful and productive manner.

Another aspect of consent concerns the interview itself. Interviewers are expected to maintain composure and handle any unexpected turns that arise. If a subject strays off topic into potentially self-incriminating spaces, an experienced researcher needs to have both a written plan of action as well as the ability to inform their participant of the new dangers. If an interview needs to be stopped, it should be stopped. Consent is a continuously evaluated condition that affects praxis in the field. A talented oral historian knows how to maintain the structure of an interview while keeping their participant safe, comfortable, but also informative and beneficial to the research.

Conclusion

This ended up being way longer than I expected, and a bit heavier on the suggestion than the history of the BC Tapes, though I hope the included links are helpful for people. Oral histories are fascinating, and the ways they are conducted legion. I have offered some insight from the view of a researcher focused on conflict studies at a major university with a substantial ethics committee. I hope the conversation can continue in the comments below, whether about the Belfast Project, oral history practices, research ethics, or anything related to this post!

*A lot of this stuff is controversial and still openly debated. It is worth reading multiple viewpoints when discussing Troubles literature.

A popular meme being passed around right now states the following:

"The samurai were officially abolished as a caste in Japanese society during the Meiji Restoration in 1867

"The first ever fax machine, the ''printing telegraph,' was invented in 1843

"And Abraham Lincoln was famously assassinated at Ford's Theatre in 1865

"Which means

"There was a 22-year window in which a samurai could have sent a fax to Abraham Lincoln."

​

So here are my questions:

-Did any samurai ever visit the United States?

-Did Lincoln have any relations with samurai-era Japan?

-Who was the first president to receive a fax?

-When did the fax machine reach Japan?

-At what point in history did the technical infrastructure first exist to send a fax from Japan to the White House?

I'd be grateful for answers to any and all of these questions. Thanks so much!