How could we do it better? Methodology review.

As everytime you do a social research, in the end you have to take a time to go back and review the methodology that you have used. The analysis of the strong and weak point and suggestions to improve the next time are part of the project as well. This metacognitive moment is essential in order to improve and do it better next time. Because of that, our analysis is going to focus on two parts: topic/narrators and interviews.

It was difficult to define the scope. 

Firstly, we will talk about the topic and our narrators. In one way, the topic wasn't easy to choose and at the end, it wasn't the best one. To do an oral history project, the topic should be good enough to obtain anecdotes from it and that wasn't the case of technologies. In addition, it is a big issue so it was complicated to reduce the scope. In relation with the narrators, both of them were good for the project. They were qualified enough so that facilitated the work. One suggestion for next time could be to interview my grandfather as well, getting a good picture of technologies in current generations.

Permission to record the interviews.

Secondly, we are going to analyze the moment of interviews. One important aspect is the questions.
To obtain good information we have to do good questions but that wasn't work as good as it should be. For example, it wasn't a good  topic to ask about anecdotes, what is one of the most interesting things in oral history. In addition, in my attempt trying to not lose objectivity, I have lost interesting information: the questions should ask about feelings, memories, thoughts... instead of facts. Another aspect was the space, time and sources that we use to develop both interviews. In that way, that was good, and it is remarkable the fact that the interviewees let me record it, what has facilitated the work. 

All of this aspects should be taken into account for the next oral history project.