Preservation Week: A Reflection on Interviewing Early-Career Women Physicists

As the Archives Fellow, I was most excited to interview women in the physical sciences for the American Institute of Physics (AIP) oral history collection . Oral histories create historical records of subjective experiences—the details not captured by solely looking at texts. They offer great insight into working conditions, document how people navigate institutions, and provide context to scientific discovery. My work focuses on improving the documentation of women in physics; oral histories play an integral role in this kind of reparative archival work. Oral histories help diversify the types of materials in archival collections and can help bridge gaps in knowledge about historically under-documented people in physics.

AIP’s oral history interviews follow a scientist’s professional journey from youth to the present. The final product is in the form of a transcript, which is made publicly available for research. The interviews log valuable information about how physical scientists discover their passion for science, how they are (or are not) supported in their intellectual endeavors, the personal and social forces that shape their career trajectory, and what they aspire to. Physicists often have long careers, and AIP has done follow-up interviews 10 to 20 years later. There’s great research value in being able to track people’s attitudes, experiences, and insights over time to observe changes (and what doesn’t!).

Interviewing early-career physicists

I interviewed three early-career women physicists over the course of a month and a half. The interviews were two hours long each and conducted over Zoom, as my interviewees were not local. Doing the interviews in a short time frame helped me quickly become more confident in my interviewing skills, and I implemented my learnings with each subsequent interview.

Anna Doel, an AIP historian, and I discussed the importance of interviewing early-career physicists. AIP’s oral history interview collection skews towards mid-to late-career physicists, so this was an area of coverage to improve. Interviewing PhD candidates, post-doctoral researchers, and assistant professors can give historians insight into what it’s like to attend physics graduate programs and to apply for fellowships at American institutions in the twenty-first century. Oral histories are particularly important as they offer rare, individual perspectives on the current scientific environment. Often when mid-to late-career or even retired physicists are reflecting on their graduate school experiences or first jobs, they’re speaking about events that occurred 10 to 50 years ago. Casting a wider net in terms of the stage that career interviewees are at helps us capture a more accurate array of experiences. There’s also potential for follow-up interviews to track changes over time as interviewees progress in their careers.

Initial thoughts and concerns

Before I started doing the interviews, I reflected on what I wanted to learn from the experience. I’m interested in the process of building trust and connecting with someone in a one-sided conversation. Oral history interviews are conversational, but they’re not a conversation. As an interviewer, I’m not meant to share about myself, so how can I build trust in a relatively short amount of time without offering personal anecdotes and perspectives back? Interviewers ask people about their childhood, passions, and experiences during stressful and often challenging times of their life—that’s a lot to ask of someone. I’ve done interviews for news outlets and other oral history projects, and this aspect of relationship building and information gathering is always challenging and exciting for me. I really enjoyed thinking through and applying strategies for building trust, which I will detail below.

I also reflected on my concerns and considered ways to address my shortcomings. Mostly, I was worried about my lack of physics knowledge. I was concerned that a lack of expertise would interfere with my ability to create an engaging interview, as I’m not able to speak about physics in depth. I was also cognizant about interviewing women in a male-dominated field, where their identities and personal relationships may be disproportionately discussed, instead of their scientific pursuits and contributions. These concerns shaped how I approached my preparation process.

Reaching out to interviewees and interview prep

Oral history interview training and preliminary research

I am very grateful to have as much support as I do in this position. Jon Phillips, an AIP historian, gave me great training on the purpose of oral history interviews, how to prepare for an interview, approaches to crafting questions, and ethical considerations. It was a nice refresher and helped me craft my process for interviewing. I also met on a weekly basis with Anna Doel, who provided valuable feedback on my interview questions and writing, as well as answered questions I had about conducting interviews. It was fruitful to have regular communication with an experienced oral historian who helped me work through challenges and uncertainties.

To identify early-career physicists, I looked at the graduate students and post-doctoral fellows of major physics institutions. Anna and I had a spreadsheet of names which we would update regularly, inputting contact information, portfolios, and public lectures. When I determined who I wanted to speak to, I reached out via email and informed them of AIP’s initiative to improve the documentation of women in the physical sciences and set up a pre-interview meeting.

Pre-interview

I consider the pre-interview to be one of the most important steps in building trust with a potential interviewee. During my 30-to-45-minute Zoom calls, I gave an overview of AIP’s mission and what collections we have in the archive. I explained why we’re collecting oral histories and how they give historians valuable insight into the experiences of physical scientists as they navigate academic institutions. I also described each stage of the oral history interview process, so the interviewee would understand the timeline from interview to upload to digital collections, as well as informed the interviewee about any risks and privacy concerns of making their interview publicly available. Informed consent is one of the major tenets of ethical oral history interviewing, as we want interviewees to understand the potential risks of publicizing personal information, how their interview will be used, and the tools we have in place to ensure they have full editorial control over their story.

The pre-interview also gave interviewees an opportunity to ask any questions about oral histories, the kinds of topics the interview will cover, and their options regarding placing restrictions on their interview. I then followed up with a recap of what we discussed in the meeting and gave the interviewee some time to think about whether they’d like to proceed with doing an interview and when. I also sent over examples of oral history interview transcripts so they can get a sense of what the interviews are like. If they expressed interest in the project, I’d ask for any materials I needed to prepare for the interview, set up a tech check, and set an interview date.

I really enjoy this portion of the preparation process. When I do my preliminary research on potential interviewees, I only get a glimpse of what it’d be like to speak with them based on any past interviews or public lectures they’ve given. It’s helpful to speak with the interviewee over the phone or on Zoom to break the ice a bit, get them excited for our oral history interview collection, and answer any questions they have about the process. The interview process has many steps, and it’s often a multi-month process to publish a transcript, so it’s great to walk interviewees through every stage. As an interviewer, I also get some insight into what questions or concerns interviewees have so I can better tailor my preparation strategy to suit their needs.

Tech check

Since my interviews were virtual, I started implementing tech checks. The tech check is a 15-minute Zoom call with an interviewee to assess their recording conditions and ensure the interview goes as smoothly as possible. During the calls, I had interviewees test their internet speed and describe their recording conditions, taking note of any distracting echo or if they live on a busy street. I scheduled the tech checks at least one week prior to the oral history interviews, so I had time to implement any accommodations, such as sending over a small mic or booking them a private room in a coworking space, if needed. The tech check is also a small opportunity to build rapport with the interviewee so that the oral history interview isn’t the first time we speak.

Writing interview questions

Luckily, AIP has a set format for how the oral history interviews are structured, so I didn’t need to come up with the questions from scratch. In general, the interview covers youth and early experiences with science, undergraduate scientific education, graduate training, scientific career, and future goals. The interview questions also gradually build in detail and intensity in each section, starting with more rudimentary information such as where someone was born, working towards questions about specific research projects.

To prepare for the interview and tailor the questions to each interviewee, I made a timeline of each interviewee’s career using information from their CV, portfolio, public lectures, past interviews, and research. I then tailored the questions of each section (childhood, undergraduate, etc.) based on what research they were doing at the time, who their mentors were, what societies they were a part of, etc.

Returning to my concerns about not having a physics background, I tried to remember the overall purpose of conducting oral history interviews. Though it’s important to ask about physicists’ research, the goal isn’t to have them summarize the findings of their research. People can read their published papers for that information. Oral history provides contextual information about research projects, such as what lab facilities were like, where funding for a project came from, who physicists collaborated with, what scientific problems they were trying to solve, and more. I didn’t have to have robust physics knowledge to ask those questions and follow up for more details. Anna gave me some advice about leading with honesty about my background and curiosity about interviewees’ field of research, which helped ease my worries and I found it to be an effective strategy. This framing helped guide me in determining what to ask and in what detail.

Conducting the interview

I conducted my interviews in the podcasting room of AIP’s DC office. The room has minimal furniture, just a desk, a table, and two chairs. Most importantly, the room has no windows and a carpet to absorb echoes. My set up was simple: my laptop with a Blue Yeti condenser microphone plugged into it.

I conducted the interviews through Zoom, using its internal recording system, and prepared a backup recording using Audacity . Zoom is fairly reliable, but in the event that there was an issue with the Cloud copy, I wanted to have a local recording.

The interviews last about two hours, with the option to do a second session if needed. I was a bit nervous about my first interview, as it had been a while since I had done an oral history interview. As much preparation as I did, an interview always has unknown variables. Sometimes interviewees give straightforward, short answers. Sometimes they give long, sprawling anecdotes. Neither is a problem, but interviewing requires flexibility and improvisation to accommodate different speaking styles and to ensure the interview is completed in a timely manner.

With practice, I got better at doing all the calculations about when to ask a follow up question, skipping questions on the spot if the interviewee preemptively answers them, rearranging questions if the interviewee tells a story in a different order than expected etc. Interviewing is often a delicate balance of being present with your interviewee, conveying interest in what they’re saying, keeping time, and anticipating where the interview needs to go. I was excited to improve my pacing and improvisation with each session, and they each went smoothly.

Transcription and release form

Finally, the last stretch before the transcript can be uploaded to the repository and made available for researchers.

Once the interviews are recorded, we send the files over to one of the transcribers we contract. When I get the transcripts back, I do a first pass of editing, checking for spelling and reformatting according to the Chicago Manual of Style. If the transcriber marks the document with [sp] (spelling) or [inaudible], I go through the audio to confirm the spelling/word. I then send the scripts to the interviewees for their review.

For the most part, we want to preserve the interviewees’ natural speaking style and the integrity of the conversation, so the first pass of editing is usually pretty minimal and for clarity. Interviewees are primarily confirming the spelling of proper names, toponyms, terminology, and reviewing the transcript to make sure they are okay with everything included. In the event where they want to redact or embargo portions of the interview, this is the stage where they can indicate which sections will be restricted and under what terms.

Once the edits are finalized, we have the interviewee sign the Research Use Agreement and the final transcript will be uploaded to the AIP repository . The agreement details the purpose of publicizing the oral history interview transcript for research purposes and preservation, as well as outlines any restrictions they decide to place on the interview.

Learnings

Interviewing women physicists

Before starting the interviews, I thought a lot about how I wanted to approach interviewing women in physics. There’s not an inherently different way to interview women, but I wanted to avoid tokenization and to be mindful when broaching potentially loaded topics such as misogyny, marriage, and having children.

As a part of my preparation, I read through many oral history interviews that AIP had done in the past. Something that stood out to me was how often women in physics, especially women of color, spoke about how efforts towards diversity were clunky at times and inadvertently alienated them. It seemed like having specific accommodations instead of accommodations that considered a variety of experiences sometimes led to people feeling singled out. Women also spoke about how although they appreciated being asked about how race and gender affected their experience at physics institutions, they often wanted to be asked about their physics research as well.

I took a balanced approach to acknowledging systemic barriers and not making assumptions about women’s experiences, and I tried to reflect these considerations in my questions. I focused on asking open ended questions that allowed for a variety of answers and when asking about marriage or children, I asked people off-the-record if they were open to talking about it (especially for people who want to be private about their children).

Risks and considerations for early-career interviewees

Though it’s important to capture the experiences of physicists at various stages of their careers, it is necessary to understand the risks of publicizing personal information of early-career researchers. Understanding the risks helps interviewers to better inform interviewees and provide tools of privacy, so they fully understand what they are signing up for and make the decision that is best for them.

For those early in their physics career, they do not have as much institutional power and may be hesitant to be critical or share openly about their experiences at specific institutions. The physics community is well-connected, and people may be concerned with negative consequences from sharing their experiences publicly, even if the audience for oral history interviews is relatively niche (AIP’s archive primarily serves historians of science, science writers, journalists, and physicists). For post-docs and entry-level faculty members, it may be riskier to speak candidly about experiences they had during grad school or at their current institution because they are not as far removed from those events compared to late-career interviewees. If someone shares a negative experience they had with their colleague, even without sharing their name, it may be easy to identify who the person is. For late-career physicists who reflect on negative experiences during grad school, they are often 30 to 50 years removed from their alma mater and are less likely to experience repercussions that could harm their career and professional relationships.

Communicating the historical value of oral history interviews

While doing my pre-interviews, I learned that the historical value of preserving oral history interviews was not always immediately obvious, especially for those who don’t have much experience with archival materials. I found it helpful to take some extra time to talk about why AIP collects oral history interviews, give examples of how historians use oral history interviews for research, and explain the importance of reparative archival work. I think it was also informative for interviewees to understand the breadth of interviews that AIP collects—we’re not only interested in interviewing Nobel laureates and established physicists, but we also want to capture the experience of everyday, working physicists who are making important contributions to their fields. Demonstrating my own investment and care about the process is part of building trust with interviewees as well. I may not be sharing my own experiences, but we can connect through having a shared goal of preserving physics history. Even for those who may not have prior interest in the history of physics, taking the time to explain the value of preserving oral history interviews gets interviewees interested in contributing to AIP’s collection.

Closing thoughts

Overall, I really enjoyed doing the oral history interviews, and I feel proud of the interviews I produced. I learned a lot from speaking with my interviewees and I enjoyed hearing about what drives their work and their most memorable accomplishments. I learned to lean into my curiosity and thoughtfulness instead of fixating on my lack of physics knowledge. I also feel more confident in my thought process and preparation for each interview; it helped me establish trust and credibility, create an open line of communication between myself and the interviewees, and make the process as smooth as possible.