This is a very interesting reflection for investigations that use oral testimonies. First of all it should be pointed out that the main difference between testimony and narrative concerns the structure of the discourse that makes up testimonies and this is an aspect that is almost always a little confusing, depending on the type of data available and the data collection structure (semi-structured interviews, narrative, biographical, etc.). Whereas testimony is reduced to a direct answer to the question, narrative presupposes an account in the form of a story told. It is in this sense that free associations should be observed, as it is natural that emotional aspects overlap with rational ones in the construction of the narrative. In these cases, for the analysis of the data, the methods applied in areas such as linguistics, psychology and sociology can be considered. I recommend this book by Hollway and Jefferson: Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method.

This is a useful point that Dr Pinto has made. I would also agree that the place to start is Doing Qualitative Research Differently. I've been interested in how this method has been (and can be) used in health and social care research and the relevance of different critiques levelled against Hollway and Jefferson's work in relation to these applied contexts. I sought to provide something of an overview of these in: Archard, P. J. (2020). Psychoanalytically informed research interviewing: notes on the free association narrative interview method. Nurse Researcher, 28(2).

You may also find something of use in: Roper, M. (2003). Analysing the analysed: Transference and counter-transference in the oral history encounter. Oral History, 31, 2, 20-32; Sagan, O. (2007). An interplay of learning, creativity and narrative biography in a mental health setting: Bertie’s story. Journal of Social Work Practice, 21, 311- 321; Holmes, J. (2013). A comparison of clinical psychoanalysis and research interviews. Human Relations, 66, 1183-1199; Jones, D. W. (1998). Distressing interviews and unhappy interviewing. Oral History, 26(2), 49-56

'Oral testimony' I think attempts to provide - from a variety of subjective accounts - the 'most objective and inclusive' account of what behaviours really happened. It's like a court gathering 'witness statements' of what happened at that point in that place.

There is an attempt to assess the 'subjectivity' of each witness statement, but mostly as to allow for 'bias', and "get rid of the subjectivity" which stands in the way of the ;objective truth' of finding out "what really happened".

'Free association' is an attempt to evoke 'subjective experiencing and recall' -- the subjective significance to each witness of what they did and saw and felt directly and indirectly. There is usually (but not always) an interest in "what really happened" but it is mild and not a main focus.

How can the two approaches be usefully synthesised and reconciled?

I attempted to show how a particular method of interviewing and a particular method of 'interpreting' the materials generated could be used as part of a psycho-societal (not psychosocial) research programme.

This can be found on my page on ResearchGate.

BNIM - the Biographic-Narrative-Interpretive Method (which I now call BNIM2)- was initially presented in my textbook of 2001 Some twenty years later, it mutated into an expanded version (BNIM3) with several new features including sub-procedures for improving the 'objectivity' of the 'subjective researcher'. Details of which can also be found on the ResearchGate page.