i dunno... depends on the style of doc you're going for. i would only use narration if there's information that can only be conveyed using narration. if the story/information can be conveyed without it than leave it out.

www.maketradefair.com
www.thehungersite.com
www.oxfam.ca

It could still be considered a documentary without narration, yes. A documentary is a type of film that presents facts objectively without a story, problem or plot.

It would seem awkward if a narrator were not present. It would be difficult to present all the facts just with interviews, and no narraration. If I were you, I would use a narrarator. But I am just a person with an opinion.

============================================================================
When the script writing is done, the work has just begun. When the filming is done, the work has just begun. When post-production is done, the work has just begun. When the distribution is done, you decide if the work is done.

You won't know what gaps you need to fill in until you've got everything together. I would wait until you've shot everything before making this decision.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Try to say most in your image, when your spectator can understand everything without words. and after that you'll see if you need some word to explain what you needed to say, but haven't express in image.
good luck))))))

It can work well both ways. "Bowling for Columbine" used narration but "No Direction Home" didn't, and both were very good examples of documentaries. I think the choice is entirely up to the filmmaker.