Strengths and Weaknesses of Oral History as a Research Method

Strengths and Weaknesses of Oral History as a Research Method. Alessandro Portelli once said “To speak is to preserve the teller from oblivion.”Portelli is trying to explain how important the documentation of people's lives through the spoken word is. Without this form of history the true voice of people and groups of people would disappear forever and that would be a crime. Since the very beginning of time humans have told stories, sang songs and recited poems to convey experiences of themselves or people from the past, this process of distributing wisdom is quintessentially in every person in the world. Thus as a result historians have ceased upon this opportunity to understand the past more accurately through what may be considered as a biographical interview and so since the 1940's when this started to be used as a research tool the techniques have been refined to include a set of moral standards and techniques which allow the interviewer to extract more information from the interviewee. Although this research method has been around since the 40's it is still a new method in collecting historical data and therefore has had criticisms directed at it from more traditional academic historians. The main disapproval of Oral History as a research method has always been memory and how it can discredit the interviewees story. The argument is that as a person gets older their memories degrade and therefore became less reliable and as a result the traditionalist feel that this type of research method is uncredible. But as any research method there are always strengths and weaknesses attributed to them, this essay will go through each one and discuss the strengths and weaknesses, starting with memory(The Voice of the Past: Oral History,pp5-28). Memory is frail at the best of times and it can fracture and distort as we get older. As mentioned previously this is the main gripe that people have with this research method as the whole process is being relied upon the recollection of the interviewee. Donald A Ritchie pointed out in his book "Doing Oral History: A practical guide" that historical researchers that were part of history themselves had doubts over the credibility of a persons recognition of an event. Two of Abraham Lincolns personal secretaries while he served in the Whitehouse were John Hay and John Nicolay had decided to cooperate with each other to write a biography of his life after the president was assassinated in April 15 1865. They had assumed that having served the president for a number of years and thus having access to his closest of friends and family that this would be of a benefit but as Hay found out this wasn't the case. Hay said" we ascertained after a very short experience that no confidence what so ever could be placed in the memories of even the most intelligent and honourable men when it came to narrating their relations with Lincoln." His writing partner Nicolay also commentated that the recollections were "worthless to history,"

they decided in the end to mainly use written sources to write the book. Memory has also been known to be effected by the media over the years such as news reports, radio and film can distort what really happened at the time, this is usually because they are blended together and the older brain cannot distinguish between the two.(Doing Oral History,p18) There has also been evidence to suggest that nostalgia can impede true recollection of experiences. There is evidence that suggests that even a very powerful memory like a "flashbulb" memory of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 have been changed and we remember them differently from how the events actually happened(minnpost.com,2012). A study recently carried out in the US shows that when people were asked about the attacks and how they recalled it, people often remember the first plane hitting the tower but in reality that footage was shown the very next day on the news. Now this is obviously a weakness of oral history as a research method but the memory is also its main strength(The Journal of American History, p89) Memory is a very powerful tool that we happen to have, and therefore is incredibly essential for oral historians when conducting a interview. The human mind can store a unparalleled amount of memories which can trigger other responses in a person. A memory can bring back smells and more importantly emotion. Oral history as a research method is qualitative which looks for meaning and therefore how people feel which makes memory a very strong case in being a strength of this type of research method (http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk,2012) Exploring a single interviewees memories is challenging experience but when dealing with a large selection of people the demographic has to be fair and balanced selection. The main weakness of oral history as a research method regarding this is that woman tend to outlive men by at least 10 years and 85% of people over 100 are women, so unfortunately if a historical event has happened 70 years ago for example World War 2, the pool of men that can be selected would be very small compared to that of women. This is a weakness of oral history as a research method (time.com, 2012). The tools oral historians use are a strength that most other historians don't use. A recording device such as a tape recorder or a Dictaphone gives the interviewer opportunity to completely focus on the process of the interview rather than to spend time writing down notes and missing key points. The other strength is that the voice of the interviewee can be heard and their story can be felt by the listener. The main reason for oral history is that it's oral testament and needs to be heard so these pieces of history don't fade into the darkness. The recorded interview will be achieved so it can be listened too and studied over the years. But there is a weakness to this method (Oralhistory.org,2012). Although this technology has its strengths in abundance it has a flaw like all pieces of machinery, it can fail. A complicated piece of machinery like a tape recording has many moving parts and electronic pieces which can make recording a very long

interview which can last hours very risky. This is a weakness to oral history as a method of research. An obvious weakness of oral history as a research method is that an interviewer has to be trained. A interviewer can't just start talking to a person and expect to have brilliant material afterwards, they have to be taught how to ask what professionals call "open-ended" questions(Fundamentals Of Oral History,2012). These questions are designed to direct the interviewee to a general topic but leave the possibility of many different responses. They allow the interviewer to decide what should be discussed and allow the interviewee to respond with stories rather than just stating factual matters. This is a strength of oral history as a research method as it doesn't steer the interviewee into one direction. Another mistake a untrained interviewer will make is asking "leading" questions. They are usually asked when an interviewer would like to have a specific response, which any oral historian will tell you that is the opposite of their intentions. As mentioned above it is clear to see that this can be a weakness of oral history as a research method. Another mistake that untrained interviewers make is they ask "yes or no" questions which don't help to gain the fullest of answers which would go towards the researchers material(Handbook of interviews research: Context & method, pp. 711–733). A question that is asked by many aspiring oral historians is whether to conduct a interview directly after an event or many years later, Ritchie poses this question in his book "Doing Oral History: A practical guide" which he states that there are advantages and disadvantages to this argument. Armed forces for decades interviewed or debriefed solders straight after battle as their memories are sharper in the mind just after the fact. But if the interviewee is given years to reflect upon what has happed the story they want to tell might not be contaminated by raw emotion (Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences, pp54-69). There are clearly strengths and weakness when it comes to oral history as a research method. The main weakness can be seen as the fallibility of the human mind. It's just pure common sense that the elderly recollections of the past can be unreliable and it can be effected not just by the passing of time but also outside influence like the media. Another problem that has become quite clear is that an interviewer has to be fully trained and guided to conduct and effective research of a subject. But what we can see is that this research method will never stand on its own outright just as traditional methods wont as well. There needs to be a balance of the two to fully develop a strong piece of research.

Reference List Candida Smith, R. (2001). Analytic strategies for oral history interviews. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interviews research: Context & method (pp. 711–733). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Donald A. Ritchie, 2003. Doing Oral History. 2 Edition. Oxford University Press, USA. Fundamentals Of Oral History . 2012. . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.thc.state.tx.us/publications/guidelines/OralHistory.pdf. [Accessed 20 February 2012]. Marshall Clark, M. (2002). The September 11, 2001, oral history narrative and memory project: A first report. The Journal of American History, p89. Oral History Association | Digital Audio and Portable Recorders : The Basics. 2012. Oral History Association | Digital Audio and Portable Recorders : The Basics. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.oralhistory.org/technology/audio_basics/. [Accessed 20 February 2012]. Paul Thompson, 2000. The Voice of the Past: Oral History (Opus Books). 3 Edition. Oxford University Press, USA. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH. 2012. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/qualitative%20methods%202/qualrshm.htm. [Accessed 20 February 2012]. Valerie Raleigh Yow, 2005. Recording Oral History, Second Edition: A Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences. 2nd edition Edition. Altamira Press. Why Do Women Live Longer Than Men? - TIME. 2012. Why Do Women Live Longer Than Men? TIME. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1827162,00.html. [Accessed 19 February 2012]. Why we can't trust even our most powerful memories | MinnPost. 2012. Why we can't trust even our most powerful memories | MinnPost. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.minnpost.com/secondopinion/2011/05/why-we-cant-trust-even-our-most-powerful-memories. [Accessed 20 February 2012].