Relating the interviews to other historical narratives and sources

Accuracy

Oral histories, often recounted from a distance, pose accuracy challenges due to the subjective nature of memory. Assessing accuracy, especially with survivors of traumatic events, requires respectful evaluation. Caution is advised against dismissing sources with unreliable elements. Oral history sources should be viewed as having “different credibility,” where ‘wrong’ statements may hold psychological truth. Students explore how memory distortion influences inaccuracies and consider factors shaping oral testimony. Internal consistency checks and cross-referencing with other sources help gauge factual accuracy, acknowledging that inaccuracies can provide valuable insights for specific oral historical inquiries.

Generalisability

Generalisability, influenced by accuracy and representative non-factual elements, raises questions about shared experiences and emotions within a group. Students explore the consistency in oral narratives of an event or period, considering the contextual relevance of the interview compared to similar narratives and historical sources. Acknowledging contradictions in interviews with multiple narrators underscores the diversity within societies. While some argue against the universal pursuit of generalisability, emphasizing the value of delving into individual stories for a deeper understanding of personality, emotion, and detail, students are urged to align their inquiry questions with the desired scope—whether seeking a generalisable conclusion or a nuanced exploration of individual experiences.