Memoirs and Oral Histories: Recognizing Bias in Archival Data

William Parker, Wayne State University

Both history and political science recognize the ephemeral nature of memoirs and oral histories, especially those recorded near the end of a person’s career. Researchers are taught to check elusive memories against archival data such as contemporaneous newspapers, minutes of meetings or proceedings, and when available, letters or speeches. Even when individual seek to mine their memories to describe the events, there are material reasons why such memoirs or histories may be skewed. There are many typical reasons, such as faulty memory, deliberately excluding unpleasant instances, or the understanding. Another source can be the oral historian, bringing her own understandings and biases of the period, events, and people involved, and such bias may be reflected in the questions asked. Some subjects may claim a leadership role they did not play; others may remember only the highlights. Movement and union activists also bring a reluctance to provide even information about past struggles so as not to provide too much insight into continuing struggles. Successful strategies, after all, might not want to be shared with the other side. Activists may need to keep successful strategies, like skilled knowledge, “under the workman’s cap.” In addition, not all strategies or action might have been legal. A researcher relying on memoirs or oral histories must understand both legitimate and improper lapses in the histories provided. An activist’s review of her own diaries, leaflets, and other collected archival matter is essential to providing as clear and honest a narrative as possible, while maintaining the activist’s ethical obligations to others involved.

No extended abstract or paper available

 Presented in Session 246. Understanding the Exceptional Decline of US Trade Unions: Narrative Data and Quantitative Data as Synergy.