How to Use Oral Histories as Historical Evidence: A Guide from the Archives

The tape hisses. A woman’s voice, thick with an accent, describes a childhood spent on a farm in the early 1900s. In the background, a clock chimes and a dog barks. The listener—a historian—leans closer, noting the details: the unfamiliar words, the cadence of speech, the format of the recording. This is oral history, a living record of the past, captured not in ink but in the spoken word. The Library of Congress Teacher’s Guide instructs students to ask: “What do you notice first? Are any words unfamiliar to you? Do you notice any accent?” (Library of Congress). Oral history, as defined by the WSU Libraries Digital Collections, is “the recording and preservation of people’s memories about their participation in or observation of past events.” It is a vital tool for historians, especially when studying communities that left few written records. Yet it is also a source that demands careful scrutiny, for memory is not a perfect archive. This article explores how historians use oral histories as evidence, what they must watch for, and how these voices enrich our understanding of the past.

What Happened?

Oral history is a method of collecting and preserving the memories of individuals who witnessed or participated in past events. According to the WSU Libraries tutorial, oral interviews—whether in audio, video, or written transcript form—”offer important sources of historical information and new perspectives about the past.” The practice is particularly significant in ethnic history because it “presents the insights and recollections of those studied.” These accounts often provide new information about people who may have been excluded from other documentary sources, or they can contradict, enrich, or illuminate details available in the written record.

The format of an oral history can vary. As the Library of Congress guide notes, it may be an audio recording, a video or film, or a written transcript. It may seem like an interview or a conversation. The analysis of an oral history involves several steps: observing details, reflecting on the purpose, and questioning the source. The Library of Congress guide encourages students to identify what they notice first, whether any words are unfamiliar, whether there is an accent, and what format is used. It also prompts them to consider the purpose of the oral history, what was happening when it was recorded, and what can be learned about the person telling the story.

Historians have developed frameworks for working with oral histories as evidence. The TeachingHistory.org guide, written by Linda Shopes, a historian at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, offers an overview of oral history and ways historians use it. It includes tips on what questions to ask when reading or listening to oral-history interviews, a sample interpretation, an annotated bibliography, and a guide to finding and using oral history online. This guide emphasizes that oral histories are not just anecdotal recollections but are historical evidence that must be interpreted with rigor.

How It Was Seen at the Time

When oral histories began to be widely used in the twentieth century, historians recognized both their promise and their pitfalls. The WSU tutorial states: “Despite its strengths as a source, oral history can present interpretive challenges. Just how reliable is it? We know that memories are fallible, and there are other factors that shape the interview: the narrator’s relationship with the interviewer, the interviewer’s questions, the interviewer’s cultural…” The excerpt is incomplete, but the message is clear: contemporaries were aware that memory is not a perfect record. They knew that the interviewer’s presence and questions could shape what was told. Yet they also saw oral history as a way to give voice to those who had been silenced in the written record. The Library of Congress guide encourages students to reflect on the purpose of the oral history and what can be learned from it, suggesting a balanced view—oral histories are valuable, but they must be questioned.

Different Perspectives

The Narrator

The narrator—the person telling the story—brings a personal, subjective view. Their memories are shaped by their own experiences, emotions, and the passage of time. The WSU tutorial notes that “the narrator’s relationship with the interviewer” and “the interviewer’s cultural” background can influence what is said. The narrator’s perspective is not just a simple recollection; it is a performance, a re-creation of the past in the present.

The Interviewer

The interviewer is not a neutral recorder. The questions asked, the tone of voice, the cultural background—all shape the interview. The WSU tutorial specifically mentions “the interviewer’s questions” and “the interviewer’s cultural” context as factors that shape the oral history. This means that the final product is a collaborative creation between narrator and interviewer, and the historian must consider both voices.

What the Sources Got Wrong

Oral histories are not infallible. The WSU tutorial warns that “memories are fallible,” and that various factors—the narrator’s relationship with the interviewer, the interviewer’s questions, and cultural context—can distort the account. A narrator might misremember a date, confuse events, or omit details. The interviewer might unintentionally lead the narrator to say certain things. Therefore, oral histories must be cross-referenced with other sources, such as newspapers, letters, or official records, to verify their accuracy. The WSU tutorial notes that oral histories can “contradict, enrich, or illuminate details available in the written record,” but they can also contain errors. Historians must treat oral history as a source that requires verification, not as an unblemished truth.

Common Misconceptions

Contemporary Terminology

When working with oral histories, historians use specific terms that have distinct meanings:

• Oral history: The recording and preservation of people’s memories about their participation in or observation of past events (WSU).
• Narrator: The person telling their story in an oral history interview.
• Interviewer: The person asking questions and recording the interview.
• Transcript: A written record of an oral history interview, either in full or edited.
• Primary source: An original record or artifact that provides firsthand evidence about a topic. Oral histories are primary sources.

Key Documents

• Analyzing Oral Histories: Teacher’s Guide (Library of Congress): A guide for students and teachers that provides sample questions for observing and reflecting on oral histories.
• Making Sense of Oral History (TeachingHistory.org): An overview of oral history as historical evidence, written by Linda Shopes, with tips on questions and sample interpretations.
• Interpreting Oral History Documents (WSU Libraries Digital Collections): A tutorial that explains oral history as a source and its interpretive challenges.
• Recording Oral History (BBC History): An archived guide to recording oral histories, offering practical advice for capturing interviews.

How Historians See It Today

Modern historians view oral history as an essential but complex source. They recognize that it offers unique insights into the lives of ordinary people, particularly those marginalized from the written record. The WSU tutorial emphasizes its importance in ethnic history, as it presents the insights and recollections of those studied. At the same time, historians are acutely aware of the fallibility of memory and the ways that interviewers and narrators shape the account. The guides from the Library of Congress and TeachingHistory.org provide systematic methods for analysis, encouraging historians to ask questions about purpose, point of view, and historical significance. Today, oral history is seen not as a simple window into the past, but as a text that must be interpreted with care, cross-referenced with other sources, and understood within its own context.

Oral histories offer a unique doorway into the past, allowing us to hear the voices of those who lived it. They are not perfect, but they are indispensable. By learning to listen—to the words, the silences, the background noises, and the questions—we can use oral histories to enrich our understanding of history and to give a voice to those who might otherwise be forgotten.