I have some experience of formal oral histories, in the history of chemistry
I may add.  I have contacted my good friend Jim Bohning, who was in charge
of the oral history program at the Chemical Heritage Foundation for many
years, and he may also contact you.

Idon't really have any bibliography to hand (this is Jim's area), but would
warn your friend that oral history is much more difficult than it looks!

To do it properly one needs professional equipment, a bog-standard cassette
recorder and tapes are not enough.

After the event, people only read the transcripts, cassettes or tapes
without transcripts are pretty useless and no-one uses them

To produce a worthwhile transcript is a back-breaking and lengthy task (at
CHF it would typically take two to three years, no kidding)

Only a few oral histories can be done at a time.  It is fatal to assume that
the time taken to set up and carry out the interview is the bulk of the time
taken.  Actually, the interview-related items take up perhaps 5% of the
total time required

Oral history is greedy of resources, you need clerical assistance to produce
the draft transcript, to type and send correspondence before and after the
interview, several revisions of the transcripts etc, you need research
assistance to prepare properly for the interview and to chase up the
referencing and clarification afterwards; all of this takes up an enormous
amount of time and money. Planning beforehand is essential, chosing the
right people (you cannot afford to interview "lemons") rather than the most
famous or most obvious people is crucial and carrying out in-depth research
into your subject's lfe and career pays dividends.

There is no point in trying to cut corners, though.  Cut corners lead to a
sub-standard product no-one will use or wich will positively  mislead (e.g.
if the interviewee says something that is inocrrect and which is not chased
up afterwards).

I do not wish to be discouraging however.  Well-produced oral histories are
extremely valuable and as the interviewees pass away, cannot be reproduced.
But they are not as easy or as cheap as they may look.

Peter Morris


At 16:48 04/02/99 -0000, Pumfrey, Stephen wrote:
>A non-historian colleague sympathetic to history of science has approached me
>about a project to do some oral history with senior psychologists.  He asks for
>literature debating the pros, cons and ethics of such an oral history
>methodology, and an example or two of good work.
>
>It is not my field, especially relating to 20th-century psychology, and I'd
>welcome some bibliographical advice.
>
>***********
>Dr Stephen Pumfrey,
>Department of History,
>University of Lancaster,
>Lancaster LA1 4YG.
>[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
>Tel:	+44 1524-592508
>Fax:	+44 1524-846102
>
>
Peter

Peter J. T. Morris, MA, DPhil, CChem, FRSC
Senior Curator, Experimental Chemistry, 
Science Museum, London SW7 2DD
(44 + 171 938 8186 -- Fax:  44 + 171 938 9736)



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%