This essay seeks to examine the development of oral history as a research methodology through its use and to evaluate its contribution to our understanding of the school experience. While oral history has the potential to provide valuable first-hand information about actual school experiences, this potential is inevitably limited by its use and its very nature. Indeed, the use of oral history as a research methodology is limited by its perceived usefulness and relevance, which in turn is limited by the social and political climate. Regardless of its use, however, the fact remains that oral history is inherently limited by the fact that it alone cannot provide a complete and accurate view of the school experience. Therefore, although oral history can provide incredible insights into our understanding of the school experience, the potential to do so is limited. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay First, oral history developed as a means of gaining insight into the traditional schooling experiences of indigenous cultures. Oral history, often in the form of storytelling, has been a significant means for several civilizations to teach their people about their past (Llewellyn and Ng-A-Fook). This can provide valuable insights into the school experience because these stories passed down from generation to generation can be examined as the content of school – the raw material. Hodge, Pasqua, Marquez, and Geishirt-Cantrell postulate a similar idea that, for Native Americans, the primary goal of storytelling was to educate; that storytelling is a traditional pedagogical method for transmitting educational messages. Thus, a historian who listens to these traditions is, in a sense, experiencing this education as it was originally experienced. Therefore, this can be seen as contributing to their understanding of the school experience because they would likely experience the same education. However, in reality, this is not the case. Being removed from the historical and cultural context in which such stories would have been told takes a lot of understanding away from these stories. However, these stories have value as they provide understanding of how indigenous people understood themselves and the world around them (Langard). This is further strengthened by the idea that narrative is influenced by circumstances and interpretations. Storytellers would note and repeat only key elements of stories and add their own devices to convey contextually relevant meaning and impact (Chancellor and Lee). The fluidity of these stories therefore highlights the use of such oral stories to create one's own meaning. That is, narrators would reshape stories to create relevant meanings and favor certain interpretations. In this way, meaning passed down between generations provides insight into the meaning listeners gained from these stories and creates speculation about why that meaning was relevant. That said, the fluidity of these pan-generational stories highlights the limitations of using such stories to gain insight into the school experience. This form of oral history is speculative and is not supported by other evidence that would give it a solid basis. A historian's interpretation of the changes that have occurred in a story as the result of the narrator's extraction of a particular meaning that may be relevant to the moment in which it is spoken is undeniably a weak premise. Lacks reliability. Furthermore, speculations about school experience extracted from suchstories fail to create understanding of the individual and his or her personal experience. It fails to provide any insight into what it was like to hear such stories. Indeed, Stephenson recognizes that in this context oral history is favored by necessity. As these stories are often the only material available, neglecting them would mean neglecting these stories altogether. This sense of necessity is highlighted by the lack of evidence to support these traditional accounts of history. Therefore, relying solely on traditional narrative cannot contribute much to our understanding of the school experience. This nods to the inherent nature of oral sources; that without the support of other forms of history, our understanding simply cannot be complete. Therefore, in understanding Indigenous school experiences, narrative is self-limiting. Storytelling reveals the content of the story, not the experience of the listener, of the learner. While valuable insofar as it enables us to learn about such stories, the narrative does not make much of a contribution to our understanding of Indigenous experiences of schooling. Second, the use of oral history remained largely stagnant in Western cultures after the Enlightenment and before the middle of the last century. 20th century. During this period, oral history was not perceived as useful and therefore was not used as a research methodology. Therefore, because the contribution of oral history to our understanding of the school experience depends on its use, this stagnation has limited the contribution made by oral history. Indeed, historians of this period considered oral history unreliable and meaningless. Rather, they focused on (traditional) archival and legislative documents. Compared to such documents, it is easy to understand how oral sources were considered less reliable. Oral sources are subjective and depend on memories that are not concrete at all. Indeed, Niall Fergusson has commented that oral history is bound to be misinterpreted “because almost no one tells the truth, even when they mean to”. This summarizes the attitude of distrust towards oral sources that marked this period. Since oral sources were not reliable, it is no wonder why they were not used and therefore why oral history as a research methodology did not develop. However, Thompson noted that before the 20th century, the focus of history was largely political. History has favored successive narratives of nationalism and the powerful over the experiences of the powerless and the ordinary. Furthermore, Thompson suggests that this preference arises from the fact that historians themselves belong to the governmental and administrative classes and therefore find narratives of power more meaningful. Under this goal of recording power and prestige, oral histories of the relatively mundane would seem redundant and even counterproductive. For example, in Napoleonic France, all levels of education were highly regulated, with a large focus on promoting French nationalism and patriotism. In fact, school children had to swear an oath of allegiance to Napoleon. From the perspective of a traditionalist historian, this evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate the extent of Napoleon's control and power over civilians. Therefore, a narrative of Napoleon's power could be created. However, accounts of the experience, thoughts and feelings that children had in such a school system could undermine this narrative. Hume in fact noticed that, for fear of rigid discipline, some brilliant students decided not to continue secondary or military studies. Thestudents did not want to be used as a means to achieve Napoleon's goals. By not giving voice to those as powerless as these students, the presentation of strong patriotism remains unquestioned. So, perhaps oral history was intentionally undermined to ensure that counterproductive sentiments did not gain legitimacy. Similarly, off-reservation Native American boarding schools were presented as benevolent and successful initiatives intended to civilize Native Americans. This account would be undermined by student accounts of excessive discipline and poor conditions. It would be counterproductive to the narrative that historians were trying to create to give voice to those who suffered at the hands of “benevolent” America. Indeed, Llewellyn and Cook noted that oral history democratizes and humanizes the past. In a context where this would work against the political motivations of the state, perhaps there is some validity in the idea that oral history was deemed unreliable due to its potential to undermine nationalist ideas. In this way, the lack of oral history during this period can be seen as a success from the nationalists' point of view as the lack of potentially harmful narratives helps shape our understanding of the school experience in the way they intended us to. Objectively, however, the lack of oral history translated into a lack of understanding of the actual experience of school. Overall, due to the political climate, while oral testimonies could have potentially contributed greatly to our understanding of the school during this period, this potential was limited by the narratives of futility and redundancy that circulated oral history. Finally, oral history has seen a resurgence in its use since the 1960s. With the development of social movements that challenged dominant narratives (such as the civil rights movement and the anti-war rhetoric of the hippie movement), oral history found its footing by giving voice to the powerless. Such movements were born out of disillusionment with government and notions of blind patriotism. From this disillusionment, people's testimonies have become relevant. During this period, historians such as Portelli, Passrenini, and Frisch overturned the perceived weaknesses of oral history. They argued that the subjectivity and narrative qualities of oral history were strengths rather than weaknesses. Furthermore, it should be noted that oral history also developed in parallel with the rapid improvement of recording technologies. These technologies have not only made recording oral history easier and more accessible, but have also added layers of emotion and humanity to narratives. The combination of these layers of emotionality and subjectivity has empowered the narratives of those who were previously marginalized. It is harder to invalidate humanity than a statistic. Indeed, Trofaneko recognizes oral history's ability to provide insight into bleaker educational experiences than previously recognized. In particular, he references the use of oral history in Canada's 2008 Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools. Through the use of oral history, the experience of students in such schools was reconsidered and reframed in a way that allowed for recognition that schools were not simply acting in the best interests of students. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers. Get a Custom Essay Therefore, the use of oral history has allowed us to reconsider and more accurately frame our understanding of the experience in such schools by those who experienced them in'.