http://blog.oup.com/2013/02/oral-historians-and-online-spaces/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Sat, 25 May 2013 23:50:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://blog.oup.com/2013/02/oral-historians-and-online-spaces/#comment-388264 Blogging oral history | OUPblog Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:22:35 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=34862#comment-388264 [...] has shifted the collection and dissemination of oral history. Oral historians must decide on how to address fellow historians and the general public. We could even quiz you on [...] [...] has shifted the collection and dissemination of oral history. Oral historians must decide on how to address fellow historians and the general public. We could even quiz you on [...]

]]> http://blog.oup.com/2013/02/oral-historians-and-online-spaces/#comment-356078 Craig Breaden Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:27:03 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=34862#comment-356078 Caitlin, this is a thoughtful piece (although it needs proofreading!). My take on your question, as someone who works with -- and sometimes creates -- oral history as a subset of my duties as an audiovisual archivist, is that before we imagine our platforms for delivery we have to ask ourselves who, generally, is the audience. Freedom Mosaic is the product of a museum or exhibit approach to oral history, of less interest perhaps to the academic researcher than the general public, while VOCES functions as an online gateway to a deeper set of resources. Both do what they do well, for different types of audiences. From a serious archival standpoint, I think we first owe researchers clear finding aids describing what we have, something we should come to grips with before we imagine further use of online spaces. In my experience, researches who seriously mine oral histories are most pleased with a clearly arranged list of interviews, their associated available resources (recordings, transcripts, indexes), and a defined path of access, whether it's online or in a reading room. More casual visitors to online or bricks-and-mortar exhibits want the opposite -- highly edited clips and succinct contextual material. This is in its way is just as valid an entry to an oral history collection, but in my mind its creation should follow, not come before, archival due diligence to the collection. Caitlin, this is a thoughtful piece (although it needs proofreading!). My take on your question, as someone who works with — and sometimes creates — oral history as a subset of my duties as an audiovisual archivist, is that before we imagine our platforms for delivery we have to ask ourselves who, generally, is the audience. Freedom Mosaic is the product of a museum or exhibit approach to oral history, of less interest perhaps to the academic researcher than the general public, while VOCES functions as an online gateway to a deeper set of resources. Both do what they do well, for different types of audiences. From a serious archival standpoint, I think we first owe researchers clear finding aids describing what we have, something we should come to grips with before we imagine further use of online spaces. In my experience, researches who seriously mine oral histories are most pleased with a clearly arranged list of interviews, their associated available resources (recordings, transcripts, indexes), and a defined path of access, whether it’s online or in a reading room. More casual visitors to online or bricks-and-mortar exhibits want the opposite — highly edited clips and succinct contextual material. This is in its way is just as valid an entry to an oral history collection, but in my mind its creation should follow, not come before, archival due diligence to the collection.

]]>