ABSTRACT
For more than twenty years I have noticed that current books and manuscripts in the field of oral history routinely claim to raise new methodological issues in the context of their particular projects. So, too, do many conference papers, as if the advent of each new subject necessarily raises unique methodological problems not previously considered. Despite this rhetoric, in practice the only novelty in oral history for some time has been the focus on ever more specific identity groups and ever more detailed articulations of the various aspects of identity. Why, then, do authors pretend otherwise? An obvious explanation is that academic work both demands and thrives on supposed methodological innovation and theoretical sophistication.
