ABSTRACT
Chapters in Part I, ‘Critical developments’, noted early concerns about the atheoretical use of oral evidence, and the development of more sophisticated interdisciplinary approaches to the interpretation of oral testimony. Ronald Grele urged colleagues to consider linguistic and performative aspects of the interview, and to explore the relationship between individual and social historical consciousness; Alessandro Portelli highlighted the orality and narrative form of interview testimony; and Portelli and Luisa Passerini emphasized the importance of subjectivity and showed how silences and ‘false’ memories can be illuminating forms of evidence. The authors in Part IV use oral history case studies to demonstrate various approaches to interpreting memories.1
