Preliminary Programme

Tue 13 April
    8.30
    10.45
    14.15
    16.30

Wed 14 April
    8.30
    10.45
    14.15
    16.30

Thu 15 April
    8.30
    10.45
    14.15
    16.30

Fri 16 April
    8.30
    10.45
    14.15
    16.30

All days
Go back

Tuesday 13 April 2010 16.30
Y-4 ORA04 Teaching and Using Oral History
M212, Marissal
Network: Oral History Chair: Almut Leh
Organizers: - Discussants: -
Agnes Khoo : Why Oral History matters and the teaching of oral histories - incorporating oral histories in undergraduate social science learning - Asian University for Women as a case study
Oral History is not only an approach to the collection, documentation, interpretation, and presentation of histories, it is also used to excavate and preserve people’s histories at the grassroots level; as a form of alternative social history that is outside the realm of and censure by the state. It compliments ... (Show more)
Oral History is not only an approach to the collection, documentation, interpretation, and presentation of histories, it is also used to excavate and preserve people’s histories at the grassroots level; as a form of alternative social history that is outside the realm of and censure by the state. It compliments and supplements mainstream historical records by giving legitimacy to and enhancing the ‘voices from below’. It can further be used as an experimental and creative approach to the teaching of social sciences in undergraduate studies.

This paper looks at the possibilities of using Oral History as part of pedagogy in educating young women from Asia, using a case study where Oral History is taught not only as a way of understanding and writing of social histories but also as a critical pedagogic approach to women’s education. What are the possibilities and the limitations? What are the lessons learnt? Can the understanding, analysing, and writing of social histories be not only an end in itself but also as a means to an end; the end being an alternative approach to education that empowers women?

Can oral history be an effective educational tool in preserving the subjectivity of the students, in enhancing their agency, as well as in unleashing their creative potential? What are the experiences of the educators and the students involved? Can Oral History as an alternative approach to classroom teaching help in cultivating a more emancipatory and egalitarian relationship between the educators and the students? Can it help forge an alternative form of classroom interaction between the educators and the students, so that learning becomes more mutual and reciprocal?

This paper hopes to look at the perspectives of both the educators and the students, as women in higher education in Asia. This paper crosses three main networks of the conference, namely Oral History, Asia and Gender. (Show less)

Hana Pelikanova : How to Teach „Complex“ Oral History - Oral History as a M.A. studies. A Prague Example
My paper mirrors the experience of teaching at a new established M.A. studies at the Faculty of Humanities, Charles University in Prague which is called Oral history – Contemporary History, and was launched in fall 2008. The first semester has raised some important methodological and organisational issues which I would ... (Show more)
My paper mirrors the experience of teaching at a new established M.A. studies at the Faculty of Humanities, Charles University in Prague which is called Oral history – Contemporary History, and was launched in fall 2008. The first semester has raised some important methodological and organisational issues which I would like to discuss here.
30 students who applied for this M.A. studies are following the accreditation by the Ministry of Education in 2008. The M.A. studies are divided into two sections – methodological and historical. The methodological part consists of courses in oral history, its methodological and technical apects, i.e. recording, processing the recordings, archiving, legal and ethical issues, as well as the principles of OH material analysis and interpretation. The second, historical section, consists of courses in contemporary history as well as „traditional“ historiography (e.g. heuristics).
During the first year, we have come across some important issues. Some of them are connected with the organisation of the M.A. studies at the level of the university and our department, other derive from the „philosophy“ of the accreditation. One of the most important deals with methodics of teaching methodology of OH. We have classes that deal with technical and practical aspects of recording and archiving, but limited possibilities to „try it on“. We teach various theoretical aspects of OH, analysis and interpretation, also at the basis of the logic of qualitative research in general, but students come rarely in touch with the particular interpretations themselves (e.g. through reading of articles and books).
Other issues were raised by students themselves. The most common question in Czech environment (influenced also by the development of OH in the last years) is connected to the definition of OH. Is OH a sampling technique or a discipline? Another very important question is connected with writing M.A. thesis where the interpretation of narrative material is usually the greatest challenge as well as a problem for a student.
My paper is going to deal with all of these key issues, it will present our experience and solutions. (Show less)

Miroslav Vanek : Between the conservatists“ and the „investigators“. Oral history in the Czech Republic 15 years after and its current problems
It has been 15 years since a small group of oral historians in the Czech Republic used oral history method in a research for the first time. Its development since can‘t be considered easy. The first oral historians who got familiar with the theoretical and practical aspects of OH (with ... (Show more)
It has been 15 years since a small group of oral historians in the Czech Republic used oral history method in a research for the first time. Its development since can‘t be considered easy. The first oral historians who got familiar with the theoretical and practical aspects of OH (with the help of their more experienced colleagues from the West since OH couldn’t be used in Czechoslovakia before 1989), expected some kind of consequent general interest. But right from the beginning some elderly colleagues presented their scepticism very clearly. They didn’t like the subjectivity of the method, the pointed at the problems such as the truth-value of the material and the possibility to verify the data. I believe many colleagues from other countries have similar experience and that it is therefore a general issue.Unfortunately, after it seemed that we have finally succedeed to prove, also to the original critics, that the results and the strenght of OH are indisputable, another problem occured. In the mid 90ties, only a group of historians was interested in OH. In the upcoming years it has also become popular at schools and today we face a boom where many researchers, as well as documentarists and journalists are reffering to OH in their works. The problem of this „fashion wave“ is that the results of their work could rarely be considered OH. Often the basic principles of OH are not followed - their work doesn’t show theoretical background, the narrators are often treated unethically and the results are sometimes being adapted to fit the official historical discourse on purpose. In my paper I would like to focus on these particular problems more thoroughly. (Show less)



Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer