Archival Interviews: Session One

I chose to consult the transcript of an interview with Horace M. Albright, who was one of the first administrators of the National Park Service. As I’m interested in the history of the development of the National Parks, in addition to the development of the conservation and preservation movement within the United States, this transcript could prove to be invaluable to me for the information it provides.

The transcript begins without an introduction to the narrator, interviewer, or context of the interview. For this reason, it is difficult for me to situate myself as a reader; I know what sorts of things I’d like Mr. Albright to talk about, but have no confidence that he or his interviewer shares my precise interest. This presents a certain conflict: I sense that I am approaching the transcript already knowing what I hope to find. On one hand, this seems to indicate that I’ve done an appropriate amount of research and I am looking to Mr. Albright in order to assess the language that he uses to express his relationship with landscape in general, as well as with areas designated National Parks. However, with such a specific interest in mind, I worry that I could miss the opportunity to get a more comprehensive view of Mr. Albright—an opportunity that an oral history uniquely provides. I feel as though I am approaching the transcript as a historian who aims to discover new data rather than as an oral historian who aims to discover the relationship that allowed Mr. Albright to talk about the development of the National Parks Service as he did.

Using James Fogerty’s distinction in “Oral History and Archives: Documenting Context,” the interview with Mr. Albright is not a life history, but nor is it precisely a project history. I decide to treat it more like a project history, in which I use other historical narratives I have read during research to compare and contrast Mr. Albright’s statements. In conclusion, I recognize that I am excited to read through this new collection of information because I recognize its value as data—and that I am feeling perhaps a little underequipped at this first session to critically analyze its value as an oral history.