It’s hard for me to believe that my time at the Chrysler Museum is almost over. I have learned a lot about how museums function, Chrysler’s history, and cars in general. I was bound to learn some of the things I did simply by spending time at the museum, but the majority of what I learned came from doing research. “Writing is rewriting,” is a quote (or a similar variation of the quote) I have heard from more than one writing and rhetoric professor at Oakland; I agree with that statement, but after this internship I believe that writing is also research.
As a college senior, I have obviously conducted research before, but I have never had to start from scratch on an assignment. For every writing assignment I have at Oakland, I have had at least a small amount of information on the topic I would be writing about. This wasn’t the case at the museum. I had to research everything from Chrysler’s financial situation in the 1970s to the average amount of time it took the Big Three to take a car from concept to production in the early 1990s. I was often times surprised how much research I had to do before conducting an oral history interview.
I am almost hesitant to call an oral history an interview. An oral history is an interview in the fact that a person is asking another person questions, but (at least in my opinion) the term interview has the connotation that the interviewer has a specific agenda and is trying to get information from the interviewee. I have been approaching this oral history project as trying to get a story and putting it into context. I believe this approach serves the project better than bringing a list of questions to the “interview” and asking them in order. Maybe I’m overly romanticizing the project, but I like to think that letting people tell their own story with minimal prompting from me will produce better results than having a clear agenda and trying to lead the interviewee in a direction.
My biggest concern with the project is that it may come off as Chrysler propaganda. I have worked hard to be objective and frame opinion questions as the interviewee’s opinion and not fact because the interviewees are passionate about the cars they worked on and proud of their accomplishments. In one oral history I did say that the Dodge Viper is a popular car; popular is a relative term and it really can’t be backed up, but I believe a statement like that is similar to common knowledge in an academic essay. I can’t prove that the Viper is popular, but I feel comfortable making that claim based on reviews I have read and people I have talked to. I hope that I have demonstrated creditability in my oral histories so they come off as informative and hopefully entertaining and not like a Chrysler commercial.
It’s not quite over yet, but my internship has been a positive experience and I have learned a lot. This particular oral history project won’t produce many written texts, but I feel like it has helped me grow as a writer and a researcher.