‘Oral history [... offers] much in its ability to access the lives of ordinary people; over time... it may even become accepted as part of mainstream historiography’ (Claus and Marriott, 2017, p. 463). Discuss with reference to at least two historical examples. Peter Claus and John Marriot’s statement that ‘Oral history [... offers] much in its ability to access the lives of ordinary people; over time... it may even become accepted as part of mainstream historiography’ is largely unsurprising with regard to the rise of oral history in recent years and its fight for its place in mainstream historiography. The Oral History Association (OHA) defines oral history as ‘a field of study and a method of gathering, preserving and interpreting the voices and memories of people, communities and participants in past events’. 1 In this sense, it is a multi-faceted term referring to its existence as both a historical source and a historical process. Claus and Marriott’s claim that oral history offers much in its ability to access the lives of ordinary people makes note of one of the principal benefits of oral history as an historical source, in that it allows an insight into experiences of working class people or those who would otherwise not have a voice in history. The transcription of historical events through the form of oral testimony is one of the oldest forms of evidence and its origins can be seen in folklorist traditions. However, the recording of memories as a formal discipline emerged in the last half a century alongside the rise of social history since the Second World War and the desire to create a history ‘from below’. While oral history has risen in prominence in the last half a century, it is still perceived by many as being an unreliable source, particularly 1 Peniston-Bird, Corinna M. “Oral History: The Sound of Memory.” In History Beyond the Text: A Student’s Guide to Approaching Alternative Sources, eds. Sarah Barber and Corinna M. Peniston- Bird, 105-121 (London: Routledge, 2009), 111. My emphasis.