One fact that has emerged from a study of the existing literature on the techniques for recording the oral histories of African societies since the last decade is that these societies, even where they possessed similar structural models, still exhibit several complex variables. This raises the question as to whether or not the available methodological studies can suffice to provide a generally acceptable model for interpreting the totality of African history. The answer is, of course, that historians ought to be encouraged to publish descriptive, analytic, or reflective materials arising from their specialized research interests. Such studies would not only prove invaluable for comparative analysis but would also be useful as working tools for the graduate student or the beginner in research. Indeed, anyone with field experience is aware that the art of collecting oral data is acquired mainly through trial and error. The technique that has proved successful for Vansina (1960) in dealing with Bakuba, for example, may prove disastrous in dealing with Banyoro. The importance of the existing studies is that they enable the young researcher to minimize the number of his errors and maximize the use of time available to him. In the final analysis, however, he learns by experience. And his experiences, if put down in print, may prove of significance for other researchers.

Collecting oral traditions in the field is like learning to drive a car. No amount of lectures and films can make a nondriver into a driver. He must attempt to drive it himself and learn from his mistakes. And when eventually he becomes a driver, his technique, efficiency, or inefficiency will be determined by many personal considerations: courage, physical condition, public relations, courtesy, temperament, integrity, alertness. So with the field worker. He is constantly adjusting to new situations and to different personalities. And he ought to be a person capable of responding to these situations without losing his equanimity.