Where do auto historians get their information?

(EXPANDED FROM 3/26/2021)

The electronic forum of the Society of Automotive Historians has not managed to generate much activity, but one of its all-time, most-useful useful posts was instigated by Jvolgarino (2021). He asked how did auto historians get their information. This led to a discussion about the difficulties of obtaining primary sources of information.

Perhaps some Indie Auto readers would consider this topic too inside baseball, but my primary goal is to advance the study of automotive history rather than to make that cash register ring by maximizing page clicks. So, for those who are interested, let’s take a few minutes to look under the hood.

Barstool philosophizing or substantive analysis?

My sense is that a core tension in American auto history is between those who see discussion about cars as merely a form of entertainment and those who strive for a more scholarly exploration.

The ideal of those who tilt toward entertainment can be to treat web-based discussions as akin to hanging out at the bar and shooting the shit. The focus tends to be on sharing one’s personal experiences. When opinions are offered, they may often be stated with more passion than facts and logic to back up their claims. This is the opposite of a scholarly debate.

In other words, the two approaches operate by different “language games” (Wikipedia, 2025). That’s why if you throw a car buff into a scholarly conversation — or vice versa — that can lead to contentious moments. This is for an understandable reason: Their language games may be so different that they may be talking past each other.

Why historians are drawn to primary sources

The discussion that follows focuses on how scholars approach auto history. A key goal of this type of researcher is to seek out primary rather than secondary sources of information. A primary source can include an original document such as corporate board minutes, a dated prototype photograph or correspondence from a historical figure.

Perhaps the most popular primary source is an eye-witness account by a retired car designer or higher-level executive. The big problem with this type of information is that it may not be accurate for any number of reasons, from faulty memory to attempts to shift blame. This is why information conveyed in oral histories should be verified by other documentation.

Popular auto history media tend to rely mostly on secondary sources of information, such as books, magazines and newspaper articles. This is for an obvious reason — it can be a lot easier digging into one’s stash of old Car and Driver magazines than taking a 2,000-mile trip to a library that archives relevant historical documents.

Getting primary information can take a lot of work

Walt G (2021) noted that seeking out historical information can be like “wanting to see a car collection — the collection will not relocate for your convenience or pleasure, you have to go to it. It took me years/decades to finally get to see the library at the National Motor Museum in England. Beaulieu is not near London where most people fly into and out of. It was many hours travel to get down to the SW corner of England to get to the museum.”

The historian’s work may have only just begun once they get to their destination. Walt G (2021) noted that library and museum staff can be very helpful, but they won’t have the time to scan desired documents. A historian can thus spend a considerable amount of time digging through boxes and boxes of materials.

Academics tend to do more archival research

It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy this type of work. For example, Packard historian James A. Ward wrote how he “relished the opportunity to work with typewritten corporate records” (1995, pp. 1-2). This illustrates how university faculty tend to have more interest — and perhaps time as well — to toil away in the back rooms of libraries and museums.

We should be glad that someone does such tedious work. For example, by digging through Studebaker-Packard documents, Robert R. Ebert (2013) found that the corporation’s board of directors had tabled a proposed 1962 four-cylinder junior Lark prior to the arrival of Sherwood Egbert. This is contrary to some other accounts, which apparently relied upon oral interviews or secondary sources.

Also see ‘Wheel spinning happens when car buffs and scholarly historians don’t collaborate’

As we have previously discussed, Indie Auto has focused on analyzing the work of others rather than digging up new information. This is not for lack of interest in spending time working with primary documents. After all, I do have a doctorate. As a multi-tasking retiree, my main limitations have been time and the cost of traveling to the relevant libraries in other parts of the country.

I don’t think there is any substitute for cultivating more scholarly interest in auto history. It’s too bad that a few of the better auto history writers didn’t go get a doctorate and launch a scholarly career. With a clear-eyed strategy, they might have been able to better fund their auto history research.

NOTES:

This story was originally posted on March 28, 2021 and expanded on Sept. 17, 2025.

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.

---

RE:SOURCES

• Ebert, Robert R.; 2013. Champion of the Lark: Harold Churchill and the Presidency of Studebaker-Packard, 1956-1961. McFarland & Company, London.
• Jvolgarino; 2021. “Where do you get your information?” Society of Automotive Historians discussion forum. Posted Feb. 11; accessed March 23.
• Walt G; 2021. Commentator in “Where do you get your information?” Society of Automotive Historians discussion forum. Posted Feb. 11; accessed March 23.
• Ward, James A.; 1995. The Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
• Wikipedia; 2025. “Language game (philosophy).” Page last modified July 30.