I decided start this one based on a tangent in Tom's reply to a comment of mine.

To explain the title: there are a number of schools of historical writing and analysis. Most are a blend of techniques, but there are those who rely more on the written record (the "dead man" school) and those who put more stock in first-person reports and interviews (the "instant" school). It should also be mentioned that both styles can easily be manipulated but individuals who are writing just to confirm their own theories (self-fulfilling history, as it were).

Personally, I'm more of a "mixer" in that I believe strongly in the value of oral history, but also like to see it confirmed in some way through written records. Records can lie, but so can people. Memories fade, perspectives change, and documents get lost or shredded.

Since so much of small wars theory is based on individuals and small units, I thought it might be interesting to toss this out and see what comes up in terms of favored historical techniques or approaches.