Despite the recognition that biography is an incomplete science, biographical research is an ‘important way of writing about the past and inspecting the human condition’ (Pimlott 1999: 33). Through biographical research, individual experiences and identities can be explored. Biography provides an alternative point of analysis to the workings of social groups, situations and events, which is the normal frame of reference for historical research (see Lieblich et al. 1998: 8). As such it can broaden, rather than reduce, an understanding of who got ‘what, when and how’ (Lasswell 1970). Academics, critical of biography, argue that traditional historical research reaches a degree of truth and logical explanation for events better than any individual version could hope to do (Carr, cited Pimlott 1999: 32). Yet because biography looks in detail at one of the most micro levels of politics — the individual, the personality and the viewing of events through the lens of one set of eyes — supporters counter that biography could be viewed as a ‘neglected’ political science methodology that has ‘enormous potential for the study of leadership’ (Theakston 1997:661). In Australia, most political biographical studies have been on leaders of parties, or of governments (Porter 1993: 1).

Biography contextualises a life but can illuminate much more than just that. Not only is it informative about the person under investigation, it can also tell us much about the person writing the story. Well-written, thoroughly researched studies provide an opportunity to explore issues such as ideology, class struggles and the political machinations within a particular and personal timeframe. It can illustrate the deals, negotiations, horse trading and other compromises that are such an important part of politics. For the personal details, I note Day’s recommendation that ‘biographers mimic the genealogists and go to the basic sources, such as death certificates, birth certificates, marriage certificates, wills, probate, and employment records’ (Day 2002b:36) to lay aside the myths and hyperbole and uncovering the ‘fertile facts’ that surround public figures — both good and bad (Pimlott 1999).

Author involvement varies depending upon the biographical style selected. Biographies that aim to be objectively written tend to stick close to verifiable facts and demonstrable truths, while the style of the narrative biography comes close to fiction where author interpretation and accounts of imagined conversations based on letters and diaries result in a work that reads more like a historical novel. In fact, all biographical styles use, to a greater or lesser extent, a mixture of these approaches as the author constructs a picture of a person’s life from fact and interpretation. One difficulty we are all confronted with is that line that crosses over from writing about what is known to what is unknown.

Questions about why we write biography have several possible answers. The first reason is media and monetarily driven. Biographies about politicians sell well. The second is that biographies provide useful overviews — allowing authors and readers to make connections with people and their history — that might otherwise have been left undiscovered. Finally, political biography can open unexpected doors, allowing researchers to gain new appreciations of past events (Pimlott 1999: 34-5).