Monthly Archives: April 2017

After reading the first two sentences of Michael Kleine’s article, “What Is It We Do When We Write Articles Like This One-and How Can We Get Students to Join Us?,” I knew I was in for a good read. He begins writing about a situation all students know too well- going to one place to find all the information needed to write on a specific top. Whether this place is the library, the internet, an archive or some other place where research is conducted, most everyone (aka most students) can say they don’t exhaust every place where information can be collected.

He also notes that upon observing students writing research papers, they were not really writing at all- they were copying. He writes, “I imagined, then, that they saw their purpose as one of lifting and transporting text substance from one location, the library, to another, their teachers’ briefcases” (23).

My fellow peers…HE’S SELLING US OUT. Not really though, because (and this is my own personal experience) my generation has grown up surrounded by technology so it only makes sense that our go to resource for information is the internet. The library has become a place to escape the noise of the world to do homework or a project or more homework, all while in deathly silence due to the threat of a librarian’s piercing stare of disapproval, or vicious “SH.”

While Kleine offers some criticism of students’ procedures in writing research papers, he also makes the reader think about the ways in which they obtain their research, and how it shapes their methodologies. He describes what he calls “hunters” and “gatherers.” “A hunter must go in to the world with a strong sense of purpose and direction, and employ deliberate strategies and technologies to kill his game, while a gatherer must look about widely, making sense and use of the food he discovers fortuitously” (25). Thus, a hunter finds what they’re looking for while a gatherer discovers what may be of use.

Researcher’s collect, sift, seek patterns and finally translate their findings. But do they do this in the way of the hunter or the gatherer?

For me, I believe I am a mix of both. While I usually have a strong sense of the information I’m looking for, it’s not uncommon that I stumble across something that leads me to a new aspect of my research topic. Recording this information is helpful, as it may support my argument, or prove to be a tangent. Either way, gathering information to potentially use to support my facts is a great way to make sure I as the researcher am as thorough as possible, and see as many aspects to my research as possible. However, this all begins with a specific motive that can be built on along the way.

-FH

Shoutout to my main Ariana…girl never disappoints. This post is in response to her blog post about her research interest for this quarter- diversity and more importantly, minority representation.

That’s my best friend

She writes about wanting to know more about the evolution and shift towards minority representation by Santa Clara University. Her interest in African Americans and other people of color on campus throughout the university’s history is no easy task to research, as I’m sure there isn’t much documentation from the early years of Santa Clara. However, I do think her idea to find personal accounts of students of color from sources like yearbooks, journals, school newspaper articles and the like is a really great way to start. There is no more accurate representation of what the environment was like for students of color at the university than their own personal recollection.

As a suggestion, I came across some old photos as I was researching my own topic- the history of the sciences at SCU. When browsing the Online Archive of California, I saw photos of Asian students at SC ca. 1890 (though there were only three), the Native American Choir, and pictures of African Americans involved in non-violent silent protests, athletics, and mingling with their peers beginning in the 1960s. I think these photos can give insight to life as a student of color at SC, in addition to artifacts of written word found at the archives.

I think her topic of interest is so important, as Santa Clara really emphasizes their campus diversity to potential students as well as those already attending. However, I feel as though Santa Clara is a lot less diverse than made out to be, as the school appears to be vastly more white than I expected. But, I’ll let Ariana educate you on the opposing viewpoint…after all, she’s one of the most strongly  intelligent and well opinionated women I know.

-FH

While perusing the Online Archive of California, I came across this picture of a chemistry lab circa 1892 here at Santa Clara University. The inner science nerd in me was absolutely PUMPED to come across such an incredible snapshot of history. After visiting the archives here at SCU and gathering information about the development of the science program, this photo really shows how important the sciences have been at Santa Clara since its beginning.

Chemistry labs were first added to the science curriculum at SCU in 1872, and on a very basic level. The most surprising information I came across was while looking at the earliest course catalogue the archive had, the Catalogue of Santa Clara College 1851-1852 to 1860-61. The university had a mission statement that went like so: “…the Fathers hope to make Santa Clara College a favorite abode of science, morality and religion, in no way inferior to any other institution for the education of youth” (4). I found this information to be so intriguing as Santa Clara is a religious school, yet one of their top priorities was the study of the sciences, and listed this before both morality and religion.

Yep, that’s my school. So proud.

While this picture supports my questions about the development of the sciences at SCU, it also raises many more: what equipment was used in the lab? What were the newest instruments/technologies of the time? When were the labs separated into organic and inorganic chemistry spaces?

In addition to just the development of labs, it also makes me wonder about the degree of difficulty in lab. As a biology major, chemistry is included in the requirements for a degree in this field. So, I know all too well the difficulty of the biology series and chemistry series, ESPECIALLY lab (cue the anxiety attack). But, I can’t complain because even though it’s hard as (fill in the blank), I can’t imagine committing my studies to anything else.

-FH

In addition to the articles our class read preparing us for our visit to the archives,  we were also given a paper titled “The 6 C’s” as an additional resource for our analysis of the research we conducted. Not to be dramatic but to be dramatic, this is probably the most useful writing guide I’ve ever been given.

The 6 C’s are as follows:

• Content: What is the main idea? For documents, list important, points/phrases/words/sentences. For images, describe what you see.
• Citation: Who created this and when? What type of source is it?
• Communication: What is the author’s bias or point of view? Who is the intended audience? Why was the source created? What is the tone of the document or image?
• Context: What is going on in the world, country, region or locality when this was created? What other sources might help provide answers to this question? What else do we need to know to better understand the evidence in this source?
• Connections: How does this connect to what you already know? To what other academic or popular conversations does it connect?
• Conclusions: What contributions does this make to our understanding of research, student life at SCU, or a topic of relevance to your fellow students? How does this text (and/or your experience locating it, reading it, and making sense of it) relate to our class readings? How did you come to these conclusion?

This outline allows me as a writer to organize all of my research and thoughts in a manner that flows and portrays my level of understanding when discussing the findings of my research. In keeping the 6 C’s in mind and applying each one to my writing, I can ensure that I will include all of my information and properly analyze it to the greatest extent. Happy writing!

-FH

This quarter I enrolled in a class titled “Ethics in Society.” I figured this would be a highly interesting class as it was only this past year that I really found myself involved in the world of politics, especially due to the election, and ethics and politics seem to be related in more ways than not. Let me explain: a certain set of beliefs a person holds, otherwise known as their morals, effects their actions in every situation, upon which ethical decisions must be made based on these underlying principles. Morals shape what is defined as ethical and what is not according to an individual and even society, though this is where things often get messy. What may be considered ethical to you may not be considered ethical to me.

The book for this course is Ethics in the Real World by Peter Singer, and consists of 82 brief essays each describing a different ethical dilemma. I was assigned to present on one of these essays titled, “The Real Abortion Tragedy.” Great. What a simple and non-controversial topic that I have the honor of presenting my views on in front of my entire class.

The only way I can think about going about this as to not offend anyone is to see both sides of it equally, that is, until I feel like offending someone because NEWS FLASH no one gets a say in what a woman wants to do with her body because IT’S HER BODY. Shocking right? So I’m not going about representing both sides of the argument equally because one side is wrong. Yeah, I’m biased and I’ll be sure to make it very clear to my audience.

Anyways…in having to show both sides of the argument, I am reminded of this class and the use of the naysayer from fall quarter. More recently though, I am reminded of a blurb I read in Lynèe Lewis Gaillet’s article, Archival Survival: Navigating Historical Research  in which she claims, “the relationship between the researcher and subject is often problematic and needs to be addressed. The researcher’s interests, prejudices, selection of subject matter, research questions, and biases inform and guide the research, and the researcher should inform readers of these factors up front” (36).

This helps me in guiding not only my research but my presentation as it is important to inform my audience of where I stand as to not confuse them, which also gives me credibility as the presenter. I need to be upfront about my bias and (ultimately right) beliefs as that is my role as the researcher.

-FH

As a biology major, you know I’m a sucker for science (with the exception of chem…holla to all my fellow bio majors AM I RIGHT?). So as I was browsing the subjects in the Archives & Collections of the SCU Library, I came across a drop down section called the “History of Science” upon which I read a short little blurb stating, “Archives & Special Collections holds many of the books used in scientific instruction during the early decades of Santa Clara College. Books on optics and on practical experimentation are particularly well represented. Many of the scientific instruments used in SCC science classes are kept in Archives & Special Collections.”

HEYO. From this, I think my research question is: “What was the science curriculum like during the early years of Santa Clara University and how has it changed to become the flourishing program it is today?” I hope to find information about courses offered, instruments used in class and/or lab (were labs offered?), objectives taught, majors offered/requirements for the majors (were there science majors offered or were science classes taught as core classes only?), if there was a separate school for the sciences, number of applicants interested in pursuing a science career, graduates with science degrees (when were they first offered?) and careers in the field of science following graduation.

My plan of attack is to use Lynée Lewis Galleit’s ideas, and keep in mind a key claim she made: “the researcher’s interests, prejudices selection of subject matter, research questions, and biases inform and guide the research, and the researcher should inform readers of these factors up front.” Clarity and directness is required in the relay of research to an audience even though most of the information will consist of facts, purpose can always be interpreted in many different ways.

Katherine E. Tirabassi also provides a set of principles for those embarking on archival research projects:

1. Principle of selectivity: the researcher’s understanding of how archivists select and omit artifacts for a given collection
2. Principle of cross-referencing: searching across documents for context that clarify an archival document’s rhetorical situation or that confirm, corroborate, clarify or contradict a fact or point cited
3. Principle of categorization: use of keywords and finding aids that help to access information
4. Principle of closure: the understanding that there are inherent gaps in archival records and thus they cannot be searched exhaustively; finding the ending point or knowing when to make an exit is an essential part of archival research

There are many other incredibly helpful tips and moves in research that these two authors offer, and I plan to utilize their wisdom in my next visit to the archives and report on my findings.

-FH

After reading “Argument as a Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument” by Stuart Greene, my eyes were opened to an entirely new way of viewing the process of research. I know, how cliché right? But really, his way of comparing research to simple, everyday conversation really gave me some insight as how I’d like to go about framing my next research paper.

Greene claims that argument is “part of what we do every day: we confront a public issue, thinking something that is open o dispute, and we take a stand and support what we think and feel with what we believe are good reasons.”

He then goes on to explain that making an argument entails providing good reasons to support your viewpoint, as well as counterarguments and recognizing how and why readers might object to your ideas. Greene claims that all of this supports the idea that inquiry, research, and writing arguments are intimately related.

So basically, I’ve been way over thinking and blowing my adrenals out trying to structure and format my research papers… when I could just be framing them as if I were having a respectful, educated conversation. This rigid and strict process of research that has been taught to students doesn’t need to be so rigid at all. Of course research papers need to be supported with data and facts from reputable sources, but this doesn’t mean they can’t include extremely controversial standpoints and/or topics of major discussion. So why not throw in that counterargument? Maybe because you think it will weaken your topic? That’s always been my greatest fear. But this new approach to research as a conversation leaves space for challenging views, and a chance for the author to leave it open to discussion or politely disagree and explain why.

Basically, I love this take on research and I plan to use it in not only my thought process, but applying it to future projects.

-FH

“Our next project is a research paper.” As a student, you can feel the heavy weight of despair settling in the classroom after these words have been spoken. Research? Bring on the hours of googling all sorts of phrases related to the topic at hand, desperately trying to piece together information from various online sources including articles, videos and research papers published by others, just to name a few.

Having done various sorts of research projects, ranging from subjects like art history to biology to English, I am no stranger to the overwhelming and vigorous process that research entails. Personally, I begin with a google search. I continue to broaden my horizons as new information is unearthed, especially when coming across contradictions and opposing viewpoints circling my topic. I look up definitions for clarity, and to ensure I use terms in their proper setting. It is then up to me to decide which claims are relevant and which are not, and I usually judge this by pulling from sources that are well-known and respected by the public to give the audience a sense of familiarity which, in turn, causes my readers to view me as a credible author. I ask myself, Is your research complete? Have you unearthed the social, ethical, religious, personal, political, etc. issues involving this topic? Are you going to include these counterpoints even though they contradict a large portion of your research? And thus begins more of the googling.

See anything wrong here? You could ask me why every step in my research process revolves around the internet, or why I don’t take a trip to the library to collect books for my research. Why no surveys, no interviews… upon which I would answer: because those things are so, well, inconvenient.

Don’t get me wrong, I am an avid lover of books. But when it comes to research, books are online (for the most part), along with their other originally paper siblings- magazines, encyclopedias, biographies, journals, reports, etc. Everything is on the world-wide web. So why get up and take a field trip to the library when I have all that I need to compose my report on my computer and still have it be strong and complete in content?

I’ll tell you why, or rather the article “BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary,” will. BEAM stands for background, exhibits, arguments, and methods. In using this outline for the research process, the writer can achieve a critically strong understanding of the subject of interest, even if only one physical source of information gathering is used. The article states, “Writing handbooks often urge students to consult as many sources, and as many kinds of sources as possible…[leading] students astray if we lead them to believe that the mere number or variety of their sources is more important than how well they use them in their texts.”

However, the article also points out that the “danger is that students will perform intricate and perhaps brilliant analyses of particular exhibits but fail to bring these analyses to bear on any larger questions or problems” which can be avoided “by positioning their analyses as contributions to specific, ongoing intellectual problems” or by “[bringing] something ‘new’ to the table by introducing into a debate an analysis of some yet-to-be-considered exhibit “. I found this advice intriguing, as I would have never thought to include this aspect in research examples, but would like to challenge myself in utilizing this move in my writing in addition to following the BEAM protocol.

-FH