The interesting thing about archival research was that I had to make sense of what I found and draw my own conclusions. Instead of proving a theory using research as a tool, I had to make something out of the material I found randomly. So these are my conclusions on my research about the Center for the Studies of Contemporary Values.

1) What were the values the CSCV exposes as a program on campus, especially around religion?

Through closely examining the content and considering when it was written, I found a inner conflict for the school at the time: modernization and religion. SCU was already liberal and becoming modern. They enrolled non-Catholic schools and was accepting of different identities. At the same time, Santa Clara wanted to make sure the Jesuit Mission remained. That’s why by implementing the CSCV, they tried to bring up the role of religion back into the center of conversation on campus. It was their statement to bring back the school’s religious identity into the educational curriculum in a democratic way.

The Mission is still SCU’s symbol.

2) Why are there no information public about the CSCV?

When would you hide information? For me, it seemed like the university was hiding this program. Why wouldn’t you keep the legacy of a once prominent center out of the school’s history? Maybe there was a reason it closed, or maybe it just didn’t do well in terms of publicity or finance. Anyhow, there may have been a deliberate force preventing the spread of information about this program. I could be completely wrong about this, and it may be just the natural order of things coming and going. However, it is still weird that there is absolutely no information about this. My guess is that there is a reason that I will never be able to figure out.

Making sense of a dead end…

At the end, my findings led me to one point: be active and vocal on campus! If there was something I found, it was that how we participate in these programs matter. The school created the CSCV to affect students, and although I do not know how they responded, it surely had a role in the documents ending up in the archives. And maybe if students took different actions, its legacy would have been more known to everyone now, not just hid in the back of the archives. We are a part of history now, so we are the ones creating it!!!!

So I talked a little about what I found in the archives as my research topic, and some new discoveries I made along the way about the research process, but I never really explained the full outline of what my topic was about. I thought I would use this post here to explained that a bit.

The artifact I found in the SCU archives and decide to write about was a press release from SCU on April 6, 1967. It announces the debut of a brand new program on campus, called the “Center of Contemporary Studies,” or CSCV. It said that the center will promote discussion around the most relevant topics at the time through guest speakers, symposiums and classroom engagement.

Cutting the red ribbon is always exciting, isn’t it? (Source)

So why was this interesting to me?

1) I was first intrigued by what “contemporary values” meant. What could have been contemporary at 1967? What were they discussing in school? When I read the whole news report, it became obvious that much of what was going to be discussed as “contemporary” values revolved around the role of religion in SCU’s education. Was this what SCU was concerned most about this time? So I wondered, What was the role of religion in the 60s compared to SCU now? How does this center represent the “values” the university possessed?

2) I found this document in a box with other artifacts about small programs which don’t exist on campus today. One of them was even a folder containing news articles about a academic wrongdoing scandal that SCU was involved in. I was curious so I looked for any information about the center online, but I found nothing at all. SCU has no public information about the history of CSCV, and I found this lack of material weird. So I thought to myself, Why is there no information left? Why is it placed in the archives hidden, what are the implications of this situation?

Why is there no information? Sometimes the lack of info is more interesting then it being right in front of you… (Source)

These questions had to be answered! But were they? Until next time…

Back to how I do research again. This time, we read an article in class called “What is it we Do When we Write Articles Like this One–and How can We Get Students to Join Us?” by Professor Michael Kleine at the University of Arkansas. His article starts with a scene in the library, something you’ll be familiar with if you are or have been a college student.

Even though it was a Sunday, students were everywhere—high school students and college students working in small groups at scattered tables, segregated by age: they were all writing RESEARCH PAPERS. I knew they were writing research papers because they were talking and laughing, but not about their work…I knew they were writing research papers because they were not writing at all—merely copying.

What Kleine describes here is similar to what I have previously posted as how I used to do research. Googling, or looking for easy sources to paste into my essays as my “researched” citation, research was somewhat a find-what-you-need process. I would look for information applicable to what I wanted, and then used those ideas to shape my writing or presentation.

Kleine breaks down the research process into two big-idea categories: Hunting, and Gathering.
Hunting: collecting data and writing with an established and focused sense of a goal.
Gathering: accommodating and considering unexpected data and insights that are discovered during the process.

Looking back at my previous “research,” processes, if there was a time I could even call that I did research, my method would have mostly fallen into the Hunting category. In order to answer a specific question in mind, or to just meet the requirement of having an academic source that my teacher assigned us, I was always after something. I would be hunting that would help my project and prove my point. I hardly ever think about the unlimited interpretations the material in front of me possessed. What a waste!

Research is not just hunting…literally.

But this time was different. I entered the archives without a clue of what I was going to study. I carefully gathered information from a random box that I didn’t even know why it was there. Then instead of looking for documents that exemplified my argument (didn’t have one to begin with honestly) I let everything I found land into its place in my paper. I expanded my own thought and provided my own interpretation of the particulars. Not hunting, but gathering instead, a different kind of research then I am used to, and maybe this is what.

Going back to Kleine’s article, he explains how a balance between the two styles are important, and we must know that we have a tendency to lean one way or another (as most things are in life). This archival project was great because I got a taste of a different approach to research, and closer to the balance that makes me an expert researcher.

(Source)

So as I posted previously, I went into Santa Clara University’s archival collection without a clue of what I wanted to do research on. Ends up, I found a folder containing information about a so-called “Center for the Studies of Contemporary Values.” 

What is this, and why did it interest me? When I saw information about this “center,” I was surprised because I didn’t even know about. I have been to this school for almost a year now, and I am pretty confident that I already know a lot about SCU and its history. According to some of the documents I found, this center even invited Cesar Chavez to speak on campus! Yes, the hero Cesar Chavez apparently came to SCU’s campus. So how did I not know this? Why is it a part of forgotten history? These questions led me to select documents revolving around the “Center for the Studies of Contemporary Values” as my topic for my research paper.

The man himself apparently came to SCU. (Source)

The Center for the Studies of Contemporary Values, or CSCV, was a program which held guest speaker symposiums and conferences to promote discussion around the most prevalent issues at the time. At the time of inception, in 1967, much of this conversation was around the role of religion in SCU’s education. The center was often in the middle of discussion about how SCU should be as a religious school and utilize its Jesuit mission.

Unfortunately, the CSCV closed sometime around the mid 1970s. So why is there no information about this center currently available? At this point, that is a mystery to me. I could not find and sources besides information contained in one folder int he archives. Nothing on the internet, or anywhere else.

SCU Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

This is a picture of Mr. and Mrs. Markkula, whom the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics is named after. The center has been active in SCU for over 30 years, continuing its mission of “engaging individuals and organizations to make choices that respect and care for others.” This program is something that I think can connect to the CSCV in terms of its presence and themes. Maybe the Center for Applied Ethics had a part in the closing of CSCV? We may never know. However, it may be interesting to think about the connections of the current programs on campus and the ones that used to exist, and why no information remains about the history of previous programs.

So in class tomorrow, we are going to the ARCHIVES! But what are archives in the first place? According to Katherine Tirabassi, a professor of a academic writing, archives are places to rediscover, extend, and gain fresh perspectives on historical stories. As she puts it,

Archives are…an inert repository of artifacts to a layered, historical record of dynamic stories.

Are task in the archives is simple: find something interesting to do a research project on. After reading some articles assigned in my class about archival research (one of which is the article I quoted), it seems like finding an interesting topic is not that hard. Archives are what you make of, something like a conversation between you, the researcher, and the artifacts.

What am I looking to research? Many of my peers seem to already have a topic in mind, or at least a general sense of what they want to research. For me, I have a completely open mind. Yes, it is a little scary not to have a specific game plan set in stone. Yes, it seems a little cliche to say that I have no plans “on purpose,” when most times it means I just did not have any good ideas. This is somewhat true, as I don’t really know where to start. There are many topics that interest me: inequality, cultural climate, educational policy. But I will not know what direction the artifacts will lead me until I actually open them with white gloves on. Until then, it will be a mystery, but one that is full of potential and optimism, not uncertainty.

After writing my previous blog post, I started to wonder…when was the last time I actually did research? Everyday I use Google on my phone to check what the weather is or what a Spanish word would translate into English, but is this actually research? So I assigned to myself to think about…

What was the last Research Project I worked on??

When we put in the word Project in, it seems to take a whole different meaning. This is not are everyday tasks of Googling, looking for a book in the library, or asking a friend to see what the lunch special at the cafeteria is. A research project has to have a theme, an argument, a question which we are trying to answer.

Research is a process. (Source)

In college, I have been assigned many papers, some as short as 2 pages and as long as 10. I have made presentations, created discussion material, and cooperated in group projects to pitch a proposal. But have any of these been research projects? My answer is NO. In the papers, I of course did some research, looking for quotes to cite and material to use as reference for my argument. For presentations, I looked at data and used graphs to visually appeal to my audience. In any case, it never was a research project, it was only surface level research so I could make my assignment more complete.

I think we can agree on our hatred for group projects…always enough people but never enough minds at work.

So maybe I never have even done a Research Project. Maybe my report on solar panels in space which I did in high school would count, since I dug up all different kinds of papers and studies to argue that such a mode of electricity generation was needed. But then again, if I haven’t even done a research project in college (on my standards), maybe that should not count. I didn’t find anything new by research: I was just confirming my ideas. Anyway, true research is a new concept for me, something I must learn from the basics.

For me, my project may well be research itself.

Do Google searches count as research?

When do I research something? Most times it is when I cannot remember a name of a song, or when I need to find a synonym for a overused word on my essay. Research is essential since we as individuals cannot know or remember everything. That’s why it’s useful to look back on how we DO research!

How Do I Research Something?

Looking back on how I research, I did not know where to start. For me, research normally starts by Googling something, or maybe using Wikipedia to get background information. After that, I look for credible sources, such as news articles or publications. Then when I find a new key phrase, I pop that into Google again, and so on. It is pretty simple but the repitiion often leads me to more detailed and useful examples and explanations.

Further, I was shown helpful material to understand how we do research in my writing class. It is called the B.E.A.M research vocabulary. The letters each stand for Background, Exhibits, Arguments, and Method.

Background: what the person considers as a fact
Exhibits: something that offers explanation or analysis
Arguments: claims the person makes
Method: what a person derives as its structure of its work

Using these four, I thought I would look at my first blog post and see what in my process applied to those categories.

B: I go to a liberal arts school, therefore my claims on the importance of a liberal arts education is highly dependent on my background.
E: This is where my Googling tactic helped! I searched for pictures and examples of activism, which then I could show exhibits to enhance my argument.
A: In my argument came at the end, I use sources which display inequality, and my school’s values. These represent my two topics, inequality and liberal arts, which converse between each other and combine to present my idea.
M: My writing came in the form of a blog! (duh) But I am no blogger, and still a novice. So I started my process of writing by looking at famous bloggers or sports websites. I copied their methods so my blog looked like a blog.

So What?!

So what insights have I made to my research style? First, I imitate. I look for similar writings and sources, and borough some of their techniques and styles. These may not be obvious since they don’t come in the form of citations or links. Second, my Google tactic may be fairly effective! The exhibits I presented worked well since I was able to search various links through my extended searching.

Research is an essential part of our lives, so why don’t you take the time to look back at how you do your research too?