Re-Re-Education

At my high school, there was not much diversity in terms of essays. I really only ever had to write two types, research and literature analysis. Don’t get me wrong, just because I only wrote two kinds of essays doesn’t mean I didn’t write A LOT of essays.

Anyway, as you would expect, I gained a lot of experience from writing the same two types of essays over, and over, and over, and over… I never really learned how to”think about” how to write a research essay, it just came to me through trial and error which started in middle school. In other words, I never thought about how to read something ‘rhetorically’ or ‘write to make a point,’ I just did it. It’s what I was reinforced throughout grade school. And since, in a way, literature analysis begs the same thought and questioning as rhetorical reading and research compilation, I only got more practice.

Therefore, I never had any issue writing research essays. In fact, I loved them. They were easy for me to think about critically and, at this point, I was already well trained at ‘reading in between the lines.’ So after reading Kantz’ article, “Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively,” I’m left to ask myself

Did I learn anything?

In short: yes, kind of. While I was already doing most things Kantz talked about subconsciously, it is useful to know what I am thinking about when I do it. It’s almost like meta-thought: thinking about my thoughts and what I’m thinking about. By being aware of what it is I am doing, as well as what it is students should do, I am able to explore more questions and grow as a researcher.

I especially liked the piece in the article where Kantz talks about the rhetorical triangle, and then continues to look at questions we should ask ourselves which involve two or more of the points of this triangle. For example: “‘What are you saying to help me with the problem you assume I have?'” and why do you assume I have it?

For the rest of my research, I will directly ask myself such questions involving the triangle to get a better grasp on what is being said, and why! (as well as what I can do with it)

A while ago, when I was searching for an article for my previous research, I didn’t realize I did it the ‘wrong way’ until way later. The whole purpose of getting articles (online) is to get more sources which provide an outside perspective to your subject.

Wanting just that, I was looking for a place to start, a very broad place. So broad, in fact, that I just ended up looking for it on Google. It wasn’t until I saw the video that I realized I should’ve found the source in a scholarly journal in some database. Maybe that’s just the way my brain is wired to think. When I want to find information, I will levitate towards Google rather than a scholarly database. I obviously have to fix that bad habit, but that is not to say what I found was bad.

What I found was a collection of articles about student life during the Cold War era at the University of Illinois. It is a part of their library website, and rather than providing an ‘over arching view’ it provides a ‘comparative view’ to which I can contrast or find similarities across different student bodies.

So while I didn’t necessarily encounter any blocks during that research, the video tutorial did help me to be aware of what to look at and how to look for it.

In this post, I will just be letting my thoughts go loose as I try to come up with a conclusion for an idea brought out in one of my research sources. The article by Michael Hemsch, “Communism vs. Democracy?”, was the one where he explores the idea of America imposing their views heavily onto countries that aren’t willing or ready to receive.  Additionally, he almost seems to give Communism credit, for getting so much done in so little time.

Source: Wikimedia

Source: Wikipedia

I think the reason I am drawn into this text is because, I really agree with him. What he wrote looks like something which could have been written after the whole conflict had settled and people were actually given time to think and reflect over everything. But for this to be written at the time of bomb threats and underlying terror is something beyond me. I am led with the questions:

• What this a popular view to have at the time?
• Was he biased toward Communism?

In all honesty, I can’t truly believe this view was too popular. This was written in the 60s, and while there did seem to be some social progress from the 50s edition, this just seemed too much. It’s too extreme in comparison with any of the other articles I was able to read from this artifact. That being said, I was cut short on time and never really got the option to fully explore this artifact, but still…

If there was this much progress within the span of 10 years, then I am very impressed. I would have to look for trends to see why this happened in such short time, or what was deterring it from being vocalized.

If Michael Hemsch is the anomaly I believe him to be, then I am even more curious as to who he is. Did he hold any leadership positions? How often did he contribute to the newspaper? What clubs was he in? Where is he from? In general, what was his impact on the campus?

These questions may be difficult to answer, but I know their answers will be very helpful in solidifying any ideas I currently have about my paper. Based off of what I find, I will either look into more trends, or read more and more into Hemsch and the likes of similar people, as well as what they did on campus.

Photo Source:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_America_19_10.svg

Reading Brandon’s blog post, “Wikipedia!!”, made me realize just how much I actually owe to and appreciate Wikipedia. In practice, Wikipedia is our human collective knowledge. Wikipedia is our crowd sourced communal hub for learning. I don’t know, it’s kind of cool to just reflect of that notion.

Anyway, I am glad to see the grade school system didn’t actually brainwash you to destroy your computer at any sight of the forsaken Wikipedia. I always used it behind my teachers’ back, they really can’t expect us not to (I was also way too mischievous for my own good).

Source: Pixabay (Geralt)

In  my defense, our generation works cooperatively, we are all inclined to learn through others, and in return, teach others. It just so happens that Wikipedia is the best platform for this. Don’t get me wrong, I knew to never use Wikipedia as a source, but for most research projects, it was (and still kind of is) the place where I start everything. It’s great.

You referenced one reason why I always use it. It provides very good background sources, which are nothing we ever have to really directly source. Last quarter I was given a project on the genocide in Guatemala (I know, I never heard of it either; but if you or anyone gets a chance, check it out. It’s crazy how something can go so unnoticed in modern education and mainstream). Going into the project I knew absolutely nothing about anything. So I typed “Guatemalan Genocide” and clicked the first Wikipedia link. After 15 minutes of reading, I felt like I could easily summarize the basics of what happened. Wikipedia makes me feel like a genius.

Source: Pixabay (Matamoros)

Additionally, Wikipedia almost serves as a directory for other sources. When you read something which catches your eye and you know you would like to do more research on it, you can click the annotated number at the end of the sentence and Wikipedia will tell you where exactly it was sourced from. I want to say, in general, at least 50% of my sources usually came from these directed links on Wikipedia. They range from primary sourced documents, to books, films, interviews, research, and the list goes on and on.

Maybe I am lazy, maybe there is a better and more quality way to do basic research, but from what my experience has shown me, I owe a lot of success to Wikipedia. And I personally think the same can be said for most in our generation. It’s the first and last place we look. I’m glad that we are learning other means of research, but I think we can all agree when I say that we will never leave Wikipedia

Photo Sources:

https://pixabay.com/en/community-friends-globe-continents-909149/

https://pixabay.com/en/monkey-intelligent-glasses-primate-607708/

In his article, “What Is It We Do When We Write Articles Like This One- and How Can We Get Students to Join Us?”, Michael Kleine reflects on what creates a good research procedure; he boils it down to a hunter-gatherer strategy, and applies it to several researchers in their respective disciplines.

Source: Wikimedia

When Kleine uses the term “hunter-gatherer”, however, he does not refer to the popular concept of primitive societal methods of providing food for the early humans. But still, he kinda does… In both contexts, a hunter searches, thinks critically, and applies them self to the environment. On the other hand, gatherers search, sift, collect, and filter out what may be bad. So, in research, we must tap into our hunters and gatherers to develop a purpose, find sources, and apply the right sources to the production of the end product. When stratified, the process is broken down into collection, sifting, trend-finding, and writing.

Applied to my current research project, everything has its place (as it should). The project calls for us to think about a topic and apply it in a contemporary or abstract sense. From there, we collect our sources in the archives, analyze them, and sift through what is needed and what is not, only keeping whatever is useful and necessary. From here we are to find a “trend” or a pattern which may still apply to modern or abstract, and then apply our findings and write it.

And as far as I can see, his process applies directly to me:

Much like the scientist, social-studies, and English writers he interviewed, my collection has to do with the literal collection of evidence and sources, rather than reflection on word choice and audience.

Since most of my sources will/are news paper archives, I have a lot to sift through. I only keep and read what is related to my subject to avoid wasting valuable time and clutter of “iffy” sources.

The trend I’m looking for is a trend in the social inclination of students. Were students as open-minded then as they are now? Have students always been open minded? Who exactly do students disagree against, and about what?

Lastly, the writing, where I will apply my trends to shed insight on the social inclinations of students, as well as what builds these inclination, and what starts them.

Photo Source:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kalina_hunter_gatherer.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YDYfByEPAY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YDYfByEPAY

One of my favorite archival artifacts that I discovered was an editorial post in the October 11, 1951 school newspaper titled “Boastful America”. In this article, the editor warns the students to act like good Christians, because if they don’t, then God will abandon them and the nation, allowing for Communism to take over.

This article had me thinking: would the students actually believe any of this? What environment did the students grow up in? What was it like for other schools at the time? What was the BIGGEST real threat to everyone in the nation? Linked above is a very interesting kid-friendly education video which was likely shown in schools across the nation. In short, this videos teaches children (and everyone else really) what protocols to follow to protect themselves against nuclear attacks. I know, its daunting.

This video, however, may answer some of my questions. Since this video is from the same year as the artifact, we can see how exactly tensions were. And well, knowing that they felt obligated to show children how to survive a nuclear bomb, I can see that nuclear war threat was inescapable. Likely, everyone lived day to day in fear of a surprise nuclear attack. If the students at Santa Clara were exposed to such threats from a very young age, it would be easy to see why those fears would remain very strong as they grew into being young adults.

Therefore, I do believe that, at least for some, students did buy into the “Boastful America” propaganda. It took advantage of their childhood fears and brought them into reality. So, if they wanted to avoid nuclear annihilation, they would have no issue with “being a better Christian” and making sure that the Reds do not win at any cost.

Now, with no real segue, I would like to comment of Leslie’s blog post “Coaches… they’re just like us!”. Your research topic on college sports scandals is very interesting. We had a unit on just that in one of my classes senior year of high school. It’s crazy just how much money these upper division sports actually make, despite them being “non-profit”. From decked out private gyms to decked out coaches’ cars, the people running this industry has it all. The same can’t be said for the athletes however…

While I haven’t heard of any of the coaches you talked about, I have heard of similar scandals. A major and ubiquitous one is where coaches manage to fit students into these “special” classes. In these classes, they “teach”things like Swahili to the students. The difference is, they don’t really make an effort to teach. Classes like these are getting exposed for serving as a GPA boost, as mostly athletes are enrolled in these and everyone comes out passing with flying colors.

It looks like the coaches learned how to save themselves the $50,000 fine and assure that they never need to ask a professor to change a grade. Granted, $50,000 might as well be pocket change for some of the bigger NCAA coaches.

I recommend you watch the Last Week Tonight episode where John Oliver talks about NCAA sports scandals, as well as the horrible environment big-school student athletes have to live in. In short, stuff really hasn’t changed. Well, it has, but it has only gotten worse. You said it best, because in the end of the day, everyone wants, “fame, success, money.”

Earlier I had laid out my plans and notes-to-self on how I would approach my first day of archival research. In hindsight, I would say I started off on a good foot. I did not find everything I was hoping for. For example, I couldn’t find much American Cold War propaganda art, and the propaganda which I did find was very nuanced and hard to pin-point. That being said, I found a lot of new information which did work toward my subject… so my approach didn’t let me down.

To start, off, I was expecting the archives to look something like this (for some weird reason):

Source: Wikimedia.org

But it didn’t. It was a comfortable room with artifacts on bookshelves and in the neighboring room. We had our introduction and then it was time to dig in. The first thing I did whenever I began to read a new source was to make note of what it is, what it is called, and provide a brief description. I have already seen good come out from this, since I plan to revisit an artifact which I would have otherwise not been able to find again.

• As a side note: I also took pictures of everything that I read, so I could revisit them later without having to leave my desk.

When it came to branching out from my used sources, I did it in more of a stream of continuity. I was working with school newspapers, and so to “branch out” I decided to look through the contents of the entire artifact and to read later publications of the newspaper to get a better sense of context. Again, this was a very good choice, as I not only better understood what I was reading, but I found even more evidence to support my topic.

For finding trends: I couldn’t find much about a “wave of similar inspired [propaganda] pieces” which I spoke about last time. Instead I found a trend where, with time, the newspaper seemed to get much more direct about discussing communism and global politics. This could have been attributed to a new student body, a new newspaper board, etc. I’m still trying to figure that part out.

Finally, background research. Well… I still have to do that part. I have a few names of a few authors, but I do not know who they are or what they did. And this leads me into a new step I took upon myself mid-research: write down what you still don’t know and what you want to know. By doing this, I now have an organized list of what to research (and why I’m researching it), as well as the list of sources I know I can immediately refer to to answer such questions.

Here are some examples of some of the questions I wrote:

• “Who was the editor for this year?”
• “Who is this author?”
• “Is this art supposed to be anonymous?”
• “Given that contrary ideas were few and far between, does that mean it was not popular though?”
• “Is this editor the same as the other editor?”
• “Does the change is student body have anything to do with it?”

Since I am still far from being done, I still cannot say if my approach was actually foolproof or not. However, I do think I was set in the right direction, so for the time being, I am going to say this approach is all alright.

Photo Sources:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archives_nationales_(Paris)_Grands_d%C3%A9p%C3%B4ts_(salle_de_l%27Armoire_de_fer).png

Ever since learning about them in high school World History, I’ve been eager to apply The Red Scares into examples for my essays, or use them to derive prompts/ideas for other essays. I don’t know what it is about The Red Scares that has always kept my interest. Maybe I like reading about the corruption of those fighting the Reds, or maybe it has to do with the fact that an ‘underdog’ country was able to cause so much fear with a neutral ideology. It might even be a bit of both, and how the United States was able to blow things way out of proportion. (I mean, just look at this propaganda piece.)

Source: wikimedia.org

So carrying on the theme, my initial research question is something along the lines of: How did Santa Clara University react/partake in the Red Scare, and how did the student body differ from the executive board? I am interested to see if the school newspaper published any propaganda of their own, or if there were any protocols for invasion in any handbooks. On top of this, I would like to see how the school was oriented socially and politically at the time. Were they afraid of the Communists like the rest of the nation, or was the school more rational and progressive in thought?

Already having formed a question, and having already thought about what I want to find, I have already done one of the most important steps, according to Lynée Lewis Gaillet in “Archival Survival”. After reading further into her chapter, I made note of things to do/pay attention to, which include:

• Describe, categorize, and give a brief summary for the sources I look at/wish to use, in case I cannot find them again, or forget what they were, knowing they might have a lot of potential information. I plan to make note of each source used, since almost everything has potential.
• Branch out from my used sources in order to not only get a better sense of time, but to expand context and possibly use contextual sources as elaboration or source for my topic.
  • Use context to see if a source is truly viable and significant.
• If, say there was one propaganda piece in a schools newspaper, see if that piece started a wave of similar inspired piece and see what gave it such influence.
• Background background background. I don’t want to embarrass myself. I have to know my sources are credible given the context.

And most importantly, I must enter my research with the intention to “tell a story” and not just research for a project. By actually becoming invested in the “story”, research won’t be tedious and annoying, but a personal pursuit to revive a piece of history. The whole point of the story is to use it’s substance to unravel information which would have otherwise gone unnoticed by me, the story-teller.

I’ll see how this approach works for me, and then I’ll probably come back here and give me feedback. Until then, be sure to get 8 hours of sleep each night!

Photo Sources:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Is_this_tomorrow.jpg

Ah! Sorry there was a delay on this blog, I had accidentally read the syllabus wrong and not only read the wrong article, but did the wrong work too >:(.

Anyway… I have an assignment for my philosophy class coming up soon. It’s a two quarter class, and so far we have learned about human nature, the “definition” of death, the “goodness/badness” of death, the desirability of immortality, bereavement, and now, we are learning about arguments for and against the possibility of immortality and/or the afterlife. I know, cool stuff.

However, my assignment is an essay. An essay where I have to attack, defend, or create my own argument for the possibility of immortality/afterlife. Once I take an original position to write about, I must create my own original arguments and premises. This seems daunting as is, but on top of that, I have to make sure that my argument and points are philosophically-sane and reasonable. Yikes.

Source: Pixabay (Geralt)

Now how will I plan to start approaching this essay and write it? Well I can’t use outside sources, since our arguments have to be our own original reflection. But just because I can’t quote/use outside sources doesn’t mean I can’t use them for background in BEAM. By this I mean that I intend to research the writings of other philosophers who have further developed the positions which have only been introduced to us at a surface level. I find that the best way to develop my own argument is to analyze other arguments and further develop those.

As I said earlier though, a lot of my essay development is mental, long, and passive. To paraphrase my other words: I tend to dig ideas into the back of my mind and let them resonate throughout the days. I let my mind drift on the idea I want to explore when I’m laying in bed, taking breaks from homework, at the gym, meditating, if I ever get bored in class, etc. It’s nothing I do directly, but something which just happens. If I create an idea I like, I make note of it on paper or on my phone, With these ideas, I further develop them, apply them to our in-class arguments, and build more ideas off of their foundation. Once I get all of this, I map everything out and the easy part comes: writing.

Honestly, before I wrote this post, I was stressing about how I would approach this essay. However, this helped me to solidify and feel more confident about my plan and organization. This isn’t the first essay I’ve written of this type, but they’re definitely not my favorite. In my new plan, I am combining my previous and similar methodologies to hopefully find what works best. Let’s see how this goes.

Photo Sources:

https://pixabay.com/en/stress-man-hand-flame-burn-fire-543658/

When I first began reading this article (?), I didn’t know what it was going to explore. Blame it on my inability to recognize the short summary at the start of the article, or the break from when I last learned how to read articles which help to build one’s writing. Either way, I really didn’t understand what was going on until at least half way through the article, when Bizup ( an Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University) began to give examples of BEAM and its implications.

Reflecting on my own research process, it is both similar and dissimilar to the one which BEAM promotes. Personally, when I get a prompt, I take a few hours to just reflect on its subjects. Usually, I search for a subject which I can personally connect with or reflect on. I need something which can easily catch my own interest and keep it. Within this time, I usually will or will not do preliminary research to develop my thesis, it all depends on the prompt and subject at hand. From here I build my thesis and begin my research. I usually don’t care which kind of sources I pick, since I usually aim for a good diversity regardless of the requirement’s bare minimum. Then everything becomes kind of fluid; if I find sources which go against my thesis, I will change my thesis while taking note of what the source was, where it was, and it’s summary. If the sources I find contribute to my thesis, then I become happy and continue to research and take notes. In the end I compile the sources and write the assignment, just like most others. I wouldn’t call my process “sloppy” or “in the moment” since I usually mentally track what I’m doing and I tend to use topics which allow me to passively think and expand on them for hours.

BEAM, however, introduces a new lens to how I view my sources. Where I would usually just pick sources to display the scene or environment , and then find sources to support my claims, BEAM shows that there also exists background and method sources which I have usually just skimmed past. Sources which fall under background and method would not only help me diversify my information, but also help to develop the backbone of my essays. By “backbone” I mean the information which the audience will read, understand, and branch off from when they go further into my writing. It serves as a buffer to not only help introduce my subject, but to act as a static piece of information which can be used for comparison and application.

So in a way, I was already half way to meeting the BEAM. That means I’m only half way to further improving my research, reading, and writing.