Monthly Archives: August 2012

Research: Conceptualizing a Dissertation

In my past few posts I have hinted at my next major research project. I’m still about a nine months to a year away from starting the dissertation, but I’ve been playing with a lot of ideas and starting to brainstorming themes. Last semester I took two research seminars and began some preliminary research. One of those papers was fairly successful and is the basis for my MPCA conference paper. The other didn’t turn out so well (mostly because I couldn’t get my hands on the right sources in the limited time) but helped me become more familiar with the basic narrative I want to work with.

Anyways, the general topic for both of them was Glenn S. “Pop” Warner. I envision some sort of a thematic biography that covers different stages of his life for my dissertation. The more I ponder the topic, the more I like it, but I am a bit concerned about finding enough sources since there is no central archive with all of his papers. Length is also one of my fears, but I still have time to track stuff down.

It’s difficult to characterize Warner. Unlike other coaches and figures from his era, he wasn’t particularly religious nor a reformer. He didn’t have a flamboyant personality and star-power. He was unique but not particularly extraordinary. He grew up in New York, but spent a year or two in Texas between high school and college tin smithing and gambling. His family wasn’t well off, but were prosperous. Warner’s Dad loaned him money to get started at Cornell but after that he worked his way through. He was introduced to sports at Cornell and started coaching as a second job. At one point he coached three colleges at the same time. His coaching career spanned forty-four years (1895-1939), ten colleges, and 300+ victories.

So why Warner? A diss. on Warner builds off of my previous work on Native Americans because he coached Jim Thorpe at Carlisle (who features prominently in my MA thesis). At the same time, Warner’s career provides the opportunity to branch out into other areas. He’s also super interesting to me (not to mention there are no biographies of him that I can find). Unlike other coaches during his era, he frequently changed jobs and moved across the country. He was a football innovator creating new offensives schemes and equipment. Likewise, he published books, wrote newspaper and magazine columns, and held coaching clinics. Warner was among the first professional football coaches and athletic directors. His team played in the first college football game broadcast on the radio. He moved West in 1924 and argued his Stanford teams were every bit as good as the traditional Eastern and Midwestern powers. ​

I fancy myself something of social-cultural historian. I like to connect cultural things such as coaches, sports, and pulp magazine stories to larger trends and ‘structures’ in U.S. society. Things like the Progressive Era, the rise of the Organization Man, and the bureaucratization of America. My goal is to do this with him. Warner came of age in the 1890s as a law student at Cornell. He was on the ground level of developing college athletics as we know them. He was a product of the Progressive Era but I wouldn’t label him a Progressive. He, at least superficially, bought into the Carlisle project and amateurism, but also saw opportunity in sport($$). That he chose coaching over practicing law is one indication of this. There are indications in various sources that he guided many of his athletes to careers in sports too, both as coaches and in professional leagues. Like A.A. Stagg he helped build the athletic department and shaped college athletics through his service on rules committees and his commentary in the press. I’m not convinced, however, that he echoed Stagg’s pious view of sports. He was somewhere in the middle. He made tons of money, moved from school to school, had remarkable success but was never quite the cult figure of Rockne. To my knowledge he didn’t have endorsement deals nor a big personality. You could argue that Warner’s legacy is larger though. His name is synonymous with the world of organized youth sports.

As you can see, Pop Warner is a complex figure but he’s most frequently been characterized by his masculine paternalism and link to Jim Thorpe. A thematic biography would allow me to move beyond that. I imagine chapters focusing on these topics in the various contexts of his career: race (Native Americans), the development of football, coaches and the media, the movement from a regional to national game (regionalism), and Warner’s own anxiety about the evolution of sports into a big time business (the topic of my MPCA conference paper), and his association with Pop Warner Youth Football. The biography will be both the story of Warner’s career and the development of football which are jointly a part of the rise of modern America and its cultural institutions. Part of my goal is to tie him to A.A. Stagg and try to get beyond the standard Knute Rockne narratives of football in the 1920s and 30s. I’ve got some ideas on how to do that and complicate it, but I need to keep thinking and exploring sources. Things like connecting him to the rise of radio, pulp magazines and newspaper, human interest journalism, the influence of athletic conferences, westward migration, and the history of higher education. That’s about all I’ve got at this point, no real over arching argument, but some good themes and ideas to get started digging.

Right now my weakness is that I don’t have a lot of sources identified and have had trouble tracking him down in archives. I know Warner is prevalent in the President’s paper at Stanford. I know there is some stuff on him at Carlisle. I’ve found most of his magazine articles and quite a few of his newspaper pieces… but I need to find more. I need to look deeper into the archives at all the places he coached (Georgia, Iowa State, Cornell, Carlisle, Pittsburgh, Standford Temple, and San Jose State). I also need to figure out ways to link him to national events and larger culture. This part of the reason why I am reading about college football this semester. Getting my head around the national narratives and history of the game will better help me place him and see how unique my ideas are. Likewise, as I mentioned in my last post, my autobiography class will help me better make use of his own writings.

So there it is. That’s what I’m working with and thinking about. I need to be cognizant of my sources and let them build an argument for me instead of overlaying my preconceived ideas. I also need to make sure I remains critical. It’s easy for people in sports history to delve into hero-worship and write histories of things from a “oh that’s neat” nostalgic perspective. I really think studying Warner’s life will add something to the history of sports and our understanding of American life, but I haven’t found exactly what, yet. Finding that along with a solid source base will be the key to convincing my major advisor its a worthwhile endeavor and to my success. As always, I welcome any ideas, suggestions, and criticism. I’ve got a long ways to go and no central argument, but some pretty exciting stuff to explore.

“we’ve got the vision, now lets have some fun”

Classes on Purdue’s West Lafayette campus began on Monday. There were a few snafus on campus. Word is that the power went out in several buildings. I avoided the chaos of the first day by staying at home and taking a nap. My semester began on Tuesday with TA duties and a graduate seminar. On Wednesday my other class met, and I must admit that I’m excited for what lies ahead. The last few weeks were a little frustrating for me. As I’ve written about before, I’ve been trying to pull together my third field and schedule one more class. After today, I can happily report that I have done both.

This morning I met with the director of Purdue’s “Center for Digitalization.” It was a good meeting. Following the meeting I tweeted as much:

Of course, it’s not exactly the same as me. Purdue definitely has the resources and the connections to do a lot more, but they seem to be exploring options. We’re a member of several cool things like HATHiTrust, which allows us to get training from them and have special access to do different types of non-public data searches in their collections. They’re playing around with different technologies and software. We have a digitization lab with all the scanners and stuff. They’re hiring a new GIS person. And lots more cool things I can’t remember.

The problem is that they’re also sort of disorganized, or at least not all that connected. Purdue is mostly a science school, so we do a lot of digital stuff for them. We’re a tech school, so we have all that stuff too. But he mentioned that the humanities folks have been slow to come on board (shocking, I know!). But the humanities folks also use digital tech differently, unlike science, we’re not about data/experiment validation. Instead use it many different ways. We’ve had a few people do some cool stuff. An anthropology professor has mapped out some of his archeological digs and paired them with photographs of his finds. A communications professor developed a method to visualize “mental maps” using GIS and 3D imaging (I don’t even know how, but it seems super cool). Of course,  the library and archives has also worked on digitalizing some collections and creating a few online exhibits, too. So stuff is being done, but its diverse and disconnected. The Digitalization Center provides support, but didn’t seem like it was quite a hub.

For me, this news is mostly good. It means we have what I am looking for, and, after a 30 minute chat, I’ve identified someone who can help me. The tentative plan is for me to do an individual readings in the spring for my prelims (and probably take a New Media class  from the Comp/Rhet folks). After that, I want to stay active and hopefully develop a project so I can build my portfolio. He also mentioned that they sometimes have funding for TA/RAs. While I’m not concerned about that now, most students take longer than the guaranteed 4 years to finish their degree so long range it could be nice. Overall, I came away very excited and much more relaxed about everything.

As for my third class, coming into the semester I hoped to either take a class in DH or in Native American history, but for one reason or another neither is going to happen. Instead, because I’m required to take 3 classes and our course offerings are pretty limited, I’ll be doing an independent study with my major professor. Our readings will focus on college football but we may mix in other stuff depending on how much other stuff he thinks I need for my prelims. I’m excited about the football topic because it will give me a great head start on building a context for my dissertation. He also hinted that he might have me help him a bit on his book, which is about college football.

Every semester my goal is to make longterm progress. Planning out my next semester was a really important to me. My two seminars checking the last of my required classes before prelims. These seminars also directly related to my teaching and research. One of them is over the U.S. and the World. It’ll help me on my exams and broaden my understanding of U.S. history for when I start teaching. The other seminar is on Autobiography and Memoir. While it is framed around European history, it’ll be as much a methods and source criticism as a reading seminar. This will be really useful for me because the professor is giving us leeway to bring in our own work and one of the major source bases for my proposed dissertation topic is autobiographical (ghost written) magazine articles. Learning about the different methods, approaches, and issues involved in using them will greatly enhance my project.

Beyond the day-to-day life of classes and TA work, I’m taking the show on the road and presenting at two professional conferences this fall. In September I have Film & History in Milwaukee, WI. My paper is entitled “Avoiding the Hollywood Indian: Billy Mills and the Creation of Running Brave.” It builds off my MA thesis research and talks about Mills’ role in the creation of the film about his life. My other presentation is a month later at the Midwest Popular Cultural Associationin Columbus, OH. I’ll be testing new ideas based on more recent research there. Im trimming down a paper I did last spring about football coaches Pop Warner, A.A. Stagg, and Knute Rockne and their anxieties about big-time sports. I gave it a rather clumsy title — “1920s Football Coaches, Reluctance, and the Rise of Modern America” — but it’s mostly a work-in-progress at this point anyway. I’d like to eventually turn it into some sort of article.

There’s lots to keep me busy for the next few months. As MGMT reminds us, “yeah, it’s overwhelming, but what else can we do? Get jobs in offices and wake up for the morning commute?” No thanks.

One final programming note: I promise not to neglect this space. Keep an eye out for a future posts about my vaguely alluded to dissertation topic. I’m also planning on sharing some of my book reviews and doing more pieces similar to the ones I posted before MOOCMOOC invaded my life.

“I have my freedom but I don’t have much time”

Well, MOOCMOOC is over and Brutus is rejoicing. A new semester is on the horizon, too. I’ve spent the last few days in meetings, at welcome events, and (re)connecting with colleagues. And, amidst these meetings, social events, and the excitement/energy for a new (school) year, was last night’s MOOCMOOC Google Hangout. The hangout fit nicely with the energy and the theme of (re)connecting, but it also symbolized the end to a crazy week. It was bittersweet.

If you’ve read the blog this week, you know that, for me, MOOCMOOC was mostly a time of learning and reflection. It was also a time of networking. I feel like my Storify provides a nice overview of the week, but it fails to offer much of a ‘final’ reflection. Pete Rorabaugh, one of our learning leaders, provided a nice prompt for some final thoughts in a tweet on Thursday night:

My first thought, is why do we need to counter this claim? I don’t remember who told me this, I think it was one of my undergraduate advisors, but every good class (at least in history) is based on a thesis statement and argument. Us historians readily admit that there is no ‘truth.’ Everyone has multiple perspectives. And so when you are designing a class, a lecture, an assignment, you’re really taking a position. For example, if I were teaching a class on Sports in American History, I might take the position that sports reflect and offer insights into American life/history. Sure, this is a pretty easy to position for most of us to buy, but its not a cold hard fact. There are many situations where sports does not reflect American life/history.

So with this idea of each class taking a position and having a thesis statement, Pete’s tweet becomes more interesting. In some ways, it seems to be revealing his uncertainty about if the class accomplished what “some” thought it would. This suggests that he, perhaps, felt unsuccessful in keeping the focus on MOOCs and online education. Now I don’t want to read too much into the question or put words in Pete’s mouth, but you get the feeling from this question that he wanted us to ponder if we really missed the whole point of the class (MOOCs) and focused on other things, such as pedagogy and digital tools. Was the class really about MOOCs?

My answer, as I stated above, is I don’t really think it matters, at least not to the students. I do, however, think asking the question is important. It’s like when you write a paper, you have a thesis and sources materials, an outline and plan, but then you get to the end. After you read the paper, you think “did I really argue that?” The information and the tools were there to argue different things, but perhaps your interpretation or perspective shifted. You were all set to argue that Ronald Reagan was the worst President ever, but then you kept hedging yourself (he wasn’t impeached like Andrew Johnson, he capitalized on the Silent Majority, he ended the Cold War), until you realize he actually did some OK stuff and motivated an entire new generation of people (for good or for ill). I feel like MOOCMOOC was like that, for me and probably for Pete, and others.

We started out wanting to talk about MOOCs, but from the get go the conversation was pedagogical. We engaged (lightly) in the debate about cMOOCs and xMOOCs during our first activity. From there, we all tended to embrace a lot of the connectivist stuff. This included collaboration, technology, digital tools, and further engaged thoughts on assessment and teacher-centered versus student-centered instruction. Some might say the MOOC was the hook. By starting out with the MOOC debate those of us for and against them were drawn in. Once we were in we became active and were gently prodded towards experimentation and reflection about what MOOCs (and online education in general). Although for the most part we avoided criticizing online teaching, we did admit that it is flawed and looked for ways to improve it. Because most of us do not teach online, however, it then became as much about improving online courses and MOOCs as our own on-the-ground courses. The hybrid pedagogy piece was fully embraced. Certainly some of this was because of the views/experiences of our “leaders” and the readings/resources they chose to provide.

In the end, MOOCMOOC took a stance and a position. It used MOOCs and technology as a hook, but mostly talked about the lessons and skills that we can learn from MOOCs as well as those we can use to improve them (and our own classes). This was MOOCMOOC’s thesis statement and conclusion, many of us bought it. I did.

It taught me a lot about teaching and technology. I was given the opportunity (and support) to design my own course. I networked with lots of people who seem generally interested in helping me as I look to develop my digital skills and apply them to my own discipline, both in research and teaching. The focus on networking an relationships was really forged throughout the week in our activities, and isa  large part why I think most people bought the MOOCMOOC argument. We made connections, shared insights, and reinforced the ideas through our own experiences and knowledge.

And now, MOOCMOOC is over. We’re all free, but with school and other commitments racheting up, we don’t have much time. There has been lots of talk about what’s next. Will there be a post-MOOCMOOC hashtag to continue the conversation on Twitter? In the Google Hangout, Jesse Stommel mentioned the initial idea was to kill off  (deactivate) the MOOCMOOC account. If that’s the case, I suggest we hearken the words of Mick Jagger; “Let’s do some living after we die.” I know I hope to stay in touch and continue to learn from, and with, as many of you as I can, because “You know I can’t let you slide through my hands, Wild horses, couldn’t drag me away.”

Digital Humanities is like Herding Cats

What is/are the Digital Humanities? What are you interests in them? What skills do you need to do them? What is the best way to acquire those skills?

I’ve been wrestling with the questions at the top of this post a lot lately. Some background: I’m a doctoral student in history at Purdue trying to develop a minor field in DH. I’ve got experience in public history working in archives and doing some related activities. I also studied it a bit too (I did one of my field exams in public history for my MA). Along the way I’ve been introduced to some DH stuff. I had grand ambitions for a Sports History Sourcebook website (which has sat fairly stagnant for the past 2 years) and I did some hybrid DH-GIS work as an undergrad.

Now that I am at Purdue, I am looking to explore it more and try to learn skills and concepts that will help me do DH projects as well as teach students about it. My approach to DH has to applications: 1. I see it as an extension of my public history work (and I see my PH work as an extension of my teaching) 2. I see DH as a way to give students new, real-world, marketable skills that compliment and extend the more traditional critical thinking, research, and writing skills develop in my discipline.

Public history and DH really build off of my philosophy of history and teaching, which engages students in critical thinking of the people and places around them. History is a disciple of curiosity. My goal is to relate complex ideas to personal and sometimes local things to best engage students. I often describe my research as using familiar characters to tell unfamiliar stories. I see sports history as one way, but also local and micro history too. Thus, for me, public history is both a teaching tool and a presentation venue. I view DH, in many ways, as just a subsect of that.

DH offers new ways to present things to a variety of audiences. Many would argue it does much more than that, too. It also offers new ways to organize information and think about things (often simultaneously). There are new ways to collect data as well. So what is digital humanities? It is a bunch of tools that brings new media and technology together with traditional disciplines such as history and English? Further, what are digital humanities? Do we include everything from text mining, 3D imaging, and huge databases to online museum exhibits and archives, videos and podcasts? Where does online teaching fit in (both MOOCs and the smaller, more traditional for credit classes)? Surely the spatial humanities and GIS belong, but so do tools like Zotero and Omeka.

After we think about what they are (note: I framed my definitions as questions), it’s intimidating to think about all the skills you need to do/use them. I’ve heard some people say it just depends on what you are doing and what your goals are. Some of my colleagues question the needs to do a minor field in it suggesting that its something I could just “pick up” and develop on my own once I’m done with my Ph.D. To some extent, I understand their points. I also tend to think they are short sighted. I believe a field is necessary to, as my grad. director says, “legitimizes” what I am doing (don’t get my started on ‘credentialization’ and the need for ‘legitimacy’). I also think doing it now, not later, will help position me for the future, both in terms of jobs and in thinking of new ways to teach and apply history. I’m not interested in it solely for marketing myself, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that this aspect does provide some motivation.

So what skills do I need and where do I get them? I’ve been wrestling with this for the past year. At Purdue I am basically trying to pave the way for myself, and future students in my department. Our grad director likes the idea of me inventorying the institutional resources out there. At the same time, I need/want to take prelim exams at the end of this year and I’m still searching for mentors and coursework. Time is of the essence. At this point, I may be too focused on the where than the what, so lets go back to the skills.

I’m a historian first and foremost. I do research, I write, I present, and I teach. Most historians know how to use computers (although I’ve had some luddite advisers). Critical thinking, research, synthesis, and communication are the basic skills of doing history. But what digital skills do I need to complement them for DH? Should DH-ers also be programmers? I’ve seen this debate in several different places. I’m not convinced that we do, but I think eventually I’ll want to learn more about it and maybe pick up a programing language like HTML or XML.  I just don’t necessarily think that it is an overarching requirement. I do think there may be specific programs and applications that are essential to doing DH work, but I don’t know what they are. I imagine this includes things like Flash, Dreamweaver, ArcMap, InDesign, and Omeka, but again, I’m not really sure.

This is where I am. I feel like I know a lot about what is out there and some of the debates, but I’m failing to find/connect with people at Purdue who can help me navigate. The few I have found are usually excited about it, but can’t offer much advice or instruction on how to proceed. So far, I haven’t been able to nail down any coursework or people willing to offer an independent study. Instead, I’m still searching and rethinking my interests and how to best articulate them because that’s the first question people ask.

This has caused me to do a lot of reflecting about myself as a historian and teacher. Thinking about my interests and uses of technology as well as my goals for the future. It’s healthy reflection. I believe that grad school is a good time to set a foundation and shape that future. Asking questions and finding answers (and then talk about and analyzing those answers) is our grind. We learn about theories that shape our approach, we’re drilled on historiography that lays the foundation for our teaching, and, in the end, we’re basically taught how to write a book. But we also collect and acquire tools too, however, they’re usually decided for us. DH seems to lack the same structure and rigidity of traditional disciplines. This is probably a good thing as it allows for creativity and variety, but it sure makes it hard to nail down.

MOOCMOOC Reflection Photo Assignment

ImageThis is my reflection photo about my experience in MOOCMOOC so far for Valerie’s Partipant Pedagogy lesson. 

My items are: binoculars, a key, a harddrive, and the book, The Travels of Marco Polo. I chose these items to represent my travels and discoveries related to technology and information, teaching and learning, and the keys to being a better educator.

Participant Pedagogy: Rethinking My Courses

The easiest way for me to think about some of the issues in participant pedagogy and how they might work in my classroom, is to first actually think about my classroom. For the past year I have TAed an upper-level, 200 person lecture course on the Second World War. In this course my adviser delivers lectures twice a week and the students read three books (one per test). Attendance is not required, but strongly encouraged  Note: we do not use a textbook, instead the books are either novels or monographs, so you’ll miss essential content if you miss class. It’s pretty much your standard old school approach to teaching. My job generally entails clicking through his powerpoint shows (which I think a for TA made for him) and grading tests. The tests are generally based of of ID terms. We usually have identify 5-7 terms and then write an essay (that blends ID terms and the books). My adviser delivers 90% of the content in his lectures — which are really good and very engaging. Our class does have a Blackboard companion, but it mostly just a forum for announcements.

Since I’ve been aboard as his go-to TA, we’ve added ID lists to the course. The first semester we just posted them in class on the doc-cam. If I student missed class, they had to get them from a peer. We set up a peer-to-peer exchange forum on Blackboard, but never gave the terms to anyone ourselves. Poor classroom technology intervened the second semester, forcing us to post them on Blackboard a day or two after class. My adviser was reluctant at first, but caved. As you might imagine, the grade dramatically improved.

So in my class, participant pedagogy is essentially nonexistent. Because it is fairly comparable to some MOOCs (massive size class, no attendance policy, blackboard component), I think it is valuable to think about how to mix in some participant pedagogies while working within my limitations.* Before I begin, I’ll try to note what I think those limits are: 1. lecture style must stay (b/c of the TA-adviser setting) 2. scheduling and TA workload prevent discussion sections 3. the course is a part of a grades-credit-degree system.

*I’m sure there may be some debate about these limitations, and I welcome them. Right now, however, my approach is thinking about making adaptation that I could potentially use this semester.

So what to do? My first few thoughts were about the ID terms and class notes. I feel like we could open up more dialogue and let students take their learning/evaluation more into their hands if, instead of giving them the terms, they wrote their own lists and posted them to Blackboard a day or two after class. Then once online, as part of the notes exchange, they can narrow them down and present to us a complete list a week prior to the test. Thus, the students are still required to come to class and learn, but instead of being passive receivers they are reflecting on the material as they actively decide and participate in the process of choosing what they’ll be evaluated on. A relationship is established.

Seems pretty simple. And I know my focus is more on the test than the actual ‘learning’ but I think it’s a good beginning place for experimentation. By having student tell us what they think is important about the class, we can shape the class in new ways and perhaps spend more/less time on certain topics. Because of the setting and the culturel of my department and disciple (history), it’s still hard for me to get out of the traditional knowledge-deliverer mindset. Historians pride themselves in being experts. Denying this, in some ways, seems to undermine our critical-training. Yet, no one likes to be told what matters and why. People like to form their own interpretations and opinions. At the end of the day, I think it’s our role as teachers to help put them in setting and given them the information for this process to happen. I hope my proposed tweaks begin to approach this goal.

To be sure, if I were to have my own classe, I’d be more open to other styles of peeragogy. For example, I like the idea of collaborative research for a research methods course. Something built on the idea gathering data and information that the group combines and analyzes. Whether it be in-class or online discussions, a forum of dialogue would allow students to select a topic and begin research. Once they’v begun, then they can continuously ask each other about what each document says (and not say), are there different interpretations, how does it fit in and contribute to an argument. Students can also bring in their varying secondary readings (historiographies) to the table and help situate the small scale project within a variety of current scholarly discussions. In this way, history is done as a group, but the ultimate final product (whether done individually or in groups) may still vary. It’s primary source research meets the graduate seminar.

A few final thoughts: I hope I’ve engaged enough with the topic of hybrid or participant pedagogy. Most of my discussion here has focused on more traditional courses and interests of mine, but I think the value in all of this, for me, is to see how I can adapt and shape my present situation with all the new information. It seems like most of the people in the articles gradually implemented their participant pedagogies. While technology does seem to be lacking in some of my thoughts, it doesn’t have to be absent. Tools of collaboration and sharing abound.

Video: In Search of Learning at Purdue University

This video is for Day 2 of MOOC MOOC (which I talked about in yesterday’s post). It’s my first time really doing something like this. I don’t think I really answered the question “Where does Learning Happen” but I at least tried to throw out ideas and possibilities.

As you can tell, I filmed my video while walking around Purdue. I went to new places and inside new buildings that I hadn’t visited before. I took a lot of video and pictures, and  couldn’t fit it all into the 3 minute time limit. Purdue is a big place with a lot of things happening. Learning takes places in every corner of campus. And, I guess you could say that today I learned in all of those corners myself.

The filming and editing was all done using my point-and-shoot digital camera and iMovie, so its not the best quality. This was my first time doing a project like this, so I also learned on the computer and online. Feel free to leave your feedback and ideas in the comments below.