Category: Teaching Module

by Liza Ann Bolitzer, Kean University

Learning Objectives

This teaching module aims to increase student’s ability to:

1. Employ historical thinking in exploring decision-making in qualitative research.
2. Identify ethical relationships between researchers and study participants, including changes to those relationships over time.
3. Engage in processes of content analysis within qualitative research.

Introduction

A common initial misconception for students learning about qualitative research in the social sciences is that there is one single correct way to conduct research. Students often begin their methods courses looking for specific instructions—use this model with this number of participants and these data collection methods—and are surprised to learn that qualitative research is an iterative process of decision-making with no clear right answers.[1] Students are, furthermore, unaware of the complex history of research methods and how the processes and goals of qualitative research continues to develop today, especially in terms of the relationship between researchers and participants.[2] A key objective of these courses is, therefore, to teach students how to make complex decisions within qualitative research, thereby positioning them, as novice researchers, to become the key instruments of their studies.[3] This teaching module aims to address this aim within an introductory doctoral course in qualitative research.

This teaching module draws on the epistemological approach of historical thinking that views the past through an empathetic lens. Historical thinking calls on us to see people and their actions as occurring within, at times, contradictory social currents, which yielded complex responses.[4] As Wineburg states, historical thinking “teaches us to go beyond our brief life, and to go beyond the fleeting moment in human history into which we’ve been born.”[5] Such a viewpoint, of making imperfect decisions within particular contexts, is also central to the work of qualitative researchers who are tasked with making complex ethical and methodical decisions within varied contexts.[6] The hope is that by learning to extend an empathetic lens to researchers within the content analysis of historical research documents, students will learn to extend the same grace to themselves as novice researchers; that they will learn to enact reflective and thoughtful research practices rather than search for correct answers.

This teaching module is designed for use in a master’s or doctoral introductory course on qualitative methods within a college of education. It could, however, be adapted for use in anthropology or sociology courses, which often include a focus on the history of those fields. It may also be adapted for other courses that employ a historical lens to teach about changes within and across disciplines over time. For example, interdisciplinary courses that include attention to development of forms of inquiry within and across disciplines. And lastly, it could be adapted to history courses that teach students to engage in historical research and include changes to those methods over time.  It is designed for either face-to-face instruction or online synchronous discussion, as both formats can facilitate the in-depth discussion necessary to processes of inquiry.[7] 

Summary of Activity

This teaching module leads students in analyzing artifacts of prominent researchers (e.g. letters, observational notes, analytic memos, interview transcripts, etc.) to develop students understanding of ethical decision-making in qualitative research.[8] After a brief pre-activity on the history of research traditions, students work individually and in groups to examine the research processes of a prominent researcher from the past: Margaret Mead, Ernest Burgess, W.E.B Du Bois, or Abraham Flexner. They will then draw from what they observe in the artifacts to explore decision-making in qualitative research and the relationship between researchers and study participants.

Materials:

The materials for this activity are collected on the following site: Teaching Qualitative Research Through Historical Thinking

Breakdown of Activity

Estimated Time: 2 Hours

Pre-Activity:  Situating Students

• Opening Exercise: Definition of terms.
  • Break students into small groups. Ask groups to define the following terms:
    • Culture
    • Social systems
• Present a mini lecture on anthropology and sociology as roots of contemporary qualitative inquiry in education. In this lecture, emphasize the shared goal of these disciplines—to better understand the forces that shape peoples’ lives, and the meanings people make of those forces—as well as their distinct aims. Draw from students’ definitions of culture and social systems, emphasizing how different forms of data collection, such as interviews, observations, surveys, and content analysis, were employed to study each.[9]

Part 1: Examining Primary Sources

• Divide students into 4 groups and assign each an early researcher.
  • Margaret Mead
  • Ernest Burgess
  • W.E.B Du Bois
  • Abraham Flexner
• Students look individually at materials for their assigned researchers.[10]
  • Students spend five minutes individually reviewing the range of materials under their assigned researcher. Each student then selects one item for their researcher which displays the research process in some way.
  •  Students complete a “Looking Form” for the piece that they chose.[11]
  • Students share the item they selected for their researcher with group members.
  • Instructor circulates, listening as students talk in groups or work individually. If needed, help students analyze the primary sources and answer questions about the researchers and the artifacts. Notes student comments and questions to draw from in the second part of the activity.

Part 2: Class Discussion 

• Discussion for Understanding: Instructor projects student responses to the Looking Form on the board and invites them to share their responses. Instructor writes a list of decisions the students observed in the artifacts on the board or a shared document, situating those decisions within the major stages of the research process (design, data collection, analysis, and presentation).
  • What are you seeing?
  • What are you wondering about?
  • What decisions do you see the researchers making?

Discussion for Research Practice: Instructor facilitates a whole class discussion of each researcher’s relationship to their participants using the following questions and mapping students’ responses on the board. At the end of the discussion, look at the board with the class, emphasizing what students were able to see—or not see—within the primary sources. Emphasize what they identify as ethical practices that they value in qualitative research.

• What do you notice about the researchers’ relationships with their participants?
  • What research practices do you see that you would want to apply in your work? Why?
  • What research practices would you not want to employ? Why?

• Closing Reflection: Five minute free-write. What did you learn today about doing qualitative research? What are you still wondering about?

Wrap-up/Transition

• Implications for Educational Research: Building on students’ responses, discuss points of agreement and disagreement in for educational researchers. How has the field changed over time? How has the development of reflective practices in research supported that growth?
  • Educational Research as a Field
    • (Often) located in schools of education
    • Educational researchers draw from multiple disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, and linguistics.
    • Educators as researchers, drawing from their professional practice
  • Draw from examples of how educational researchers have identified processes in education through qualitative studies of teaching and learning. Use, as examples, the identification of the following:  Culturally Relevant Pedagogy[12], Mathematical Investigation[13] and Pedagogical Content Knowledge[14].
• Standpoint: Introduce the concept of the researcher’s “standpoint,” often defined as the researcher’s prior, socio-culturally constructed knowledge and beliefs that they bring to the research process.[15]

Assessment Options

• Closing Reflection: Look at students’ closing reflections for evidence of:
  • Recognition of the role of decision-making.
  • Valuing ethical practices by researchers.
  • Recognition of the value of content analysis in the research process.  
  • Taking an empathetic view to researchers, including themselves.

• Instructor Reflection: Post-class, instructor reflects (memo, debriefs with a colleague, records a voice memo).
  • How did students respond?
  • Where did they need help?
  • Where did the discussion land, and land again?
  • What am I wondering about?

• Standpoint Paper (2-3 pages): A standard assignment in qualitative methods courses is for students to write a reflection paper on their standpoint in relation to a research topic. This assignment will direct students to reflect on the beliefs, knowledge and experiences (the “standpoint”) they bring to the research process and consider how they may positively engage that standpoint as researcher. [16]  To assess the impact of this activity, look for evidence in students’ standpoint paper of students exhibiting empowered, reflective decision-making. Look for evidence that they will engage in reflective practices as researchers, which have historically moved the practices of qualitative research forward. 

---

[1]Margaret LeCompte and Jean Schensul, Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research (AltaMira, 2010); Wendy Luttrell, Qualitative Educational Research (New York: Routledge, 2011).

[2] Charles King, Gods of the Upper Air: How a Circle of Renegade Anthropologists Reinvented Race, Sex, and Gender in the Twentieth Century (New York: Doubleday, 2019).

[3] William A. Firestone, Jill Alexa Perry, Andrew S. Leland, and Robin T. McKeon, “Teaching Research and Data Use in the Education Doctorate,” Journal of Research on Leadership Education 16, no. 1 (2021): 81-102.

[4] David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country – Revisited (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

[5] Sam Wineburg, “Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts,” The Phi Delta Kappan 80, no. 7 (1999): 488-499.

[6] Catherine Marshall and Gretchen B. Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research, 5th ed. (SAGE, 2011).

[7] Virginia Snowden Lee, Teaching and Learning through Inquiry: A Guidebook for Institutions and Instructors (Stylus, 2004).

[8] Liza Bolitzer, Engaging Historical Thinking in Teaching Qualitative Research Methods, https://sites.google.com/view/qual-historicalthinking/teaching-activity

[9] Liza Bolitzer, “Pre-Activity Slides,” Engaging Historical Thinking in Teaching Qualitative Research Methods, https://sites.google.com/view/qual-historicalthinking/teaching-activity. See also: Aaron Cooley, “Qualitative Research in Education: The Origins, Debates, and Politics of Creating Knowledge,” Educational Studies 49, no. 3 (2013): 247-62; Robert Bogdan and Sari Biklen, “Foundations of Qualitative Research in Education,” in Qualitative Educational Research: Readings in Reflexive Methodology and Transformative Practice, William Luttrell (ed.) (Routledge, 2010), 21-44; King, Gods of the Upper Air.

[10] Liza Bolitzer, “Materials,” Engaging Historical Thinking in Teaching Qualitative Research Methods, https://sites.google.com/view/qual-historicalthinking/materials

[11] Liza Bolitzer, “Looking Form,” Engaging Historical Thinking in Teaching Qualitative Research Methods, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r745kdCudVA9XjvpgLtpVs_xpmLf-P40/view

[12] Gloria Ladson-Billings, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Teachers College Press, 2021).

[13] Magdalene Lampert and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Teaching, Multimedia, and Mathematics: Investigations of Real Practice (Teachers College Press, 1998).

[14] Lee Shulman, “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching,” Educational Researcher 15, no. 2 (1986): 4-14. 10.3102/0013189X015002004; Lee Shulman, Teaching as Community Property: Essays on Higher Education. (Jossey-Bass, 2004).

[15] Marlene D. LeCompte and Jean J. Schensul, Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research (AltaMira Press, 2010); Alan Peshkin, “In Search of Subjectivity—One’s Own,” Educational Researcher 17, no. 7 (1988): 17-21.

[16] Peshkin, “In Search of Subjectivity.”

by Carrie Kortegast, Northern Illinois University 

Learning Objectives

Students will be able to:

• Identify elements of an organizational saga using primary sources
• Analyze the development of an organizational saga using the case study of Mount Holyoke College
• Reflect on how organizational sagas inform contemporary higher education practice
• Apply framework to their own undergraduate institution or workplace setting

Introduction

Organizational sagas focus on the “collective understandings of unique accomplishments in a formally established group.”[1] Organizational sagas in higher education can be powerful in understanding organizational culture, mission, and purpose. They are developed over time and used to connect individuals to the institution across generations. Higher education leaders can leverage organizational sagas to both understand institutional culture and to bind current students, faculty, administrators, and alumni together in supporting the institution.

This activity can be used to understand the history of women’s education in the U.S., rise of U.S. higher education in the nineteenth century, and historical underpinnings of the organization of U.S. higher education. The activity uses a case study approach to explore the organizational saga of Mount Holyoke College. Burton R. Clark’s foundational article “The Organizational Saga in Higher Education,” provides a useful framework for examining organizational sagas. The framework is divided into the initiation stage and the fulfillment stage of a saga. The initiation stage begins with a strong purpose, often introduced a small group. Next, the organization experiences a crisis that leads to testing if the established organization can weather change. The fulfillment stage is when there is a “unified sense of a special history” in which the imagery of the organizational saga is maintained and reified by faculty and administrators, curriculum and programmatic structures, external groups such as alumni, and current students.[2]

Founded by Mary Lyon, Mount Holyoke College (formally Mount Holyoke Seminary) was chartered in 1836 and opened in November 1837 with the first class of 80 students. Mary Lyon sought to establish an institution of higher education for women that adopted a “course of study and standards of mental discipline” similar to those afforded men at the time.[3] The case of Mount Holyoke is a useful example of how organizational sagas are created, sustained, and evolve to have contemporary relevance. This activity allows students to apply concepts from the organizational saga framework to analyze the organizational saga of Mount Holyoke using primary and secondary documents.[4]

Summary of Activity

The learning activity invites students to identify key concepts of the organizational saga and then use that framework to analyze primary and secondary source documents. This activity is designed for an in-person, 90-minute class. However, it could be modified as a synchronous or asynchronous online class activity. Also, the time allocated to this activity could be reduced by assigning aspects of the activity to different groups for review and presentation to the large group.  

Assigned Reading Ahead of Class

Burton R. Clark’s article, “The Organizational Saga in Higher Education,” should be assigned to students ahead of class to read independently.[5]

Materials

Primary and secondary sources can be located on the website, Exploring Organizational Sagas: A Case Study of Mount Holyoke.[6] The site is designed to guide students in identifying key concepts related to the organizational saga and provide examples for students to analyze. Main sections of the article are excerpted to help scaffold the reading of the article by breaking it into smaller sections. Please note that the site provides additional primary and secondary sources that students may explore on their own beyond this guided analysis.

90-Minute Activity

The following outlines the activity and provides framing for the use of primary sources.

Introduction of Article and Activity (5 minutes)

Instructor should provide a brief overview of the article and the concept of organizational sagas. Next, the instructor should summarize the activity and assign students to small groups.

Part 1: Development of the Saga (20 minutes)

Direct groups to review “Development of the Saga.”[7]

Primary source framing:

Institutions of higher education often tell the story of their founding on institutional websites. These institutional stories communicate messages about the institution, mission, and purpose. 

Activity directions:

1. Read the institutional story of the founding of Mount Holyoke Seminary[8]
2. In small groups, discuss elements of the organizational saga. Questions to facilitate discussion are on the website[9]
3. As class, discuss key concepts and students’ analysis of the primary source.

Part 2: Initiation of Saga (20 minutes)

Direct students to review “Initiation of Saga.”[10] 

Primary source framing:

In 1837, Mary Lyon published the pamphlet, “General View of the Principles and Design of the Mount Holyoke Female Seminary.” The circular outlined the mission, purpose, and design of Mount Holyoke. The second primary source is a letter dated January 16, 1837, from Bethiah A. Miller Nichols to her friend, Priscilla Maxwell, about Mary Lyon visiting the town of Heath, MA, to solicit support for the founding of the seminary. Bethiah went on to attend Mount Holyoke as one of the first students in the fall of 1837.

Activity directions:

1. Read the introduction and nine principles of design (pp. 1-5) in General View of the Principles and Design of the Mount Holyoke Female Seminary.[11]
2. Then read pages 1-3 of Bethiah’s letter to Pricilla regarding meeting Mary Lyon in Heath, MA.[12]
3. In small groups, discuss elements of the organizational saga. Questions to facilitate discussion are on the website.[13] 
4. As a class, discuss students’ analysis of the primary source.

Part 3: Fulfillment of Saga (25 minutes)

Direct students to review the information under “Fulfillment of Saga.”[14]

Primary source framing:

Institutional videos provide insights into how colleges and universities uphold organizational sagas over time. They often allude to images and values of the past with an eye to the future. The first video discusses the history of Mount Holyoke and provides an overview of academic and social life at the college. The second is a promotional video from 2023.

Activity:

1. As a class, watch:
   1. 1960 Campaign Video (10:39 minutes)[15]
   1. The Future is Mount Holyoke (1:26 minutes)[16]
2. As a class, discuss key concepts and students’ analysis of the videos. Questions to facilitate discussion are on the website.[17]

Part 4: Wrap Up (15 minutes)

            As a large group, reflect upon the key concepts related to the organizational saga and their application for practice. Sample reflection questions could include:

1. Why are organizational sagas so powerful?
2. How might offices and departments — such as admissions, development & fundraising, alumni affairs, student activities, and orientation — utilize and evoke these stories? Why?
3. What might be missing or untold in these organizational sagas? Why might that matter?
4. Many institutions of higher education have problematic histories related to their founding and/or admissions policies. How do we recognize their contributions to U.S. higher education AND acknowledge problematic aspects?
5. Clark’s article was published in 1972.[18] What concepts from the article are enduring? What sections might need to be updated?

Assessment options

            An in-class assessment option could ask students to apply the organizational saga framework to their own undergraduate or graduate institution. This could be done through a worksheet that is collected at the end of class. A second option is an out-of-class assignment that requires students to write an analysis paper of the organizational saga of their undergraduate or graduate institution. The analysis paper could require students to identify primary and secondary sources to support their analysis and conclusions.[19]

---

[1] Burton R. Clark, “The Organizational Saga in Higher Education,” Administrative Science Quarterly 17, no. 2 (1972): 178, https://doi.org/10.2307/2393952.

[2] Clark, “The Organizational Saga,” 181

[3] Mary Lyon, General View of the Principles and Design of the Mount Holyoke Female Seminary (1837). https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn54sw&seq=1, p. 428.

[4] Clark, “The Organizational Saga.”

[5] Clark, “The Organizational Saga.”

[6] Carrie Kortegast, Exploring Organizational Sagas: A Case Study of Mount Holyoke https://sites.google.com/view/organizational-saga-mh-sem/home

[7] Kortegast, Exploring Organizational Sagas, https://sites.google.com/view/organizational-saga-mh-sem/home/development-of-saga

[8] Mount Holyoke, “The Founding of Mount Holyoke Female Seminar,” https://offices.mtholyoke.edu/marylyon/founding

[9] Kortegast, Exploring Organizational Sagas, https://sites.google.com/view/organizational-saga-mh-sem/home/development-of-saga

[10] Kortegast, Exploring Organizational Sagas, https://sites.google.com/view/organizational-saga-mh-sem/home/initiation-of-saga

[11] Lyon, “General View” (1837).

[12] Bethiah Miller Nichols to Priscilla Maxwell (January 16, 1837), Bethiah Miller Nicols Oaoersm Mount Holyoke Archives and Special Collections, https://compass.fivecolleges.edu/islandora/object/mtholyoke:47226

[13] Kortegast, Exploring Organizational Sagas, https://sites.google.com/view/organizational-saga-mh-sem/home/initiation-of-saga

[14] Kortegast, Exploring Organizational Sagas, https://sites.google.com/view/organizational-saga-mh-sem/home/fulfillment-of-saga

[15] “Mount Holyoke College,” (1960) Campaign Film, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZQtS6KNl2I&list=PLMqJPDbf1BYdvA6ctZv5flagh8Ry-Vm24&index=29

[16] Mount Holyoke College, “The Future is Mount Holyoke,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5usSEEx2K6Y&t=2s

[17] https://sites.google.com/view/organizational-saga-mh-sem/home/fulfillment-of-saga

[18] Clark, “The Organizational Saga.”

[19] See sample assignment with directions: https://sites.google.com/view/organizational-saga-mh-sem/home/additional-resources-learning-activities

---

How to cite (APA):

Kortegast, C. (2024, November 8). Exploring Organizational Sagas: Case Study of Mount Holyoke. History of Higher Education. https://higheredhistory.gmu.edu/exploring-organizational-sagas-case-study-of-mount-holyoke/

by Ashley Floyd Kuntz, Florida International University

Learning Objectives

Through this historical case study, students will be able to:

• Describe the impact of the Johns Committee’s investigations on educators and students at Florida public universities from 1956 to 1965.
• Examine a single case from multiple vantage points using primary sources.
• Compare historical events to the present context for teaching, research, and administration in American higher education.

Introduction

From 1956 to 1965, the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee conducted hundreds of interrogations—first of NAACP leaders, then of educators and students suspected of being gay, and finally of faculty accused of teaching controversial texts. Led by State Senator Charley Johns, the Committee’s actions in Florida perpetuated Red Scare tactics and coincided with the lesser-known Lavender Scare to purge LGBTQ+ individuals from government employment.[1] The so-called Johns Committee interrogated hundreds of suspected “homosexuals,” often for hours in secluded locations without legal representation.[2] Given the highly sensitive nature of the allegations, the exact number of individuals impacted by the Johns Committee is unknown. However, the historical record hints at the scope. According to a 1957 memo, the Johns Committee launched investigations of nineteen junior college faculty, fourteen university faculty, 105 teachers, and thirty-seven federal employees in its first year of operation.[3] After investigations at the University of Florida, more than twenty faculty and staff were fired, and more than fifty students were expelled.[4]

By 1965, the Johns Committee became the subject of public scrutiny and dissatisfaction. The Committee lost funding, and the Governor sealed records of their work.[5] Those records were unsealed in 1992, allowing historians to explore the scope and impact of the Johns Committee’s nine-year tenure. What happened during this painful period of state history? Who resisted the Johns Committee and how did they do so? What are the implications of these events for contemporary discourse on American higher education?

Summary of Activity

This historical case study foregrounds the Johns Committee’s investigations at Florida public universities. Using intentionally sequenced learning activities, the case explores topics such civil rights, academic freedom, political interference, and other perennial issues in American higher education.

Breakdown of Activity

Pre-Class Work

Introduce students to the case by asking them to read the chapter “Margaret Fisher and Her University of South Florida Colleagues: Intellectuals versus Inquisitors” from Judith Poucher’s book State of Defiance: Challenging the Johns Committee’s Assault on Civil Liberties.[6] This source details how USF leaders prepared for the Johns Committee’s arrival and engaged in strategic acts of resistance to protect students and faculty. For example, University of South Florida  leaders “invited” the Johns Committee to question suspects on campus, in the open, and with an attorney present rather than in a secluded, off-campus motel.

Divide students into reading groups to promote greater engagement with the reading and to build a common foundation for in-class discussion and active learning. Each group will summarize one aspect of the case: People (list primary actors and describe their role), Place (describe the local and state context), Plot (summarize the key events), Policies (identify and explain references to federal, state, and institutional policies), and Principles (key principles at stake in the case). Ask each group to share their summary on a collaborative virtual space (e.g., Padlet, Canvas) before class. These summaries can be used at the beginning of class to refresh students’ memories of the details of the case.

Gallery Exhibit

Prior to class, visit the case companion Google site.[7] There, you can download and print primary sources, along with a Gallery Exhibit handout. Post primary sources related to the case around the classroom like art in a gallery. The primary sources widen the aperture on the case by introducing students to the Committee’s investigations of NAACP and K-12 educators. They also document resistance to the Johns Committee’s actions.

For this activity, instruct students to visit one source at a time and complete the handout for each source they visit. Encourage students to carefully examine each source they encounter. After independent exploration, facilitate a large group discussion of the primary sources. What new information did students learn about the case? Did any of the primary sources shift their thinking? Was there a primary source that stood out as particularly valuable or important? Are there other primary sources that might have been included?

Documentary and Discussion

After the Gallery Exhibit, show the 26-minute documentary The Committee.[8] The film features contemporary narrators who describe the interrogations they endured as undergraduates at the University of Florida and Florida State University. Additionally, scholars in the film explain how Red Scare ideologies influenced the state legislature.

When the film ends, divide students into small discussion groups. Prompt them to discuss new perspectives introduced in the film that were not present or emphasized in the book chapter and primary sources. Ask them to reflect on their thoughts and feelings after viewing the film. Did the film elicit a stronger emotional response compared to the primary and secondary sources? If so, why might that be? Encourage students to consider how the medium impacts their learning. Finally, challenge students to think about how things have changed—or have not changed—since the film was made.

Connecting Past to Present

Finally, ask students to brainstorm a listing of themes discussed in the case study (e.g., LGBTQ+ oppression, academic freedom). Once they have generated a list, invite them to separate into small groups according to their interests.

In the groups, ask students to consider the relevance of their group’s chosen theme to the present context for American higher education by locating an article from a major newspaper, such as Inside Higher Ed or The Chronicle of Higher Education, that connects to their theme. How would they characterize the connection between the theme and the article they have chosen? What issues, if any, persist from then to now? What might we learn from the past to inform present actions? Each group should designate a speaker and briefly report what they discussed to the rest of the class.

Primary Sources

A complete listing of primary sources is available on the case study Google site.[9] Selected primary sources include the following:

This letter from an American Association of University Women (AAUW) leader warns of “irreparable harm” to Florida’s public universities if the Johns Committee is allowed to continue the scope of its investigations. John W. Egerton, “Correspondence and Editorials Related to the Johns Committee, July 1962-April 1963)” John W. Egerton Papers,20.

Source 2

The case sources a four-page excerpt from this report. The full-length version is publicly available through the Publication of Archival and Library and Museum Materials (PALMM Collections). However, some of the images published by the state are explicit and do not add to the educational value. The sourced excerpt provides an overview of the State’s position, namely that homosexuality poses a “threat to the health and moral well-being of a sizable portion of our population, particularly our youth.”  Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (January 1964). Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida.

Source 3

In 1992, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment known as the Sunshine Law, which provided greater access to government records. This article describes the work of James Schnur, a master’s student at USF, who lobbied for the release of sealed Johns Committee records. Cathy Cummins, “USF gay week spotlights research.” Tampa Tribune, March 30, 1995.

Assessment Options

The following post-class assignment is designed for graduate students in higher education or college student personnel programs. The discussion prompts could be adapted to align with learning objectives in other graduate programs.

After completing the case study, assign two short discussion questions for written reflection.

1. Thinking like a researcher: If you could research any issue related to this case, what would it be? Propose 1-2 research questions and identify what types of sources you might need to answer your question(s).
2. Thinking like a higher education practitioner: Reflect on your response to this case study. How might what you have learned contribute to your current or future work as a higher education professional?

---

[1] Judith Adkins, “These People are Frightened to Death: Congressional Investigations and the Lavender Scare,” National Archives and Records Administration (2016) https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2016/summer/lavender.html.

See also James A. Schnur, “Closet Crusaders: The Johns Committee and Homophobia, 1956-1965” in Carryin’ on in the Lesbian and Gay South, ed. John Howard (New York University Press, 2012); Johns Committee Collection, University of Florida Smathers Libraries https://findingaids.uflib.ufl.edu/repositories/2/resources/1630; The Johns Committee, 1956-1965, Reference Guide, University of Central Florida Libraries https://guides.ucf.edu/glbtq/johnscommittee; USF Johns Committee Records, Digital Commons, University of South Florida https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/johns_committee/index.2.html.

[2] Robert Cassanello and Lisa Mills, directors, The Committee (University of Central Florida, 2015) https://thecommitteedocumentary.org/.

[3] Judith G. Poucher, State of Defiance: Challenging the Johns Committee’s Assault on Civil Liberties (University of Florida Press, 2014), 156.

[4] Karen L. Graves, And They Were Wonderful Teachers: Florida’s Purge of Gay and Lesbian Teachers (University of Illinois Press, 2009), 6.

[5] Poucher, 140.

[6] Poucher, 112-141.

[7] Ashley Floyd Kuntz, The Johns Committee: A Historical Case Study https://sites.google.com/view/historicalcase

[8] Cassanello and Mills, The Committee, 2015.

[9] Floyd Kuntz, https://sites.google.com/view/historicalcase

---

by Brooke Clubbs, Southeast Missouri State University

Learning Objectives:

• Students will recognize different kinds of primary sources and their value in understanding higher education.
• Students will recognize and understand the policies and procedures of university archives that affect access to primary sources, and that these differ across repositories, databases, and collections.
• Utilizing primary sources, students will identify and analyze the environments in which organizational changes take place.
• Students will apply lessons from the past to present situations in higher education.

Introduction

Courses throughout the Higher Education Administration MA program return to the idea that higher education is an ever-changing landscape and that those changes are often accompanied by controversy. However, while students learn and understand the context of these changes in general, they may sometimes lose sight of the fact that they occurred at a specific institution as well, including their own. We need to connect the “big picture” history of higher education to the “snapshot” of their own institution. Some things may seem like they have “always been that way.” The concept of contingency helps students recognize that, “while in hindsight, the past seems to unroll in logical storylines, this was not necessarily the case for those who lived through it.”^[1] This assignment encourages students to examine historical changes that took place at the institution where they are studying that are now well-established but were once controversial. Because students likely do not have any institutional memory beyond their few semesters of attendance, the course instructor can collaborate with a university archivist to find primary sources related to controversial changes. After determining which topics have enough material to provide contextual information surrounding those changes, the university archivists can then facilitate student access, including an information session led by an archivist to show the students how to access digital sources for their topics.

Summary of Activity

To prepare for this assignment, it is ideal to have a guest speaker, such as a history professor, present on the value of using primary sources to explore the history of higher education. If a guest speaker is not available, share the video “What is Historical Thinking?” that covers key concepts, such as multiple accounts and perspectives, analysis of primary sources, sourcing, understanding historical context, and claim-evidence connection.^[2]

After students have been introduced to these concepts, they can be presented with some specific university changes and select one to analyze.  For example, I worked with the archivists at my university library to compile a list of developments at our institution, including athletics (such as changing the mascot from the Indians to the Redhawks), campus life (such as the creation of the LGBTQ+ Resource Center), and academics (such as the creation of the nursing program). After being presented with these options, students post their chosen topic in a discussion forum on our learning management system (LMS). My courses are taught in HyFlex format, meaning students can attend face-to-face, synchronously on Zoom, or asynchronously online. An instructor who teaches only face-to-face might want to have an in-class discussion on topic selection. Students can choose the same topic, but they will need to use different primary sources for their projects. For example, if two students are interested in the mascot change, one could use minutes from The Board of Regents meeting and a letter to the editor in the community newspaper. Then, the other student could use a memo from the University President and an editorial from the campus newspaper.

The use of primary sources is often novel for Higher Education students. After topics are selected, the archivists who compiled the list of topics should visit the class to present on the in-person and digital resources available.[3] If this is not a possibility, the instructor could share information about the university archives. For my students, this will be an opportunity for them to discover how they can visit the university archives in person, what can be accessed online, and how to work with a university archivist face-to-face or virtually.

For the assignment, students select two primary sources after consulting with the university archivists and participating in an individual research session relating to their chosen topic.[4] The first should document the change and the second should provide an example of campus and/or community sentiment about the change. Students will provide links to these sources on a class Padlet, along with an opening summary of what precipitated the change, when the change occurred, and how the change was received.[5] They should then conclude with a brief analysis of the documents and compare this change to a current controversy in higher education. A student examining the mascot change, for example, might cite the decision at Florida State University not to use the word “mascot” with regard to the Seminole people.^[6] They will also include citations of the sources.

To perform the analysis, the instructor may first have the students engage in the SOCC (Source, Observe, Contextualize, Corroborate) method suggested by the University of Iowa.^[7] Students should start by considering the intended audience(s) for each document. They should examine differences in the perspectives represented by their sources, looking for points of agreement and disagreement. Finally, they should reflect on how this event sits in the context of current events.

Students will be assessed on their ability to:

• Describe the context of the change.
• Analyze the response to the change
• Compare the past change to a current controversy (the current controversy may be at a different institution or an overarching issue for higher education).
• Support their claims with primary sources.

---

^[1] Daisy Martin, “Contingency,” TeachingHistory.org, Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media (July 19, 2010), teachinghistory.org/teaching-materials/ask-a-master-teacher/24118.

^[2] “What is historical thinking?,” TeachingHistory.org, Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, (November 10, 2010), https://teachinghistory.org/themes/teachinghistory/homevid/historical_thinking.mp4.

[3] The primary sources university archivists curated for this activity include: “Sub-Series 1: Mascot Change, 1998 Nov 17-2002 Jul 3,” Dr. Carol Morrow Collection, Box 4093, Folder 05, Special Collections and Archives, Kent Library, Southeast Missouri State University; “Newspaper Clippings Scrapbook 4, pages 1-13, 1996 – 1997,” Southeast Rainbow Alliance Collection, Box 1822, Folder 017, Special Collections and Archives, Kent Library, Southeast Missouri State University; “Southeast Missouri State College Brochure, Includes the Nursing Program, 1965,“ Helen Kinney Collection, Box 1058, Folder 006, Special Collections and Archives, Kent Library, Southeast Missouri State University. The topic list curated by university archivists for this activity can be found here:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SUFay5lRCKnOrKejX8iID02IzrhwDg1i/view?usp=sharing

[4] A link to the class slides for this activity, including instructions, can be found here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cHuvHFsXqtnoElvfEqSG1NKOcAm0nuZfPzR36LtSnB8/edit?usp=sharing

[5] Examples of archival sources in this activity include: “Brodsky Collection Transfer of Ownership,” The President’s Office Records: Series VII: Bill Stacy Collection, Box 4044, Folder 001-008,  Special Collections and Archives, Kent Library, Southeast Missouri State University; “Faulkner Center created at Southeast Missouri,” The President’s Office Records: Series VII: Bill Stacy Collection, Box 4044, Folder 001-008, Special Collections and Archives, Kent Library, Southeast Missouri State University; Robert Hamblin, My Life with Faulkner and Brodsky, (Southeast Missouri State University Press, 2017); Robert Hamblin, interview by author (July 8, 2024),  https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/mshRlXAH4Kb; Robert Hamblin, interview by LTS Project, (June 24, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cibH-GIsKAE; “Kent to House Faulkner Collection,” Capaha Arrow, Aug. 31, 1988-Apr. 25, 1990, Box 1170, Special Collections and Archives, Kent Library, Southeast Missouri State University; “Opinion: New Information Arises on a University ‘Gift’,” The Southeast Missourian, October 1, 1990, https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PsgfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qNgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1627%2C6303498; Josh Moody, “Trustee Lawsuit Illuminates Penn State Transparency Concerns,” Inside Higher Ed (July 29, 2024), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/trustees-regents/2024/07/29/trustee-lawsuit-illuminates-penn-state-transparency.

^[6] “Florida State University & Our Relationship with the Seminole Tribe of Florida,” Florida State University Libraries, https://guides.lib.fsu.edu/fsuandseminoles.

^[7] Catherine Denial, “BHH in the College Classroom: Analyzing Written Documents,” Bringing History Home, University of Iowa (2010) https://www.bringinghistoryhome.org/assets/bringinghistoryhome/analyze%20written%20sources.pdf.