Capstone Project: Journey Through The Library

“First Visit – Visiting the Library

What do you think of when you hear the word library? Is a library a large repository of books? Is a library a place where students can access computers and other equipment? Is a library a quiet place where one can lose themselves in their task of choice – reading, research, or studying? What makes a library a “library?” My visit to the Michell Memorial Library simultaneously answered and posed further inquiry into the questions posed above. I had a preconceived notion of what a library should be: quiet, drab, and uninteresting. But the towering five-story structure made me question my definition of what a library could be.

I woke up early Wednesday morning at the crack of dawn and rode my bike to the Hardy Road entrance. I heard that Mississippi State’s library was impressive, but I went into the visit with the “I won’t believe it until I see it” mentality. I can confidently say that the size of the building alone left me mesmerized. I thought, “If the building itself is this large, what could be housed inside?” While exploring the building, I found spacious study rooms, state-of-the-art computer labs, and of course an expansive selection of books. I somewhat expected to find those things, but I was not prepared for the MaxxSouth Digital Media Center and its 3D printers and VR hardware.

There was nothing dull about the facility; the building was very quiet, which may have been unnerving for some, but I found that the silence enhanced my experience. The relative lack of noise helped me focus on the task at hand: researching documents in the Special Collections room. The research itself was not special; I sat down with my phone, pencil, and binder and got comfortable. I braced myself for the long, tedious process that is archival research, but time went by quicker than I expected. One moment I was putting my belongings into the lockers, and the next I was returning the key to my locker.

The lapse in time that I experienced was not specific to my visit to the Michell Memorial Library. While working on my composition course’s capstone project in high school, I immersed myself in the subject matter, the media’s portrayal of hacking and its effects on the practice of programming, to the point where I was reading for pleasure instead of researching the topic. In that regard, the research I conducted at the Special Collections was not different from my experience with research-based writing. However, the protocols and restrictions put forth by the staff elevated not only the significance of the project itself but also the articles stored within the archive. In the past, my research has been detached and impersonal, but this experience demanded that I actively participate in the act of research – locating relevant articles, copying said articles, and making logical assumptions about where similar articles could be found. As a result, my trip to the Special Collections has broadened my tools of research. I would jump headfirst into a research project and let what I read form my paper’s topic. I have since learned that effective research is intentional and systematic.

Overall, my trip to the library, or more specifically the Special Collections, was enjoyable. I cannot say that I was inspired, or the experience left me wiser than when I first walked in, but it was a new experience, nonetheless. At the very least, the image that I have of libraries has been changed for the better due to my trip to the Michell Memorial Library.

“Second Visit – Doom and Gloom in the Special Collections Room”

Rushing through the streets saturated with rain, I returned to the Michell Memorial Library. As I arrived at the Hardy Road entrance, my mood was instantly soured. I, for one, enjoy rainy days, but today was an exception. To get from my first class to the next, I had to bike from Old Main in the cold, unrelenting rain. Suffice it to say, I was drenched as I made my way up the somewhat familiar stairs to the Special Collections.

As I entered the golden double doors, I was washed over with the scholarly aura that I now attribute to the location. The staff stressed the significance of the documents held within the archive and the aged, somewhat yellowed articles that rested upon the tables. I expected to rekindle the inquisitive drive that I discovered upon my first visit, but the second did not live up to my expectations. The presentation was based on a “show-and-tell” schema where we – the students – read an article, summarized the text (or image), and gave our impression of the piece.

I genuinely disliked every aspect of the “show-and-tell” portion. My article covered a serious topic – one laced with slurs I was not particularly in the mood to read – that diminished the vibe created by laid-back articles such as the cookbook or yearbook.

Granted, the off-putting experienced was followed up by my return to my research, which dissipated the negativity and I accumulated earlier. Fumbling through brochures and clipped news articles brought the otherwise disjointed ideas surrounding my topic to a head. I typically establish a premise, read sources that pertain to my topic, and then form arguments based on the evidence that piqued my interest.

Granted, my approach to research is unsystematic and unintentional– I set out blindly into my topic and let what I read form the bases of my paper. The archival research that this project calls for is anything but. It necessitates the establishment of a premise as well as questions to guide the flow of research from the outset. My high school’s capstone project illustrates just how different the two approaches are. I started with the intention of writing a paper on hacking. Given how broad hacking is, I read through general articles that pertained to my subject matter to gain specificity. I settled on a focused topic, the media’s portrayal of hacking and its effects on the practice of programming, and formed questions only after reading a tabloid article comparing a cybercrime to one performed in an old movie. While the methods are similar, the processes of going from conceptualization to composition are vastly different. Additionally, the restrictions placed on viewing documents – what could be brought into and out of the Special Collections room – conveyed the seriousness of the task set out before us. The location demanded respect and that differs from the research that I have grown accustomed to.

In that regard, the latter part of my second visit was insightful, whereas the earlier portion was a sequence of letdowns and disappointments.