Joni Poppitz Stimpson and Dr. Eric Dursteler, History
Last December, I proposed to the ORCA scholarship committee to study the origins of the medieval university. A semester earlier I had completed a History 490 paper which had broadly dealt with the history of the early university. The conclusion of that paper identified a central conflict in the development of the university, and it was this conflict which I continued to study with support from ORCA.
Two viewpoints clashed during the early history of the medieval university. The first viewpoint held that education should be for the benefit of society. Education must have a vocational emphasis: governments depended on scribes, the Church literate clergy, and an increasingly complex society needed doctors and lawyers. The opposing viewpoint valued education as valuable in its own right. There was a place for the liberal arts as well as for “practical” disciplines. All of humanity would benefit from the study (albeit by elites) of art, poetry, literature, and history.
What should one gain from a university education? This question challenged the early university, and I believe that it still confronts the modern university. What is the meaning, the value, and the goal, of higher education? At Brigham Young University, learning is structured as a formal, well-rounded, long-term effort. Universities should foster better citizens. For other schools, such as the University of Phoenix, education is vocational: it is the means to a better job and consequently to a better life. There is no “practical” value assessed to the liberal arts.
My research began with a definite conclusion in mind: the university was the triumph of “true” education and the liberal arts. Peter Abelard, an early scholar at the University of Paris, embodied this new approach to education. He believed in the intrinsic value of letters and learning. However, I have come to believe that to be educated is much more than a one-size-fits-all approach. The proliferation of technical, community, and professional schools, not to mention the new breed of on-line universities, only confirms the importance of education in whatever form. I am still trying to better understand how the players in the early university resolved this central conflict over the purpose of education.
A preliminary version of my research was presented at the Phi Alpha Theta regional conference at the University of Utah in April of 2001. My approach at this point had been to use my 490 paper as a jumping off point: I would revise certain paragraphs, flesh out others, and then, according to my plan, add about twenty additional pages of material. I was happy with the initial paper and thought that it clearly presented the basic history of the university.
By April, my thesis had become second nature to me. I had planned to read my paper at the conference, but my presentation became an impromptu lecture as I realized how well I knew my topic. It was also helpful to articulate my thesis in front of an audience. However, the commentator had several criticisms of the actual paper. He also commented that the oral presentation was much clearer. After four months of trying to weave substantial new material into an older and weaker paper, I had to scrap my existent paper and begin writing from scratch.
At the same time, I kept trying to change my thesis in discussions with my advisor, Professor Dursteler. I settled into researching my thesis whenever I studied or wrote, yet in our meetings I kept trying to take it further, to be more ambitious, or simply to change for the sake of change. Even in conversations with my husband, Jeff, my paper underwent several metamorphoses anytime we discussed my progress and possible developments. I believe that I took my original thesis for granted, and only after the conference was I able to accept my thesis as original and as a good question to study. However, it was good to explore other research opportunities and to appreciate the varied historical interpretations of the university.
The funding I received from ORCA allowed me to go on Study Abroad in London, and while in England I spent time at both Cambridge and Oxford. In preparation for my time in England I focused my research on Oxford University. This was an effort to narrow my field of study and to take advantage of whatever primary research I could do in England. Unfortunately, I was too optimistic about being able to use the university library – they are quite strict about which scholars can use the facilities, and I was not sure what I hoped to find in the archives anyway.
While I did not have the opportunity to visit Oxford or Cambridge much more than the average tourist, I came away with a heightened appreciation for the value of education in medieval England. The universities of course have grown over time, yet they remain as monuments to the power and authority of the medieval university. I visited Cambridge on graduation day which was a unique window into the immense history of the University there. My continued research will profit from having actually visited the universities which I am studying.
My initial goal was to have a polished, publishable paper by August. I am still deep in the research stage, however. Organizing the paper has been daunting, and while I usually prefer to write rather than research, it has not been the case for this paper. I have become engrossed in the complexities of my subject, and it consequently makes me hesitant about any sort of definitive conclusions. As an aspiring professional scholar, this has been a valuable experience that has taught me quite a bit about the realities of independent research.