My research fellowship on Generation UCL: 200 Years of Student Life in London in the summer of 2024 was incredibly fruitful. I gained interesting insights into the past international student life at UCL by accessing the oral history archive and got a taste of doing research in the field of education and history.
The fellowship began with an orientation on 2 June 2024. The day kicked off with an informative and engaging campus history walking tour led by Julia Chaffers. It was my first time visiting UCL physically, so walking past buildings including the Cruciform, the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, the Japanese Garden, the Darwin Building, the Student Centre and hearing about their history and legacies gave me a great start to feel the campus environment and the history behind it.
The tour was followed by a pop-up exhibition themed on ‘200 years of the quadrangle’ in the North Cloisters and a visit to the South Junction Reading Room where historical archives are stored and viewed by readers. Venturing through the ‘secret tunnel’ beneath Gower Street, the research team headed to lunch at the Indian YMCA, where Sam and Georgina explained the project and the upcoming events while we immersed into the delightful dance of flavours of the curry.
My duty for this research was to proofread the interview transcripts of past international students at UCL, go through the audio records and make necessary edits to the transcripts, summarise each interview, pinpoint keywords, and identify short quotes and clips that could be used in presentations, teaching, and online in the future.
There were opportunities to participate in academic events throughout the summer. For example, a steering group meeting on 11 June 2024 and a penal discussion on the value of holding history tours titled ‘Where do you think we are? Diverse trials and tours of historic Bloomsbury’ on 12 June 2024.
There were insightful exchanges, especially the idea that history tours led by institutions should not only be about showcasing the dominant narrative as this obscures more diverse alternative histories, and how incorporating stories of people who are not necessarily the most well-known, but people who have contributed to the development of the institution offers a more authentic, intricate, nuanced and comprehensive picture to what has happened in the past.
This effort to promote an honest and intellectual engagement with the past transcended history tours. In the Generation UCL project, positives are celebrated, but the negatives are also acknowledged.
For example, Judith Ryser, who studied for her MSc at UCL in 1970 amidst the Women’s Liberation Movement, acknowledged the existence of discrimination and segregation at UCL in her interview. She mentioned how there was always the pressure to conform, and how being unable to fit into a specific category would result in being marginalised. Judith’s view did not necessarily chime in with the majority of interviewees.
However, in one of our project team meetings, we discussed how her view should be kept as it brings an alternative perspective to the development of women’s rights and the notion of diversity in the institution. One of the many things that impresses me is how this project is not meant to be celebratory, but an empirical effort to bring history alive.
And then from 17 to 18 June 2024, a research method course took place, which was again, incredibly interesting and insightful. Kathryn Hannan from the IOE introduced us to the concept of an archive – which contains something that is deemed worthy of permanent preservation. We then visited the room that stored part of UCL’s archives and discussed the rationale behind the rules for using reading rooms.
Professor Mark Freeman then led a group activity to examine the changes and continuities of the landscape of academic publishing by comparing and contrasting history journals in the 2010s, 1970s and earlier decades. Some interesting observations include a trend of internationalisation reflected by a larger editorial board with more international scholars, the fragmentation of academic disciplines, and changes in writing style where earlier writers wrote more personally, with a humanistic engagement whereas modern writers tend to write more scientifically and perhaps, regrettably, more formulaic.
What is equally interesting is in terms of the physicality of the publications. One distinction is the minimalist style (partly because it costs more for a licensed picture nowadays) and the more creative covers in the past. We also discussed how having a hard copy, with a physical engagement with the materials, added to the experience.
Meritxell Simon Martin led us to compare and contrast two academic articles to understand theorizing concepts and the historiographical debates. We were also introduced to the Woodcraft Folk collections, and Mark concluded by the ethics of research and the importance of having honest intellectual engagements with the materials. It is refreshing to learn that the architecture of historical truth is heavily empirical.
A Political Studies Association workshop on Oral History and Politics on 28 June 2024 further provided valuable perspectives into the interconnectedness of history, culture and human experiences. Sam Blaxland, who organized this, shared the practicalities of interviewing people from the political world, the issue of practised narratives and the endeavours for obtaining authentic oral history; other speakers discussed the risks and rewards of interviewing former MPs, and the coordinators of the History of Parliament’s Oral History project reflected on their various experiences interviewing prominent MPs and government ministers.
Reflecting on these perspectives and revisiting my own tasks, I listened to the Generation UCLrecordings and read the transcripts from a fresh angle, perhaps not only trying to make sense of what was being shared and discussed during the interviews, but also to understand the dynamics within the interviews and the differing way people tell their stories.
It was amazing how interviewees encapsulated their life in a 45-minute to 90-minute interview, from their upbringing to academic pursuit, being in UCL, their social life, friendship and marriage, likes and dislikes about the city, views on politics, their career development, and their lives. These narratives came from different parts of the world and spanned across half a century.
Using one or two sentences to summarise the international student life at UCL would be an oversimplification. But many interviewees mentioned the same thing – the teaching staff, big names, and how they were treated as equals at UCL. They learnt about humility, are proud of being a part of an institution that is open-minded and diverse, and are glad that their studies pave the foundation for their future career. They learnt to fend for themselves in a foreign country, and are happy that their experience in London helped them gain an international outlook.
Perhaps this was rather self-indulgent, but I did take advantage of peeking into their reminiscences of the good old times, especially when they talked about their favourite spots in London. Instead of continuing working on the transcripts, I would star the place on Google Maps and physically visit a couple of days later to experience their perspectives firsthand. It was a thrill.
To end my blog, I would like to express my gratitude to Sam and Georgina for taking me on the team, and to my fellow Scholars Wendy, Robert, Bunny, Brian, Yikun, Zhiruo, and to all I had the joy of making acquaintance with, for being kind and for offering your valuable perspectives. This experience will always hold a place in my heart, and it has been a great summer in 2024!
