Mapping Institutional Memory: A Content Analysis of Building Dedication Markers in an Archdiocesan Catholic University
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68050/JAMS.2026.602Keywords:
Keywords: institutional memory; archival photographs; building dedication markers; academic library archives; content analysis; cultural heritage documentationAbstract
This study examined building dedication markers as material records of institutional memory in an Archdiocesan Catholic university in the Philippines, and considered their implications for library-based archival and heritage documentation practice. Using a descriptive–exploratory qualitative content analysis of archival photographs, verified through an on-site inspection of the campus by the authors, the study coded all fifteen major buildings for marker presence, location, and visible content; documented the physical and material characteristics of existing markers; and identified gaps in marker presence and in the archival photographic record. Findings showed that 9 of the 15 buildings (60.0%) had dedication markers, most located on ground floors or at entrances and commemorating religious leaders, religious congregations, and university administrators, while 6 buildings (40.0%) had no marker and displayed only building-name signage. The on-site inspection also located one marker that the archival photographs had not captured and established the placement of two others, showing that a photograph-only inventory would have understated marker presence. Existing markers exhibited marked uniformity in material (polished metal) and form (rectangular, bolted mounting), consistent with an informal design convention, although whether a written marker policy exists was not examined. The study argues that dedication markers constitute an underexamined category of institutional record—one that academic library archives and special collections units, as custodians of campus heritage documentation, are well positioned to inventory, standardize, and preserve. A coding framework for future marker inventories and metadata development is proposed. Limitations, including a single-institution, non-probability sample; a single, recent data-collection window; visual rather than instrument-based description of materials; and no numeric reliability coefficient, are discussed alongside directions for future research.
References
1. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
2. Dwyer, O. J., & Alderman, D. H. (2008). Memorial landscapes: Analytic questions and metaphors. GeoJournal, 73(3), 165–178. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-008-9201-5](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-008-9201-5)
3. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–10. [https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633](https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633)
4. Foote, K. E. (1990). To remember and forget: Archives, memory, and culture. American Archivist, 53(3), 378–392. [https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.53.3.d87u013444j3g6r2](https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.53.3.d87u013444j3g6r2)
5. Greene, M. A. (2004). The messy business of remembering: History, memory, and archives. Archival Issues, 28(2), 95–103. [https://doi.org/10.31274/archivalissues.10929](https://doi.org/10.31274/archivalissues.10929)
6. Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: Critical approaches. Routledge.
7. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
8. Millar, L. A. (2010). Archives: Principles and practices. Facet Publishing.
9. Miner, M., & Davis-Kahl, S. (2012). Collecting campus culture: Collaborations and collisions. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 1(2), Article eP1053. [https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1053](https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1053)
10. Prown, J. D. (1982). Mind in matter: An introduction to material culture theory and method. Winterthur Portfolio, 17(1), 1–19. [https://doi.org/10.1086/496065](https://doi.org/10.1086/496065)
11. Schwartz, J. M. (1995). “We make our tools and our tools make us”: Lessons from photographs for the practice, politics, and poetics of diplomatics. Archivaria, 40, 40–74.
12. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge.
13. Yeo, G. (2007). Concepts of record (1): Evidence, information, and persistent representations. American Archivist, 70(2), 315–343.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (JAMS) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated. Authors retain copyright of their work and grant JAMS the right of first publication.
