Campus History — Part 2: Archive Visit and Web Page

This is Part 2 of a two-part project. You’ve already completed the AI draft and critique in Part 1. Now you go to the actual archive to find what the historical record really says, write a short web page for the UNM Campus History site, and submit a reflection comparing what the AI told you to what you actually found.

Bring your Part 1 notes — especially your list of specific claims to verify.

Skills you are practicing

Structural analysis — understanding how institutions (archives, universities, cataloguing systems) shape what knowledge survives and what gets lost. The archive isn’t neutral; it reflects decisions about what was worth keeping.
Reading for absence — asking not just what the archive contains but what’s missing, and why. What would the AI never know because it was never digitized?
Source criticism — evaluating primary sources on their own terms: who created this document, why, and what can (and can’t) it tell us?

Archive Visit (CSWR)

Your intellectual goal here is simple: find out what the historical record actually says about your topic and compare it to what the AI told you. The logistics below are just the means to that end.

The Center for Southwest Research is in Zimmerman Library. Enter through the main door, make a U-turn to the left, and proceed to the reading room. Plan to spend at least an hour.

Getting started

Bring a pencil (pens are not allowed), your phone for photos, and your Part 1 notes.
Store your bag in the lockers at the service kiosk — staff will give you a key.
Check in at the reference desk, tell the librarian you’re researching your topic for a history class, and ask for their guidance. They are genuinely helpful and expect students.

Published UNM campus histories (reference shelf)

Start here to orient yourself before requesting archival boxes:

Van Dorn Hooker, Only in New Mexico — best starting point for campus buildings; rich context, sparse citations.
William E. Davis, Miracle on the Mesa — administrative history by presidential era; useful for broad context.
Dorothy B. Hughes, Pueblo on the Mesa (1939) — best for UNM’s first fifty years.
Susan McColeman, A History of the Buildings of the University of New Mexico: 1890–1934 — ask for it at the reference desk; essential for early buildings.

Archival records (manuscript boxes)

Search the New Mexico Digital Archive for your topic. Use exact quotes around multi-word terms.
Note the Collection Number and relevant box numbers from the results.
Ask the librarian for a manuscript request form, fill it out, and hand it in. Boxes usually take about 10 minutes to retrieve.
Root through what you find: letters, photographs, planning documents, newspaper clippings, meeting minutes. You never know what will be there — that’s the point.
Take photos with your phone for your own reference. Use the scanner in the reading room for images you want in your web page.
You can have your box held in the reading room if you need to return for a second session.

Research tips

Names change. Buildings and organizations often had earlier names. Mesa Vista Hall was the “400-man dorm” when it opened in 1950. Search alternate names if your first search returns nothing.
You’re not searching full text. Most archival documents have never been digitized. The cataloguing is imperfect. Be creative and persistent.
Think about the story you want to tell as you go. Having a working argument helps you decide what to photograph and what to skip.

The Web Page

Your finished essay will be published on the UNM Campus History website. Write for a curious reader — a student, a faculty member, someone who walks past your building every day — who knows nothing about its history.

Requirements

~800–1000 words
2–3 images — historical photographs and/or scanned primary sources from CSWR
Informative captions on every image: not just what it shows, but why it’s significant. Cite where you found it (box number, collection name, or URL).
Subheadings to organize your main sections
Bibliography of sources used (CSWR materials + published histories)
An AI-Archive Comparison section at the end (see below)

Style

Write something you and your friends would actually want to read
Informal sophistication — smart magazine, not academic paper
Demonstrate expertise through specific detail and analysis, not just summary

AI-Archive Comparison (required section)

At the end of your web page, include a section of ~200 words that directly compares your AI draft (from Part 1) to what you actually found at CSWR. Address:

What did the AI get right? Give a specific example.
What did the AI get wrong, fabricate, or miss entirely? Give a specific example.
What did the AI simply can’t know — evidence that exists only in the physical archive and has never been digitized?
What does this experience tell you about the limits of AI as a historical research tool?

This section is what ties the two parts of the project together. It’s also the most direct illustration of what the course has been arguing all semester about evidence, silencing, and who gets to make history.

What I’m looking for

I grade this project primarily on effort and intellectual engagement, not writing polish or whether you found spectacular archival material. The archive doesn’t always cooperate — sometimes there isn’t much there. What you do with what you find matters more than what you find.

A strong submission shows:

Clear evidence of time spent at CSWR — specific sources cited, real images scanned, notes that reflect actual digging through boxes
A readable story with a point, even if a modest one
An AI-Archive Comparison that’s specific: quotes the AI draft and names what was confirmed, contradicted, or simply absent from the archive
Captions that explain why an image matters, not just what it shows

A weak submission:

Could have been written without visiting the archive
Has a generic AI comparison (“AI can sometimes be inaccurate”)
Is missing images or has uncaptioned ones
Is just a list of facts with no narrative thread

The grade distinction comes down to how seriously you engaged with the archive and how clearly that engagement shows in the writing.

A — clear archival evidence throughout; specific sources cited; AI-Archive Comparison quotes the draft directly and names concrete differences; images with substantive captions that explain significance
B — archive visit clearly evident; readable narrative with a point; comparison is mostly specific
C — archive visit evident but engagement is thin; comparison stays general (“AI can be inaccurate”)
D — could have been written without visiting the archive
F — missing major components

Due Date

Last day of finals.

Questions

Reach out if anything is unclear — especially before your CSWR visit. A quick conversation can save a lot of confusion in the reading room.