I would imagine that any PhD program in architecture is going to require a substantial amount of writing, reading, and research, since my understanding is that most of these programs are intended for future theorists/academics looking to get teaching jobs. Writing is going to be a huge part of your day-to-day work in these programs.

My question is: are you sure this is the type of program you are looking for? Why exactly are you seeking a PhD? If you want to specialize in design, fabrication, or some other area of focus that is not as heavy on the writing requirements, I would imagine that you would be better served by an M.Arch program.

If you're looking for practical writing guidance, you could start with:

The MLA Handbook

Strunk and White's Elements of Style

The Chicago Manual of Style

Chicago Style is standard for professional programs, MLA is usually found only in Liberal Arts papers.

thanks.

about Phd, I thought a lot about it. I think writing is a skill that I can learn, I just have always thought I'll be practising architecture, that's why I've never trained myself to write. There're so many professors worldwide whose native language is not English, but they've published papers and make their living by writing, I surely can!

I think the main reason I want to do a Phd is there're some areas I'm very interested in, but I'll never have an opportunity to explore that in an architectural office.

architectural design in some offices has lost the depth and become static.

thanks for the post, I'll check out the Chicago style book then :)

there are a few good phd application threads... try a search...

typically you would include a paper that you wrote for a class during your earlier education... or something that you've already published or presented at a conference... in my applications i included a longer (3000 words) paper that i presented at a conference and two shorter essays (500-1000 words) that i wrote for some theory electives during my M.Arch. studies... ideally the samples that you include should be at least somewhat related to the topic(s) that you want to pursue in your phd research...

what type of research are you wanting to do? design methodology type stuff? building technology? or the traditional history/theory/criticism?

if you're going the way of H/T/C, i would think long and hard about doing a phd if you're not that comfortable writing... your life will consist of lots of reading and writing... each class will typically require a final paper of around 4000 words (at least at my school)... some will require much more... if you're not comfortable with that, you will struggle...

on top of the everyday reading and writing of your coursework you will have to write a dissertation... which can be a long and tortuous process even when you're a good writer... i imagine that it would be downright miserable if you don't enjoy writing...

I don't know what signt is smoking but Chicago Style is most certainly not the most widely used nor even close.

I prefer APA [American Psychological Association] myself as it is the easiest to remember and I've often seen it used within Public Administration, Urban Planning and other Social Sciences. It is a useful style because it works well with digital reference, looks clean and and is data specific.

It looks like this (Orochi, 2009).

MLA [Modern Language Association] is gaining strength as a writing and or citation style. It is most often used in criticism or comparative literature when you are comparing multiple sets of first-hand accounts (single works written about single authors).

It has a slightly annoying citation style that isn't good for using time relevant sources (Orochi 1).

The most used scientific, for hard sciences like chemistry or, uh, astrobiology, is ACS [American Chemical Society].

I do not have very much knowledge using it but I do know it is perhaps the most flexible writing and or citation style. It is not pretty to read and it is rather truncated.

It looks like this 1.
Or this.^2 (that is suppose to be a superscript two.)
And lastly this (Orochi, 2009).


I know most of this is about citation style but I feel it is necessary to be more worried about citation than grammatical style. Chicago Style, New York Times Style and Associated Press Style are used for writing dry and specific current events articles. They often eliminate flowery words and lean towards using more specific simple speech. The grammatical style and word choices almost border on "Simple English" which is not good for describing the art world.

The NYT style and AP style are rather identical are the most used in newspapers, some magazines and certain kinds of books. They do not handle complex citations very well nor were they designed for it.

Chicago Style is the oldest of the three and some of it's style uses a "dialect" of English not considered particularly international. This dialect is known as "American Broadcaster" or "General American." It is the most widely used accent... however, construction and word choice differs from dialect and accent both nationally and internationally.

ArchitPhi, thanks for the post. What you said makes a lot of sense, and that's one of my concern too.

but I'm not interested in H/T/C areas, I'm more interested in environmental psychology aspect of design, so more likely, I'll be observing people, taking notes, talking to them, read and write papers...

as a non-native English speaker,I think i'm at disadvantage at being a project manager for the reason that it's hard for me to understand the underlying meanings in ppl's communication. but I was always book smart (I take it as a compliment), I learn new things fast and well. also I've always very intrigued about people in places.

unfortunately I can't leave the States right now due to personal reasons,so I've been struggling to find out what my strength is and what my alternative career path will be. and Phd idea came to mind... if writing and research is something that I can train myself with in one or two years, I think I'll do well.

I'll do a search in this forum about Phd application. thanks for the tip!

A thousand words --3 or 4 double-spaced pages-- is far too short for a conventional research paper in which a body of literature is discussed, methodology explained, findings described, and conclusions drawn.

If, as you say, you've never written one before, now is not the time to start.

But, depending upon a given program's application requirements, you may be able to submit other kinds of writing. A position/opinion essay, for example. A short review of a few books in your field, relating them to each other and noting gaps (a.k.a. "literature review"). A critique of a built project. In each of these, you'd have the opportunity to cite sources, but without the additional burden of trying to do new research (other than some reading.)

Admissions committees want to see that you can communicate ideas and make an argument clearly, and that you have some mastery of the language.

As for style/format discussed by others above: at this early stage, don't worry about which one is better or more applicable to your field. Rather, pick a style (MLA, APA, Chicago) and stay true to it, using a style manual and being very thorough and punctilious. Proofread. Proofread again. Have a friend or colleague read it once it's nearly done. Then proof it again yourself.

Finally, buy a couple of books on grad school admissions advice, especially ones with some sample essays, etcetera. The content of those samples won't match your interests, but you can use them as models of clear writing, formatting, and style.

Good luck!

Getting a Phd and never written a paper before??? I'm not sure where you went to school but that is hard to believe....No wonder our education system is failing since everybody is getting a degree for the sake of getting one...

so if previous experience is essential and failing to do so means getting a degree for the sake of getting one, then you're invalidating all the option III M.Arch programs and graduates. Most of them don't have previous education or experience in architectural fields, so does it mean they can't succeed in the field?

I see education as an opportunity to learn, but not an ending. I've written short papers for classes, but I don't consider them "real" papers.

citizen, good insight. that's why those programs require "writing samples" instead of "papers".thanks!

i just completed final proofs for article in UK journal on planning. it is only 2500 words long, and as citizen says that is really not enough space to make a reasonable academic paper. so it is more of a cross between an op-ed and a proper paper, with just a few notes/citations.

academic writing for journals is not remotely like what you were allowed to get away with in architecture school. if you plan on doing a phd, even one grounded in case studies and field work (which is what i did) you will in the end need to do a LOT of reading and a LOT of writing. You can learn how to do some of that as you go, but should show you can think clearly and understand the difference between opinion, conjecture, and demonstrable facts as minimum evidence of preparation (you would be surprised how poorly archi-school prepares students to understand this).

for my phd i had to make a proposal on research topic that acted as example of above. it was very hard and at interview for entry to phd program had to present and defend the topic in front of a group of about 10 professors. they were not entirely receptive and i realize now part of that was due to my poor writing. so definitely write and re-write and have friends you trust look at it with very critical eye. may be painful, but will be good practice for when you get into program.

if looking for examples of good academic papers, i find the american planning association journal usually has pretty good quality work. i would avoid most texts written by architects ;-)

Ouch, Jump!

You're right that a lot of architects' writing is dreadful. Not all, but much of it. The problem is not with the ideas, but (usually) with the supremely confident assertion of opinion or conjecture as fact.

yes !

exactly, citizen.

it took me about 2 years to get over the so called academic education i had been given for undergrad and m.arch., even though i recognised the problem from the beginning.

all the hyperbole and bullshit that we are encouraged to produce - the "research" so superficial as to barely constitute an idea, nevermind anything testable - all that stuff had really sunk in and i had to force myself to stop writing like i wanted to be rem koolhaas. my professor kept pointing it out, and i always saw it, but still kept on writing the same way. i got over it but damn it was a real trial by sword to get dissertation into something reasonably defensible.

architecture prepares you for many things, but doctoral studies is not one of them ;-)