I need help with research paper 

details attached. 

ResearchPaper: Architectural Historiography in the 20​th ​Century

historiography is the writing of history, as well as the process by which historians analyze and
interpret historical evidence. Therefore, the writing of history is, by nature, interpretive, and as such it is
highly influenced by the author-historian’s agenda, bias, cultural context, research method, knowledge (or
ignorance) of source material, selective editing, etc. To this end, for this research project you will choose a
subject relevant to twentieth century architecture, and you will compare/contrast various historians’
interpretations of this subject.

First, you will choose one architect, event, movement, period or theory relevant to twentieth
century architecture. Some possible topics might include: the Deutscher Werkbund, the Case Study House
Program, Japanese Metabolism, the Bauhaus under Hannes Meyer, the New York Five, the 1932 exhibit
at the MoMA entitled “The International Style”, Mies van der Rohe’s work at the Illinois Institute of
Technology, Rem Koolhaas in the 1970s, etc. If you choose to focus on the work of one architect, you
should narrow your research down to an important period in that architect’s life (e.g. Frank Lloyd Wright in
the 1930s), or a specific theory developed by that architect (e.g. Louis Sullivan’s brand of Rationalism).
Your task is NOT to report on the building, architect or event, but rather to compare/contrast various
historiographic interpretations of it.

You will consult a minimum of five historiographic accounts of the topic (see the list of examples of
historiographic accounts below), from different author-historians who express different viewpoints. As you
read and reflect on these accounts, you should ask yourself

• ​What evidence does each historian cite, and what evidence does each historian leave out? Why?
How does this decision influence this historian’s narrative of the topic?

• ​How does each author-historian use and interpret the evidence?
• ​What distinct conclusions has each historian drawn about this subject?
• ​How do these conclusions differ? How are they similar?

• ​How does each historiographic account reveal the historians’ own bias and/or agenda? ​• ​How have
perceptions of this subject been affected by the various historiographic accounts of it? ​• ​How does the
author-historian contextualize the topic in the broader narrative of the history of twentieth century
architecture?

• ​In what ways does the author-historian’s account of this subject reveal her/his broader approach to
the history of architecture?

• ​How have historians affected our understanding of this topic?

Topic Proposal

After choosing a topic, list and analyze each account of the topic. List the similarities and
differences that you discover between accounts (i.e. as listed above). Be specific. Then, conduct research
on the author of each account to determine how they chose to include some information while excluding
other information. Your proposal should also consider/discuss each author’s bias. I recommend that you
organize this information in table format.

Finally, write a thesis statement and 1-2 paragraphs that summarize(s) the overall trend, trajectory,
etc. of the historiography of the subject. Do the authors fall into various “camps”? Do you notice an
evolution over time in the ways this topic has been presented? Are some authors’ biases more evident
than others?