0000000000AAA

And this is slightly off topic, but I think relates. A few professors have warned me about the risk of looking desperate. Especially for top tier schools. We are not professionals and any attempt to mimic that is seen as mimicry. Unsolicited emails introducing yourself to an already very busy professor, 2nd or 3rd rate publications, etc are relatively transparent to a lot of adcoms. The advice I've gotten is to do the appropriate things well: 700+ on gres; clean, clear SoP; appealing, readable writing sample; LORS from viable professors. Now of course, like I said about, it seems that if you're in MLS or "kick-ass top journal" (well put the giaour) with very high name recognition, then that's pretty impressive!

But getting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal isn't hard. In a great number of them off the beaten track, the writing is actually very bad. I was told that if it isn't a "name brand" journal, that is one that people have heard of, then it looks silly. Or more to the point: no one is impressed and they might think you don't have a sense of the field. If you're in MLS or one of the top 1 or 2 journals in your field, then it's a different story.

I don't think it matters as much as some numbers suggest. And also, I've had 3-4 professors tell me that there is no essential difference between candidates with MA and without. The question remains, should this person be here? And they mock those MAs who have filled up their CVs with tiny, frivolous conferences and the ones with publications (apparently a no-no unless it's a top tier journal, otherwise it looks like you're trying too hard to fill out..your CV!)

The ironic thing about having a "clear focus" is that no one expects you to stick to it. They just want to make sure that you know how to go about defining a focus--can you recognize viable research? A PhD student in my program (who came in with a masters) recently switched from Medieval to Modernist--no one cared or really noticed. He just changed his orals list and is now working with different professors.

Something to always think about is the state of the field. Are there young, currently publishing scholars doing the type of work you want to do? If so, then great and you should relax. If not, then you need to think about the efficacy of getting a PhD. I had a (grad) prof once say that no matter how great you play, if you can't fit in (at least a little) with the band, no one will listen. Also, to echo truckbasket...how do you imagine studying religion or existentialism without discussing feminism or ethnography? Ideas don't happen in the abstract and they can't be studied that way. Good luck!

Not to be reductive, but I think any significant paper (of quality) would naturally abound in both. A paper with research but little analysis is really just an overgrown bibliography (or maybe survey?) and a paper that is purely analytic probably won't have the impact you'd want it to because it lacks the supporting elements that make analytic synthesis compelling. Of course I haven't seen your paper, but my guess is it already has a healthy amount of research integral within it. Maybe just beef that up a bit? All the best.

No worries. Write well and that's what matters. This is 2011. The canon stopped being a meaningful idea (thankfully!) 25 years ago.