Considering a switch

[hereandthere2]

Hello! I am currently a first-year PhD. student in a mid-ranked political science department. I know it might sound like a terrible decision, but I’m starting to think that I would be happier in a history program. I’ve always been interested in historical dynamics but made the decision to go political science and attempt quantitative methods due to better job prospects in academia. My strengths lean more toward qualitative analysis rather than quantitative methods, and I would like to spend more time with the material I’m studying while being able to do research with fewer concerns of generalizability and with more concern for the significance of particular moments.

I’m interested in urban history and the history of race, education, crime and punishment, and public policy in 20^th century United States. My BA was in history and political science, with senior theses in both disciplines. My undergrad GPA was 3.96 with a 4.0 in history courses and my GRE is 163V/155Q/4.5AW, which I would retake. That quant score hurt me applying to political science programs (should have just went for history right away ?). My grad GPA is currently 3.8, but I’m worried it will drop further because I’m struggling with quantitative methods. Right now, I am planning on trying for LORs from two undergrad profs and hopefully one from grad, and am hoping to work on revising my history senior thesis this summer. 

I’m concerned that I’m not well-qualified for history PhD programs. I am wondering if anyone has any advice about switching disciplines, potential programs, or whether I’m losing my mind considering this? 

I apologize if this post is a mess! Thank you so much. ?

Edited March 4, 2020 by hereandthere2

[ashiepoo72]

There are a few things you should do to make the switch (and I'm sure other people will chime in with more):

1. You need to have a well-fleshed out dissertation proposal and strong grasp of the historiography required to execute it, as well as exhibit understanding of historical research methods. Your interests are many and broad, so figure out how they coalesce into a narrow enough dissertation that makes a compelling intervention in that historiography.

2. You need to think about how your experience in political science (specific classes/research/readings) can be leveraged. How would they inform your dissertation? Sell your year as a PoliSci grad so it doesn't come off as a wasted year, but as a stepping stone to your History PhD. I'd also emphasize that you did major in history as an undergrad, so it's not like you're coming into this brand new.

3. You should do your best to get a strong LOR from your major adviser. At the very least, someone on your committee, or someone with whom you've done a significant amount of work. You need someone who can speak to your qualifications as a grad student. This can be a challenge because programs don't take kindly to investing in someone only to have them leave. Just make it very clear to them that your interests have changed beyond what the program can accommodate (in nicer terms).

However, I wonder: is there no way to inject your historical interests into a PoliSci PhD? You might want to consider that before you start all over in the application process and then in grad school if you get in. Like you said, the prospects for History PhDs are pretty harrowing.

[hereandthere2]

25 minutes ago, ashiepoo72 said:

There are a few things you should do to make the switch (and I'm sure other people will chime in with more):

1. You need to have a well-fleshed out dissertation proposal and strong grasp of the historiography required to execute it, as well as exhibit understanding of historical research methods. Your interests are many and broad, so figure out how they coalesce into a narrow enough dissertation that makes a compelling intervention in that historiography.

2. You need to think about how your experience in political science (specific classes/research/readings) can be leveraged. How would they inform your dissertation? Sell your year as a PoliSci grad so it doesn't come off as a wasted year, but as a stepping stone to your History PhD. I'd also emphasize that you did major in history as an undergrad, so it's not like you're coming into this brand new.

3. You should do your best to get a strong LOR from your major adviser. At the very least, someone on your committee, or someone with whom you've done a significant amount of work. You need someone who can speak to your qualifications as a grad student. This can be a challenge because programs don't take kindly to investing in someone only to have them leave. Just make it very clear to them that your interests have changed beyond what the program can accommodate (in nicer terms).

However, I wonder: is there no way to inject your historical interests into a PoliSci PhD? You might want to consider that before you start all over in the application process and then in grad school if you get in. Like you said, the prospects for History PhDs are pretty harrowing.

Thank you for the response! In the program I'm in currently, we don't choose an adviser until after our first year so I technically don't have an adviser yet, and having only been here since August, I haven't worked with any one individual extensively. Nevertheless, I can think of two or three faculty that might be able to speak to my qualifications.

I understand my interests likely come off as too broad. I believe they can be combined for a narrower focus of interconnected forces, which I plan on explaining in my SOP and demonstrating in my writing sample. I entered this program without a master's. Is it expected of a grad student in the first semester of their second year to have a well-defined dissertation proposal?

Edit: Also, the faculty in my current department are almost all quantitative and no one does historical work, so it might be difficult if I decide to pursue these interests here. I probably should have prepared for the possibility I would want to go back to historical interests...

Edited March 5, 2020 by hereandthere2

[AnUglyBoringNerd]

4 hours ago, hereandthere2 said:

My strengths lean more toward qualitative analysis

I was in a similar boat. After getting rejected by the Political Science PhD programs I applied to, I applied to History PhD programs and am now doing a PhD in history. Speaking from my own experience, I'd strongly encourage you to also think about the differences between historical analysis and qualitative analyses in social science, e.g. sociology, anthropology, etc. There is a substantial difference between rhetorically constructing a narrative (a story) and forming a hypothesis then test it with qualitative methods.  It took me a lot of time to really feel it, but social scientists have a mentality/mental road map that is quite different from that of a historian. I couldn't appreciate this difference until quite recently and when my adviser and I sat down to go over a piece of my writing. 

Don't get me wrong, for I enjoy my program to an extent that is beyond what words can describe, but it takes great efforts for me to even begin to understand what my adviser means when they say my writing is too "mechanical" and "social sciencey."

 

Just my two cents. 

[hereandthere2]

5 minutes ago, AnUglyBoringNerd said:

I was in a similar boat. After getting rejected by the Political Science PhD programs I applied to, I applied to History PhD programs and am now doing a PhD in history. Speaking from my own experience, I'd strongly encourage you to also think about the differences between historical analysis and qualitative analyses in social science, e.g. sociology, anthropology, etc. There is a substantial difference between rhetorically constructing a narrative (a story) and forming a hypothesis then test it with qualitative methods.  It took me a lot of time to really feel it, but social scientists have a mentality/mental road map that is quite different from that of a historian. I couldn't appreciate this difference until quite recently and when my adviser and I sat down to go over a piece of my writing. 

Don't get me wrong, for I enjoy my program to an extent that is beyond what words can describe, but it takes great efforts for me to even begin to understand what my adviser means when they say my writing is too "mechanical" and "social sciencey."

 

Just my two cents. 

Thank you so much! That's funny, I almost said "narrative" instead of "qualitative," but maybe being in the social science mind made something about that feel incorrect. I will need to spend time thinking about those differences. 

[TMP]

What are your plans after this semester?  If you're planning to finish with a master's, see if you can take historiography in the history department to get a sense of how the discipline works and if that's really the route you want to take.

[ashiepoo72]

5 hours ago, hereandthere2 said:

Thank you for the response! In the program I'm in currently, we don't choose an adviser until after our first year so I technically don't have an adviser yet, and having only been here since August, I haven't worked with any one individual extensively. Nevertheless, I can think of two or three faculty that might be able to speak to my qualifications.

I understand my interests likely come off as too broad. I believe they can be combined for a narrower focus of interconnected forces, which I plan on explaining in my SOP and demonstrating in my writing sample. I entered this program without a master's. Is it expected of a grad student in the first semester of their second year to have a well-defined dissertation proposal?

Edit: Also, the faculty in my current department are almost all quantitative and no one does historical work, so it might be difficult if I decide to pursue these interests here. I probably should have prepared for the possibility I would want to go back to historical interests...

Every applicant should have a reasonably well-defined dissertation proposal (it's not something you'll be married to, my dissertation has changed in both small and big ways every year I've been in grad school. Programs want to see that applicants get what a history PhD is about and how to formulate a proposal, engage with historiography, have some sense of methodology). What you have to do is prove you're ready to take the leap into history after being in a PoliSci PhD for a year, or more if you plan on getting a Master's before making the switch. I think @TMP's suggestion to take a historiography class is a good one. Even if you *think* you have a grasp of historiography already, showing history programs you've taken the initiative won't hurt. If you don't have time to do that, read a ton (but with purpose) in your areas of interest. This will help you narrow your interests, engage with historiographical arguments, figure out where you envision your dissertation intervening and find potential advisers.

Do you have a paper based on original historical research that can be used as a writing sample? Maybe your BA thesis could be edited for that? Because a writing sample suitable for history applications should be high on your list of things to do as well.

[AfricanusCrowther]

5 hours ago, AnUglyBoringNerd said:

I was in a similar boat. After getting rejected by the Political Science PhD programs I applied to, I applied to History PhD programs and am now doing a PhD in history. Speaking from my own experience, I'd strongly encourage you to also think about the differences between historical analysis and qualitative analyses in social science, e.g. sociology, anthropology, etc. There is a substantial difference between rhetorically constructing a narrative (a story) and forming a hypothesis then test it with qualitative methods.  It took me a lot of time to really feel it, but social scientists have a mentality/mental road map that is quite different from that of a historian. I couldn't appreciate this difference until quite recently and when my adviser and I sat down to go over a piece of my writing. 

Don't get me wrong, for I enjoy my program to an extent that is beyond what words can describe, but it takes great efforts for me to even begin to understand what my adviser means when they say my writing is too "mechanical" and "social sciencey."

 

Just my two cents. 

Even historical sociology and anthropology are closer to the narrative form and thematic interests of contemporary historiography than political science is (or at least that was my experience taking interdisciplinary grad seminars and attending regional/thematic workshops).

[ashiepoo72]

14 hours ago, AfricanusCrowther said:

Even historical sociology and anthropology are closer to the narrative form and thematic interests of contemporary historiography than political science is (or at least that was my experience taking interdisciplinary grad seminars and attending regional/thematic workshops).

This is my experience, too (my research pulls a bit from political science literature). I do think if a person's research involves quantitative methods, they can make a case for experience in political science preparing them, but this doesn't seem to be the case for OP.