Another SOP Question

[bigdgp]

So I am down to a late draft of my SOP. It fits into most of the limitations of the schools to which I am applying and it says what I want it to about research interests, fit and past experience. My one concern is that I don't really discuss any specific critics. Is this a problem? Have other applicants had success without them? I do mention overall trends in the research of my field and I mention one old critic (Joseph Campbell) as an example of the type of approach I want to move away from. What do people think?

[skeletonkeys]

I don't think this is a problem at all. In fact I don't know if I've ever seen a sop that mentions specific critics. I do however mention faculty members and their critical approaches in my sop. You can (should?) discuss your theoretical orientation/methodology, but I do not believe you are expected to talk about well known critics (Judith Butler, DeMan, etc.) Someone correct me if I'm mistaken please!

[medicine]

Seconding this.

In general, I was advised (I think rightly) to avoid mentioning specific names as much as possible, if only to avoid turning off AdCom members who might irrationally dislike this or that theorist.

Instead of using a proper name as a shortcut, it's preferable just to describe your own approach and interests with precision and verve, which will demonstrate that you know more than just the big names, but that you can engage their ideas and the critical and theoretical problems they address or raise.

In sum, I would say that proper names shouldn't be verboten, but should instead be used if they still seem necessary, after you've done the hard work of describing your own interests.

[Sparky]

Hm, interesting, I received the opposite advice--mention a couple of scholars whose work has influenced mine.

I think, however, it's not an irreconcilable difference: the point is to show that you are aware of the current state of your field, and that you have identified a niche that you will fill. Mentioning a couple of works/scholars that you might use as a basis or that you strongly disagree with is simply one way of doing that.

But, of course, if you do mention specific people or even schools of thought, you should be aware of their general reception in your field. But y'all knew that.

[shepardn7]

Hm, interesting, I received the opposite advice--mention a couple of scholars whose work has influenced mine.

I think, however, it's not an irreconcilable difference: the point is to show that you are aware of the current state of your field, and that you have identified a niche that you will fill. Mentioning a couple of works/scholars that you might use as a basis or that you strongly disagree with is simply one way of doing that.

But, of course, if you do mention specific people or even schools of thought, you should be aware of their general reception in your field. But y'all knew that.

I could be wrong, but I do think mentioning "scholars" might be more neutral than "theorists." It's just subtler. If you're doing work on an author whose horse has technically been beaten, it might actually be necessary to mention scholars just to ground your place in the discourse. Like, if you're a Joyce scholar, mentioning a particular scholar(s)' respected book(s) that has influenced your own research on Joyce is different than dropping big-tent names like Derrida or Kristeva. While people don't generally have immediate aversions to certain Joyce scholars (though I'm sure those people exist in small numbers?), there are some people who might have an immediate averse reaction to a certain "theorist" like Derrida and/or a certain "-ism."

However, if you are truly and zealously wedded to a theorist and or theoretical "school," you might want to mention it anyway? Because you also have to think about "fit" and how advisors will receive your work once you're there. I think maybe you just want to be careful about dropping names, and that the subtler approaches described below (like, talking about your methodology with precision and verve, implying your theoretical bent without jumping out and screaming it) are best.

Edited November 17, 2010 by sarandipidy

[augustquail]

My advisor encouraged me to discuss some of the theorists I used in my Ma thesis, because she felt this discussion would show how I was able to use these seemingly disparate theories into a discussion about the same idea.

I definately mention 3 theorists...but I don't think they're particularly contentious. I also quote one of them (briefly) in my current interests paragraph. Though mentioning theoriests certainly shows the methodology you're interested in, I don't know if it really makes you seem like you're attached to one school of thought. I mention mostly poststructuralist theorists, but my interests reflect a marxist perspective too. I think it all depends on how the theorists are related to your work. If someone reading my sop doesn't like michel foucault enough to reject my application, then I probably don't want to go there anyway.

[anonacademic]

If someone reading my sop doesn't like michel foucault enough to reject my application, then I probably don't want to go there anyway.

Ha! A friend of mine just said that exact same thing about Foucault, aka "The F Bomb"!

I'm including theorists, because they're directly related to my writing sample and my proposed project is an outgrowth of my sample. I'm heavily invested in feminist theory, so it seems natural and not as though I'm throwing a name in for the heck of it. I'm trying to be careful to distinguish between their theory and what I bring to the table, though, to make sure I don't get lost in a literature review.

[skeletonkeys]

I think what Chumlee said is important: "I'm heavily invested in feminist theory, so it seems natural and not as though I'm throwing a name in for the heck of it." If you are just throwing theorists in they'll probably be able to tell, but maybe this approach is the key to doing it "right." I still would caution against naming lots of theorists, though, but perhaps that's a personal quirk.

[Sparky]

By "general reception," I basically meant "find out if the arguments of the person you're mentioning have been 100% disproven by the entire rest of the field", not "pick someone to make yourself sound cool or to help you fake a fit with a department." If the school is truly a good fit for you, you won't have to worry about naming someone "unpopular" with that particular faculty, b/c you would only have sought out departments supportive of that particular theoretical approach-ish.

[foppery]

Since I'm not an -ist of any kind (I did go through an unfortunate deconstructionist phase in college, but the less said about that the better), I didn't mention a single critic in my SOP. I don't think you need to name-drop unless you feel a strong allegiance to a particular theoretical approach, or unless a specific critic has had a major influence on your work. Otherwise, save the name-dropping for your writing sample.

<br style="text-shadow: none;">

[tinapickles]

Since I'm not an -ist of any kind (I did go through an unfortunate deconstructionist phase in college, but the less said about that the better), I didn't mention a single critic in my SOP. I don't think you need to name-drop unless you feel a strong allegiance to a particular theoretical approach, or unless a specific critic has had a major influence on your work. Otherwise, save the name-dropping for your writing sample.

<br style="text-shadow: none;">

I'm really hoping this. I'm not really an "-ist" either... yet. My interests are in representations of gender, sexuality, and marginalized groups, but I'm not certain if I'd say I'm one thing or the other. I tried to stress that one thing I really look forward to in the various programs I'm applying to is a in depth examination of theses theories in an attempt to better position my project argument.

I dunno... maybe that's a rookie mistake. We'll see I guess!

[wreckofthehope]

Maybe I'm being incredibly naive (and I am theoretically focussed, so perhaps this makes it more of an issue), but I can't see how you can properly locate your planned project without reference to the discourse it will be a part of... I would be worried that not mentioning specific people would mean that you came across as being unaware of their voices, or worse - that you think the work that you hope to do is without precedent (perhaps some people do have projects like this, but they are still working from a place that builds on past scholarship).

I have definitely talked about specific theoretical approaches, and mentioned names - they are central to my whole conception of my planned research.

[foppery]

<br style="text-shadow: none;">I'm really hoping this. I'm not really an "-ist" either... yet. My interests are in representations of gender, sexuality, and marginalized groups, but I'm not certain if I'd say I'm one thing or the other. I tried to stress that one thing I really look forward to in the various programs I'm applying to is a in depth examination of theses theories in an attempt to better position my project argument. <br style="text-shadow: none;"><br style="text-shadow: none;">I dunno... maybe that's a rookie mistake. We'll see I guess!<br style="text-shadow: none;">

<br style="text-shadow: none;"><br style="text-shadow: none;">No, that sounds fine! My own approach to literature is much more historical than theoretical, so I didn't feel the need to mention any scholar in particular. But if you're planning to use specific theories in your future research, mentioning your favorite proponents of those theories seems like the way to go.

<br style="text-shadow: none;">

[diehtc0ke]

Maybe I'm being incredibly naive (and I am theoretically focussed, so perhaps this makes it more of an issue), but I can't see how you can properly locate your planned project without reference to the discourse it will be a part of... I would be worried that not mentioning specific people would mean that you came across as being unaware of their voices, or worse - that you think the work that you hope to do is without precedent (perhaps some people do have projects like this, but they are still working from a place that builds on past scholarship).

I have definitely talked about specific theoretical approaches, and mentioned names - they are central to my whole conception of my planned research.

*shrug* I mentioned that discourse and was able to deftly describe that which was most pertinent to my own research without naming many names (only one, in fact) and did just fine.

[tinapickles]

*shrug* I mentioned that discourse and was able to deftly describe that which was most pertinent to my own research without naming many names (only one, in fact) and did just fine.

This I do--I mention the "lenses" I anticipate exploring the topic through. However, I didn't go into great detail dropping names and "-isms." I also plan on discussing more how the structure of certain programs will help me better situate my project in the various discourses and how certain professors own work in various "isms" will further help.

[augustquail]

This discussion is very strange to me! I don't think that you necessarily *need* to mention theorists, but everyone's sop is certainly influenced by certain theoretical perspectives...I mean, if you're talking about investigating "discourse" as a major part of your work, that definately is rooted in poststructuralist thought. If someone's investigation is about historical context, its certainly rooted in materialist thought. There could be some combination of all kinds of theoretical approaches, but we can't pretend that our work is unrelated to theory...

Sorry if this sounds weird, I'm still drinking my coffee.

[diehtc0ke]

This discussion is very strange to me! I don't think that you necessarily *need* to mention theorists, but everyone's sop is certainly influenced by certain theoretical perspectives...I mean, if you're talking about investigating "discourse" as a major part of your work, that definately is rooted in poststructuralist thought. If someone's investigation is about historical context, its certainly rooted in materialist thought. There could be some combination of all kinds of theoretical approaches, but we can't pretend that our work is unrelated to theory...

Sorry if this sounds weird, I'm still drinking my coffee.

I think the conversation is less about speaking within certain discourses (which is a must) and more about being heavy handed in naming exactly what those discourses are and which theorists are most influential for them and us.

In re-reading your post, I think it's a much less elevated conversation than you're making it out to be.

Edited November 18, 2010 by diehtc0ke