Applying to MPH. Should I take Cultural Anthropology or Sociology?

[goomba25]

Some of the places I'm applying to require a Social Science course in these areas. As my background is in hard science, I missed out.

The ideal choice would give me insight into audience motivations and behaviors, allowing me to better tailor interventions. Assume that all other things are equal besides the course choice.

Thanks for all the advice!

[goomba25]

Perhaps I should make this more broad. Has anyone taken social science courses before? If so, what would you (not) recommend?

[fumblewhat]

I'm not from your field, but if you're interested in understanding the relationship between culture and health, or the way culture (symbols, discourses, etc) acts to shape people's healthcare expectations, a good Medical Anthropology course might fit the bill. I once landed an internship doing cross-cultural healthcare marketing on the basis of haven taken a medical anthro course.... It'll be considerably less "crunchy" (there will be few numbers or statistics) approach than sociology would provide, but it might be a good counterpoint to your sciences background.

You can always contact the instructor of whatever courses you're looking at to find out if they'd suit your needs.

[goomba25]

Thanks fumblewhat! You're the second person that's given me good ratings on a medical anthropology course.

[fumblewhat]

Thanks fumblewhat! You're the second person that's given me good ratings on a medical anthropology course.

If you're looking for some fun reading, there's a book about a medical anthropologist, Paul Farmer, called "Mountains Beyond Mountains." Beyond just being a great book, it glosses some basic medical anthro theory and profiles its most prominent practiioner. Good stuff!

Good luck!

[goomba25]

If you're looking for some fun reading, there's a book about a medical anthropologist, Paul Farmer, called "Mountains Beyond Mountains." Beyond just being a great book, it glosses some basic medical anthro theory and profiles its most prominent practiioner. Good stuff!

Good luck!

I've just recently heard about Paul Farmer and his work with PIH. I knew "the man who would cure the world" is a doctor and advocate, but I didn't know he was also a medical anthropologist.

[pearl421]

I would highly recommend medical anthropology as well. I did my undergrad in molecular biology, and I found that my course in medical anthropology fit really well with my hands-on experiences around hospitals (for research and volunteering). Paul Farmer is great, and you can tell he's so passionate about what he does from the way he wrote.

[goomba25]

I would highly recommend medical anthropology as well. I did my undergrad in molecular biology, and I found that my course in medical anthropology fit really well with my hands-on experiences around hospitals (for research and volunteering). Paul Farmer is great, and you can tell he's so passionate about what he does from the way he wrote.

Thanks pearl421! I'm really leaning toward Anthro, both because I've never taken a course in it, and also because that's what most people are telling me, both on this board and LinkedIn. It's Anthro 101, but I'll keep an eye out for medical-specific versions later on.

How has Anthro helped you at the hospital? I would be afraid of using it because I don't want to guess what a person's culture is and guess wrong.

[sourpatchkid]

I took a graduate seminar in med anth and I LOVED it., but if you're coming from the hard sciences it will require a total shift in thinking. It's based heavily in social theory and methods are qualitative. The way sociology is studied in North America is very positivist, with quantitative measurement. It will require less of a shift in perspective. Otherwise, the two disciplines are quite similar and for many years were tightly intertwined.

I personally am of the mind that the shift of thinking required in med anth will be intellectually important because it will allow you to be more critical and creative in your interventions, but if you're someone who has trouble with theory and writing - which many hard science students do - then I would not recommend it.

Some of the places I'm applying to require a Social Science course in these areas. As my background is in hard science, I missed out.

The ideal choice would give me insight into audience motivations and behaviors, allowing me to better tailor interventions. Assume that all other things are equal besides the course choice.

Thanks for all the advice!

Edited May 21, 2011 by sourpatchkid

[goomba25]

@sourpatchkid: Interesting. What was your background that made Anthro more accessible to you?

@fumblewhat and pearl421: FYI, Paul Farmer is giving the commencement speech at Georgetown tomorrow. Links: http://ow.ly/4XGL3 Live webcast: http://ow.ly/4OP1l.

[juilletmercredi]

From an objective standpoint, either one will serve you well. I'm in a social and behavioral sciences department at a school of public health as a PhD student, and most of the scholars here are either anthropologists or sociologists. Much of public health theory draws on both of those fields, and there's a lot of overlap. I had an advisor once tell me that many fields allow you to answer the same questions; the difference is the approach that you will take. Given that my program is a hybrid of anthropology, sociology and psychology at it's core - and that I work side-by-side with anthro and soc students every day (I'm a psychologist by training, and 50% of my program is psychology coursework), I'd say that's true. We ask similar questions.

As to audience motivations and behaviors, either anthro or soc will allow you to explore that, but the way you approach it will be different. Sociologists do use qualitative methods, but they are more likely to use quantitative/statistical methods than anthropologists. (Many of the sociologists I know here do qual studies or mixed-methods studies.) Also, I've noticed their qual methods are different - sociologists are likely to use interviews, group interviews, and focus groups and less likely to use ethnography and participant observation (both of which are basically immersion into the environment you are studying). You're also going to approach the question from more of a group dynamics standpoint. Anthropologists almost universally use qual methods, and are likely going to encourage ethnographic exploration and participant observation, and are going to approach questions from the standpoint of cultural investigation.

I've heard it told like this. Psychology looks at the individual or very small group level - as in, how do individuals behave? Even social psychology looks at individual behavior as influenced by social groups; social psychologists are not concerned with the behavior of the group so much as they are concerned with the individual within the group. Sociology looks at the large group level: how do schools, neighborhoods, racial groups, genders "behave"? Sociologists are not so much concerned about the culture of the group as they are in subgroups within the culture. Anthropology takes it out another step and looks at how entire cultures operate (but an entire culture could be the culture of a drug gang on a particular block or the homeless people who congregate at a particular corner - when I say "out" I mean relative to level of analysis, not size). On the flip, they're not interested in individuals; they are interested in what individuals say about the larger cultural structure. (Anthropologists and sociologists, please correct me if I have mussed your fields!)

From a subjective level, I preferred sociology. This is predictable, because I am a quantitative social psychologist. Number one, I don't really get ethnography and participant observation as research tools (I took a class on qual, and I did well, but I still don't "get" it in the sense that it's a method I'd use). This is also going to sound a little stupid but anthro is a lot more "free-flowing" a discipline as far as theory and method go; the anthros I've talked to firmly believe in allowing theory to develop from the content of the study and the data, and in letting the best method unfold in the doing. They often scout out their populations for weeks or months (or even years!) before deciding on a method, and they will change their methods to best suit the situation. (These are all positive things, I think, even though they are pretty much not what psychologists do.)

Medical sociology was really helpful to me as a social psychologist because again, I study individual behavior, and I thought it was important to know about group functioning and theory there. I also started out as a sociology major in college and switched because it wasn't "sciency" enough, so that should tell you something about my motivations I think either one will be an interesting journey, but if you're looking for more...science, sociology might be better (although anthro is a science too, although a hard science major might not see it as one). Anthro will give you some really good tough theory that is also very useful (Oh how I hated theory...but I do appreciate being able to just spit it out).

[sourpatchkid]

I studied psych, but I don't think that's what made it accessible, because it was taught from a quantitative perspective. I just enjoy reading social theory. It's this multi-disciplinary interest that makes public health a compelling field for me.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Social Psychologist who posted above. She communicated precisely what I intended to say. I found med anth very interesting, but there were definitely moments when I thought that the methods were a little wishy washy and wondered why they don't just throw the pretense of objectivity out the window. BUT I did enjoy reading the work and I think they did raise interesting questions and ideas, many of which would have been lost in quantiative analysis due to the loss of context. That is where the benefit of studying anthropology lies for a science student-- it challenges the worldview of the hard science student and forces you to think and reevaluate your methodological position and be critical about method. Even if you don't buy into it, you will probably come out better placed to defend your methodology. Med Anth also forces you to be critical about the practice of science and how objective it really is.

If you don't like theory and writing or don't want your worldview rocked too much, sociology is probably a better option.

@sourpatchkid: Interesting. What was your background that made Anthro more accessible to you?

@fumblewhat and pearl421: FYI, Paul Farmer is giving the commencement speech at Georgetown tomorrow. Links: http://ow.ly/4XGL3 Live webcast: http://ow.ly/4OP1l.