Epistemological approaches in comparative perspective

[PurpleProse]

Hello,

To be candid, I find myself partial to the marshmallow-y kool aid of qualitative methods. In part, this owes to my undergraduate degree from Toronto -- I share the department's view that constructivism and qualitative methods are both valid and valuable approaches to political science research. I have noticed that several posters have made comments about the respective approaches adopted by a variety of American departments. However, this conventional wisdom essentially eludes me.

In other words, I am appealing for some much-needed advice:

1. Which top departments in the United States are quant-heavy? Are there top departments with a core group of qualitative scholars?

Should I just go to Oxford/LSE? (I am not interested in Canadian schools)

2. Given my "kumbaya" approach, should I even bother applying to quant heavy departments? What if they have a potential supervisor that I like, despite being quant heavy?

3. Will I be made a weaker candidate across the board in the United States due to my failure to conform to epistemological norms?

Thank you for your insights!

Mmm...

Edited June 2, 2011 by PurpleProse

[expatbayern]

Do you think constructivism and qualitative methods are among a set of valid and valuable approaches? Or do you think they're the ONLY valid and valuable approaches?

Most large, top-tier, full-service US departments have multiple scholars who do primarily qualitative work and and are able to support qualitative dissertations. Self-described constructivists are somewhat rarer but there is still a presence at many top schools.

These schools will, however, in general ask you to at least expose yourself to positivism, quantitative methods, rational choice approaches, etc. to at a minimum be able to read the leading journals in the field.

If you are willing to learn some alternate approaches, even if you continue using the ones you are now most familiar with, you will do fine at most large departments.

I find, however, that the qualitatively and informally inclined are much more likely to dogmatically reject quantitative and formal work (refusing to learn what's going on in the models or how to read the papers) than the other way around. If this describes you, you probably would have a better time at a non-US department, where there is much less emphasis on broad-based training.

[catchermiscount]

To echo expat (whoever the heck that guy is), I think you'll find that there is a bit of a "dead zone" for qualitative training between the very top schools and a a lower tier of schools. You certainly can get good training in qualitative methods at many top-15 type departments. You are also more likely to be able to find qualitative training at some departments ranked 40+.

In the middle, however, are many departments that are actively trying to make names for themselves by virtue of offering good quantitative training and that expect nearly all their graduates to fit a mold that highlights that training. Places like, say, Florida State, Michigan State, or UC-Davis come to mind. Emory provides nice evidence of this kind of thing on their website; observe what pains they take to mention the six courses available in their quant sequence relative to the one qualitative methodology course available. This is typical of rising-type schools in this range.

Generally, I would recommend staying open to expanding your methodological horizons. How many methods classes have you taken? Formal theory? Programming? Don't knock it 'til you've tried it---grad school should be a fun time where you experiment and learn what works best for you. Don't go in with those decisions already made, as you'll miss out on some of the fun. Just one man's opinion.

Edited June 3, 2011 by coachrjc

[Zahar Berkut]

Agree with everything said above-- what will be important is choosing a program that does not completely squash qualitative approaches, as opposed to one that de-emphasizes quantitative.

But what field and research interests do you have? I have a feeling the school selection will answer itself almost based on that alone. You can just cross any hostile options from your list if they come up.

[blankets]

Qual/Theory friendly places where you can still get placed out of: Yale, Berkeley, Stanford, Northwestern, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Duke. Then down a tier there's: UC-Santa Cruz, New School, Boston College, Emory

I'm sure I'm forgetting places, but listen, here's what you need to do. Figure out who you'd like to study with and then go there, it's that simple. Read around your interests, see where the debates that you're interested in are happening and then go there.