History vs. Political Science

[aspiringhistorian]

I'm currently a History major specializing in Modern European History. My interests, more specifically, are in the field of Nationalism, which tends to be somewhat interdisciplinary. Because of the location of some of the faculty, I'm trying to figure out if it is worth applying also to Political Science departments given this interest and if I would even have a shot at a PhD program in Political Science given my heavy background in History. I'm nervous that History PhD programs will reject me based on the fact that they wouldn't be able to support my research, so I'm just trying to cover my bases... Advice?

[StrangeLight]

do you want to be a political scientist? or a historian? they are, at their cores, very different disciplines. historians usually fall under the humanities banner. the major trends in the field right now seem to be transnational history and (more) cultural history. while there are certainly successful historians that do straight political history, it's becoming increasingly difficult for PhD students to get hired doing straight political history. political scientists are social scientists and most grad programs lean heavily towards statistics, theory, and model-building. even though you may find historians in poli sci departments or political scientists with decidedly historical bents, the field in general has been moving away from historically contextualized political science and towards, well, math. theory, models, institutions, policy-making, and lots of stats classes.

do you want to do a lot of quantitative and comparative work? then it would make sense to apply to poli sci programs as well. do you want to look at the cultural origins of nationalist sentiment? then stay far away from the poli sci departments. it depends on what you want and what your project looks like, really.

[TMP]

I agree with StrangeLight. It also depends if you're interested in anything in the last 20-30 years.

Do you have courses that would make you competitive for a quantitative-based PhD? Do you really, really enjoy working with data and figuring out statistics? What would be your ideal methodology? Just some things to think about.

[borderlands]

I would not draw such a quick line between history and poli sci by methodological approach of qualitative or quantitative approach. I believe that one should "count if you can" with the research topic and should be done whenever possible. Historians use statistics when possible to support an argument whether it's census data, unemployment, labor ... etc. The archive can be used in interesting ways as well to note the number of court cases and litigation for x or y; make an argument that x or y was or was not prominent at such a studied time.

I believe the large distinction has to do with poli sci's relevancy of the subject matter to today, theoretical models, and implications it has on the future. Historians are not so much concerned with the future (although we do care) and more conservatively most historians do not work with anything that has occurred in the last ten years. While we are concerned with the larger picture, at least for general/ introductory courses, the best historical work has to do with nuance and seeing history not so much for its outcome but for "the what if's" and the possibilities of a given situation without knowing the future. Of course, not all of us are going to agree on what the exact cut-offs make or do not make history; this is open to discussion and dialogue. There are some interesting works on this if you are interested e.g. Peter Novik's That Noble Dream, Collinwood's The Idea of History, and more recently, Kerwin Klein's History & Theory.

Nationalism can be and is studied in history whether we think of it through Benedict Anderson's "imagined communities" or something that is real. The important thing is that you offer a solid writing sample in this topic--through a thesis under the supervision of a historian and that you contact faculty that might be interested in your research before you apply. Best of luck aspiringhistorian!

[aspiringhistorian]

Thank you so much! You guys have given me a lot of good questions to think about. I'm pretty sure I'm just going to attack it from the History side, but I wanted to make sure I'm covering all my bases. I'm definitely not trained quantitatively to the degree that I probably should be for Political Science, and I feel as though I'd even be able to broaden my specialty in History for the sake of remaining in the field until I can narrow down again. With Political Science, I would have no knowledge of where to expand or move around in the field given my lack of exposure to it and would probably feel trapped in the long run.

Thanks again!

[pudewen]

Just to respond to one thing in your original posting that no one has mentioned. It seems you're worried that there won't be adequate support for studying nationalism within history departments. You really shouldn't be; nationalism, and related issues (particularly ethnicity and ethnic/national identity) is a well-studied and popular topic in history. I'm likely to be working on issues related to nationalism for my PhD, and wrote my undergraduate senior thesis on a nationalism-related topic, and have received nothing but support from the historians I've worked with and talked to about my interests. There's no question that it's a very viable area for a historian to be working in.

The one (potential) caveat is that historians will usually be approaching nationalism in a particular time and place, not generally. Even more general works like Benedict Anderson's are more focused on the historian's area of expertise (SE Asia in Anderson's case, though Imagined Communities itself also placed considerable important on Latin America). So if you want to work on nationalism within a history department, it will definitely be helpful to have a particular and relevant geographical focus.

[aspiringhistorian]

Just to respond to one thing in your original posting that no one has mentioned. It seems you're worried that there won't be adequate support for studying nationalism within history departments. You really shouldn't be; nationalism, and related issues (particularly ethnicity and ethnic/national identity) is a well-studied and popular topic in history. I'm likely to be working on issues related to nationalism for my PhD, and wrote my undergraduate senior thesis on a nationalism-related topic, and have received nothing but support from the historians I've worked with and talked to about my interests. There's no question that it's a very viable area for a historian to be working in.

The one (potential) caveat is that historians will usually be approaching nationalism in a particular time and place, not generally. Even more general works like Benedict Anderson's are more focused on the historian's area of expertise (SE Asia in Anderson's case, though Imagined Communities itself also placed considerable important on Latin America). So if you want to work on nationalism within a history department, it will definitely be helpful to have a particular and relevant geographical focus.

I definitely do have a geographic focus and my research in the past in this field has mostly been contained within [Western] Europe (France, Italy, the UK, and Germany) during the late nineteeth and early twentieth centuries, although I'm currently doing work on the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War for a grant I'm working under. Because I'm fluent in French and Italian (and am taking German), that's naturally where my research has led me. I am somewhat intrigued by the various theories of nationalism, but I don't think that's necessarily what I want to do my thesis on as it is very broad and it's something I can dabble in throughout my career. Doing Political Science would probably minimize my exposure to Europe, which does concern me.

Are there any schools you would recommend if one is interested in nationalism? I have a list of schools I'm looking into, but I'm not finding many faculty members and that's what concerns me.

[StrangeLight]

almost any history program/professor will be willing to advise on nationalism. even something as narrow as "19th century italian nationalism" isn't really that narrow. any italian historian who feels comfortable advising on the 19th century would be able to guide you through that project, for example. the best way to narrow down programs is to look at the books and articles you've really loved and see if and where those professors are teaching. for many people, their school list is really determined by their bookshelves.

I would not draw such a quick line between history and poli sci by methodological approach of qualitative or quantitative approach. I believe that one should "count if you can" with the research topic and should be done whenever possible. Historians use statistics when possible to support an argument whether it's census data, unemployment, labor ... etc. The archive can be used in interesting ways as well to note the number of court cases and litigation for x or y; make an argument that x or y was or was not prominent at such a studied time.

i agree that historians can and should use quantitative methods wherever and whenever it makes sense for their argument. i am not anti-quant. but there is a massive difference between databasing, counting, and some general demographic work on the one hand and a graduate-level statistics course that demands command of complex formulae and assumes everyone can already do regression analysis on the other. even if a poli sci student has no intention of performing quantitative work themselves, it can be difficult for them to even find admission to a PhD program without undergrad stats courses.

being a historian and talking a few poli sci courses can be extremely beneficial. depending on what type of historian you want to be, the two fields aren't that far apart in their sensibilities. but to actually get a PhD in poli sci, you need to be able to do grad-level stats math. it's not that simple, that's all i'm saying.

[aspiringhistorian]

almost any history program/professor will be willing to advise on nationalism. even something as narrow as "19th century italian nationalism" isn't really that narrow. any italian historian who feels comfortable advising on the 19th century would be able to guide you through that project, for example. the best way to narrow down programs is to look at the books and articles you've really loved and see if and where those professors are teaching. for many people, their school list is really determined by their bookshelves.

i agree that historians can and should use quantitative methods wherever and whenever it makes sense for their argument. i am not anti-quant. but there is a massive difference between databasing, counting, and some general demographic work on the one hand and a graduate-level statistics course that demands command of complex formulae and assumes everyone can already do regression analysis on the other. even if a poli sci student has no intention of performing quantitative work themselves, it can be difficult for them to even find admission to a PhD program without undergrad stats courses.

being a historian and talking a few poli sci courses can be extremely beneficial. depending on what type of historian you want to be, the two fields aren't that far apart in their sensibilities. but to actually get a PhD in poli sci, you need to be able to do grad-level stats math. it's not that simple, that's all i'm saying.

As much as I am comfortable with doing quantitative work, I definitely have not prepared for it that intensely as an undergraduate. I'm about 99.5% sure about my decision to stick with my plan for doing History, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I want to be able to apply full-force and I was nervous that I could to go the department and they would say that they were not the people to go to. I think I also might have spent too much time looking for faculty with my precise interest and, although that is ideal, it's not realistic and I'm sure, as you say, that professors in Modern European History could still guide me through a thesis. Thank you!

[TMP]

No, I don't think you're missing anything, aspiringhistorian. One of my mentors is actually a professor of political science. His work can be mixed in with history (which is how I found his books in the first place). Yet, when I listen to him talk about our topic, I just *get* the sense that he's a political scientist at heart. These people are much more theoretical driven and concerned with the relationship between the sovereign and subjects through the law.

Nationalism is a broad topic and most people involved in social/cultural/political history should be able to advise you. Identity politics is a fascinating topic and I can't see it "being done to death" any time soon because of evolving theories and perspectives put forth by historians and social scientists. Just look for any works that grabs your attention and find those professors.

You could gravitate towards Western Europe because of your languages but don't assume that adcoms will look at your skills set and go "This applicant's got French, Italian, and German, and s/he wants to do American history? Okay, no big deal." But if you really want to do Soviet Union and DO expect to use Russian-language sources, you better get your Russian working. You need to decide WHICH geographical area you want to focus on- American or Russian. A lot of times Russianists fall under European history and it's very stiff there. Those Russian professors have to battle against other Europeanists who have applicants who are likely to be fluent and can make better case for those valuable spots (and you'd be one of them if you choose this route).

[aspiringhistorian]

No, I don't think you're missing anything, aspiringhistorian. One of my mentors is actually a professor of political science. His work can be mixed in with history (which is how I found his books in the first place). Yet, when I listen to him talk about our topic, I just *get* the sense that he's a political scientist at heart. These people are much more theoretical driven and concerned with the relationship between the sovereign and subjects through the law.

Nationalism is a broad topic and most people involved in social/cultural/political history should be able to advise you. Identity politics is a fascinating topic and I can't see it "being done to death" any time soon because of evolving theories and perspectives put forth by historians and social scientists. Just look for any works that grabs your attention and find those professors.

You could gravitate towards Western Europe because of your languages but don't assume that adcoms will look at your skills set and go "This applicant's got French, Italian, and German, and s/he wants to do American history? Okay, no big deal." But if you really want to do Soviet Union and DO expect to use Russian-language sources, you better get your Russian working. You need to decide WHICH geographical area you want to focus on- American or Russian. A lot of times Russianists fall under European history and it's very stiff there. Those Russian professors have to battle against other Europeanists who have applicants who are likely to be fluent and can make better case for those valuable spots (and you'd be one of them if you choose this route).

I'm only doing the Russian/American slant for the summer, so I don't really intend on making any long-term plans on that front. I'm doing research slightly out of my field so that I have some experience in a more recent timeframe and in a new geographical area so that I could better decide what exactly I wanted to do. I'd prefer to stick to Western Europe although I don't mind the idea of working with Russia/Eastern Europe later on. Linguistically speaking, I'm not qualified for that for the time being, so I'm more or less leaving it alone when it comes to my undergraduate thesis and when it comes to propose ideas for graduate school.

I'm glad to hear that identity politics is considered interesting- I love it and I'd like to continue looking at it over the years! I'm just going to search more for POI in the History departments at the schools I'd like to apply to, and go from there.

[pudewen]

As much as I am comfortable with doing quantitative work, I definitely have not prepared for it that intensely as an undergraduate. I'm about 99.5% sure about my decision to stick with my plan for doing History, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I want to be able to apply full-force and I was nervous that I could to go the department and they would say that they were not the people to go to. I think I also might have spent too much time looking for faculty with my precise interest and, although that is ideal, it's not realistic and I'm sure, as you say, that professors in Modern European History could still guide me through a thesis. Thank you!

If you want to look more specifically than just Modern European History, you could consider what aspects of nationalism appeal most to you. The study of nationalism really touches on most of the major thematic subfields of history (which is why basically any historian of the modern period can advise on it). That is, intellectual, social, cultural, and political history are all important to nationalism, and which of those you find most compelling could help drive your decision about who to work with. That is, are you interested in nationalism as an idea that drives how people view their world, as a force in the international relations of the 20th century, as something leading to the flourishing of artistic and literary expression in societies (and languages) not previously at the center of the European cultural world, etc? Asking questions like these can help narrow down what sort fo historians you should be looking at. It's hard to give advice on something like "nationalism in Western Europe" because it could mean anything from the Irish Republican Army's use of terrorism to the influence of Norwegian folk music on Edvard Grieg (I mean, I guess that's actually music history which doesn't really fall within the scope of most history departments, but I think that really conveys the point).

As an example, I'm really interested in nationalism from the perspective of the formation and development of ethnic identity. That meant, for me, that anyone working on ethnicity in China (my geographic area) was a great fit (helpful, since it's a hot topic among Chinese historians right now), but basically so was anyone working on Chinese social history of the Qing Dynasty and/or the Republic.

In the end, though, StrangeLight is right. Look at your bookshelf and what in it has really interested you and inspired you. And then look at who they cite for sections of particular interest to you and read those people's books as well. And then find where those people are and apply there. You know what interest you better than anyone here does, and you know the literature relevant to your area better than any of us (unless someone else here is working on very similar questions).

[aspiringhistorian]

If you want to look more specifically than just Modern European History, you could consider what aspects of nationalism appeal most to you. The study of nationalism really touches on most of the major thematic subfields of history (which is why basically any historian of the modern period can advise on it). That is, intellectual, social, cultural, and political history are all important to nationalism, and which of those you find most compelling could help drive your decision about who to work with. That is, are you interested in nationalism as an idea that drives how people view their world, as a force in the international relations of the 20th century, as something leading to the flourishing of artistic and literary expression in societies (and languages) not previously at the center of the European cultural world, etc? Asking questions like these can help narrow down what sort fo historians you should be looking at. It's hard to give advice on something like "nationalism in Western Europe" because it could mean anything from the Irish Republican Army's use of terrorism to the influence of Norwegian folk music on Edvard Grieg (I mean, I guess that's actually music history which doesn't really fall within the scope of most history departments, but I think that really conveys the point).

As an example, I'm really interested in nationalism from the perspective of the formation and development of ethnic identity. That meant, for me, that anyone working on ethnicity in China (my geographic area) was a great fit (helpful, since it's a hot topic among Chinese historians right now), but basically so was anyone working on Chinese social history of the Qing Dynasty and/or the Republic.

In the end, though, StrangeLight is right. Look at your bookshelf and what in it has really interested you and inspired you. And then look at who they cite for sections of particular interest to you and read those people's books as well. And then find where those people are and apply there. You know what interest you better than anyone here does, and you know the literature relevant to your area better than any of us (unless someone else here is working on very similar questions).

I know that I'm interested in the way that various European nations have presented themselves at mega-events such as the Olympics, World's Fairs, etc, so in the past I've had to work with art/architecture, technology, sports, and of course, internally and externally-geared propaganda. The way that the average citizen in these cases is affected by and affects politics via these channels has tended to be where my research has led me, which I suppose is more concretely based in history than a theoretical approach typically would be. I'm sure that I'll come into contact with many political historians, but the more feedback I get on this issue and the more I think about it, the more I realize that my direction is more toward History than anything else.