quant vs. qual

[justanotherperson]

Hi all,

I'm planning to study IR-security, and almost all schools I am going to apply are known for being relatively quant-heavy. I thought going quant makes sense cause lots of work done in the area of my research interest seem to have taken quant approaches, and I also imagined getting familiar with quant methods might be better in terms of job prospects down the road.

Now that I'm looking to actually apply for the programs though, I'm starting to fret. I'm in no way good at math/stats/econ, and if I wasn't gonna go for a phD program I would have preferred qualitative work to quantitative work (for instance when reading journal articles). Another concern is -- how do I know, at this point as somebody having only a B.A. with no research experience to speak of, whether I'm a quant person or a qual person? I heard from others that I should decide on the methods based on what kind of questions I'd like to ask, and I know many prominent scholars have done heavily quantitative works in the fields I'm interested in... but I feel quite lost and would like a piece of advice on this.

Do you guys think that applying additionally to a couple of programs where they do qualitative IR stuff, such as UND, would be a good idea? And can anybody offer advice on deciding on which way to go in terms of methods?

Thanks a lot in advance, and good luck to everyone.

[gradcafe26]

I’m new in this game, but it seems that you will at least show some signals of your quantitative abilities. If you don't have a lot of good grades in econ and math, I guess GRE-quant might be helpful (but i doubt if it's gonna be enough if you are going to quant heavy programs)

[balderdash]

As is often written around here (and in scholarship... I think I saw it the other day in a book from 1970), the problem dictates the methodology, not the other way around. So apply to schools based on thematic/advisorial matches, and worry about methodology later once you have your research question sorted out as as a 3rd-5th year student.

[mv0027]

I disagree with the "problem dictates the methodology" point. The implication is that someone without proper econometric training would know what can and can't be anwsered with statistics seems silly. I TAed two quantative method classes which pol sci PhDs took. Across the board they all said that they wished they would have taken these courses early and been able to weave more into their research earlier on (they were usually 3rd and 4th years). They were mostly doing comparative though, so there is a bias.

You really should be open to being a quant. person. I didn't take a single math class in my undergrad, but feel in love with quant. analysis during my masters, and I plan to continue to sharpen those skills when I do a PhD, and it is without a doubt better for job prospects. So, I think you should be very open to going to a quant school, because you never know. Data are taking over the world, people that know how to work with it will surely do better than those who don't.

Regarding admissions, I have no idea how much they care. To be honest, for my sake, I'm hoping they care a lot about previous coursework.

good luck.

[Penelope Higgins]

The last post is exactly right in my view, but I still see it as a way to let the problem guide the methods you use. Build a toolkit that will let you develop any question, and then specialize in the tools you need to answer it. Take quant and qual and formal methods early in grad school, then seek more training based on what your research entails.

As for methods coursework and admissions: if it is (a) relevant to the work you want to do and/or ( a department that has a methods specialty, it will make a difference in a positive sense to have some econometrics and math training. It won't hurt you anywhere.

And in terms of the first post, if the work you're seeing about the questions you find interesting is quant work, you should expect to use your first few years of grad school to develop the tools you need to do that sort of work. Few people come into grad school fully trained for the kind of research they want to do - but you should have a sense of what sort of work you might like to do once you've trained yourself.

[balderdash]

I disagree with the "problem dictates the methodology" point. The implication is that someone without proper econometric training would know what can and can't be anwsered with statistics seems silly.

I think you've misread me, as that's not the implication of what I was saying. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but I think it's assumed that one needs a solid base in a range of research techniques in order to even begin framing the research questions. What I meant was that beyond this sort of familiarity - after the first few years of graduate study, as I mentioned in my original post - is when the problem takes precedence, so methodology can't really be "known" prior to that experience.

[justanotherperson]

Must say ya'll are awesome. It really helps. If I can ask additional (and dumb) questions though, umm...

1) Would somebody who's trained to do mainly quantitative works still be able to qualitative research too? Because I don't imagine it'd be very easy for a qual person to do quant research. (I guess I am asking this because I don't wanna miss out too much by going one way.)

2) I'm much better at understanding text based analysis than deciphering number-based information, graphs, etc. Of course I am willing to learn quant methods once I'm at grad school, but I'm quite skeptical I'd excel at it. I know getting admission from whatever grad school matters more at this point, but still, should I be worried?

3) I read some people are hostile to quant approaches, especially foreign service people and those at think tanks. I wanna work as a researcher perhaps in a non-university setting (though I'd still love to end up at a research university). Would going quant be a problem?

Thank you all for bearing with my questions. Hopefully this thread will help others who are as confused as I am...

Edited September 20, 2011 by justanotherperson

[mv0027]

I think I can add a few more comments....

1. Both require knowledge and training, however, to me it is the difference between art and science. In other words, training helps both, but there will be some people that are just naturally good at qual. While some people might have a disposition for quant work, you can never excel at it without lots of training (nobody just understands what a two-fixed effect model is?!?!?). In my opinion, it is much better to develop the quant skills, even if you want to do qual work, because you have to know how to critic the quant work of others, at the very least. Not to mention, pol sci (again my opinion) is undergoing a transistion that happened in economics around the 1920s. It is being quantified. Whether this is good or bad, I suppose, is debtable.

2. Yes. Life should be taken step by step. Getting in is all that matters. Again though, be open. I was a numbers person before my master's degree. Now, I have strong stata programming skills and I'm working on learning the R language....so be open!

3. what do you mean by foreign service people? If your goal is to join the foreign service, do not get a phd, get a masters (from a small subset of schools). I work at a think tank myself, as a researcher. I wouldn't say that think tanks are hostile to quant work. In general, think tank's research is not as rigorous and more agenda-driven, so they like to use numbers to support their claims, not as "truth-seekers" like academics. They might be a little bitter/jealous at times because academics are intellectually superior (in my opinion) but they are not hostile and certainly don't mind people with quant. skills (it is actually a big plus).

[justanotherperson]

Oh, thanks a lot mv0027.

No I'm not seeking a foreign service job... I mentioned it because not everybody would survive the harsh job market and some people might be forced to look elsewhere. It's really reassuring to hear think tanks are not openly hostile to quant works.

Again, thanks for this, and I guess I'll stick to the list of schools of my choice and hope they'll accept me

Edited September 21, 2011 by justanotherperson