Methods bias in sociology

[RefurbedScientist]

I want to gauge the sentiments of the board about the extent of status effects on sociology applicants/grad students/job seekers according to their research methods.

I think the ideal answer is that different methods are equally valuable depending on the research question. I suspect the real answer is that the professional culture of sociology displays a preference for quantitative methods (stats at least. More advanced mathematical methods are perhaps another issue).

What are your opinions? Is there a bias against purely qualitative methods (e.g. ethnography) in sociology? Are these papers less likely to be published in top journals? Should applicants be discouraged from highlighting "qualitative" research interests during the admissions process?

I am expecting that responses may look like, "Qualitative methods are fine for lower-tier programs, but rare in the upper echelons." Am I wrong?

[ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid]

^^^ Looks like somebody is an orgtheory reader, eh?

http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/low-status-graduate-students/#comments

Discussion similar to this in the comments of that post.

[faculty]

One of the many points of the orgtheory post was that in the top-tier departments you'll get methodological training that you might not get in lower-tier departments and that such training is available through other means if you're in such a department.

While everyone has a different take on the status of various methods, it's erroneous to assume that qualitative methods are only appreciated, taught, or cultivated in lower-tier departments or published in lower-tier journals or book presses. In fact, I'd assert that because of other issues brought up in the orgtheory thread, qualitative scholars have an increased chance of being successful when they attend a higher-ranked program than a lower-tier one.

In just the last few years very strong qualitative people have emerged from Berkeley, Princeton, Penn, Wisconsin, Harvard, Northwestern, and other top-tier programs. There are some departments that produce very few (e.g., Texas, UNC), but they still have qualitative research happening in their programs. The best departments teach a range of methods so that students are well-versed in all of them, and able to judge quality scholarship, regardless of the methods they specialize in.

The biggest problem with expressing an interest in qualitative methods is that is can be interpreted as a fear of statistics, particularly if coupled with low-quantitative scores. Programs want people who could do statistics - and who will study them - even if their real talent/inclination is toward qualitative methods.

[sciencegirl]

I would second faculty's assessment... oddly, when you look at the work of graduate students in the top tier schools (1-12), many are doing cutting edge qualitative work and the schools have professors who are doing top level qualitative work (and also publishing in top journals with it)... but it seems that its the roughly ranked 12-25 area.. sort of 1.5 tier, where there seems to be a much larger emphasis on quantitative methods being prioritized... and then you see a strong shift to quantitative work starting from there, where OPs suggestion holds more validity... then in the lower tiers, qualitative work comes back.

Perhaps this is because qualitative work can either be very great and groundbreaking, or conversely easily seen as badly done, soft and not rigorous. A sort of sink or swim type methodology, where quant work is more easily passed as more evenly good and rigorous for most sociologists, so it holds weight in the upper-middle tiers, while the top level qualitative work rises to the top tier schools.

[RefurbedScientist]

You guessed it. That orgtheory discussion was my motivation. I wanted to diversify the opinions though, as the orgtheory bloggers (as they admit) are skewed toward top-tier programs (in their training and current employment).

I think that faculty and sciencegirl's posts are spot on.

But faculty raises an interesting point: "The biggest problem with expressing an interest in qualitative methods is that is can be interpreted as a fear of statistics, particularly if coupled with low-quantitative scores. Programs want people who could do statistics - and who will study them - even if their real talent/inclination is toward qualitative methods."

So is it wiser to represent oneself as a "multi-methods" researcher, even if one's true intention is qualitative work? Are there exceptions? Most of my statements of purpose have been submitted, so perhaps I shouldn't dwell, but my inclination has been to liberally mention that all of my previous research has involved participant observation. My hope (maybe unfounded) has been that the "I know my sh**" impression will shine through my penchant for qualitative research.

Maybe I will eat my words, but I would rather portray myself as a rigorous qualitative researcher than a "satisficing" statistician.

[RefurbedScientist]

And another open question:

How many of you applicants out there mentioned methods at all in your statements of purpose? As I understand it, those of with a social science background were probably never required to take a very rigorous methods course at the undergraduate level. I know I wasn't. And why should we, if we'll end up taking 3 semesters of stats in grad school anyway?*

So, did you mention methods in your statement of purpose? Did you intimate methodological inclinations? Did you find it necessary to take an outside stats class prior to applying to "beef" up your transcript?

*Edit: I recognize that stats and methods are not one in the same, and cannot always be conflated. But let's assume that stats is one of the predominant analytical tools that sociologists use for a variety of methods (e.g. surveys).

Edited December 14, 2011 by SocialGroovements

[violet.]

How many of you applicants out there mentioned methods at all in your statements of purpose? *

So, did you mention methods in your statement of purpose? Did you intimate methodological inclinations? Did you find it necessary to take an outside stats class prior to applying to "beef" up your transcript?

I mentioned that my previous research is mostly ethnography, but I did not talk about methods past that point. I did well, not outstanding, on my quant GRE and took stats, experimental design, qualitative methods, and another math class in undergrad...hopefully they will see that I can run numbers too!

[sciencegirl]

I think it really depends on the program and the faculty that you want to work with.. it seemed that almost every school's application wanted you to list the faculty that you wanted to work with. If you highlighted someone in your app that was quantitative but said you wanted to do qualitative work, then it's probably going to look funny, and vice-versa.

I actually proposed in my SOP that my doctoral research was to be based on a qualitative study, since my project lent itself much better to that and my experience is more in that area. But my GRE quantitative reasoning score was in the high 700's, so I don't think they will think I can't do math either.

Trying the game the system by saying quantitative work is what you want to do (when it isn't) could also backfire terribly. They could split the applications into two piles and then judge you against only quant. people who have higher math experience and more interesting doctoral projects dealing with quantitative methods that yours. Also, the advice I got as someone who wants to do more qualitative work was to skip all the schools that only strongly prioritize quantitative work - as I just wouldn't be a good fit and I would be miserable trying to do the work I wanted to do.

[sociologyplease]

I mentioned my interest in ethnography, as my proposed doctoral research is an ethnography and my writing sample is also an ethnography. I also applied to schools which were strong in qualitative, feminist, and/or ethnographic methods or had someone specific using those methods who I wanted to work with. I have past quant. publications, plus I had a former stats/methods professor write a LOR, but overall, I am a clear qualitative candidate. I wouldn't want to be somewhere that didn't have others doing that.

[sleepycat]

I do research on qualitative methods. So it is tough to find a program that has qualitative methods as a focus, especially at the lower ranks. All the schools that I have applied have someone doing research in the field, although it limited where I could apply. I haven't done much quantitative research, although I understand, at least, the regression models and would like to do some work with them, mainly in content analysis.

[sciencegirl]

@sleepycat... are the top 20 schools too much of a reach? Yale is both great a religion and also really LGBT friendly (look at their Am. St/Queer programs for instance). I also wouldn't write off a school immediately because it is in a "red state" - the college campus towns are far more progressive than the outlying suburbs. (compare say Chapel Hill vs. rural North Carolina, or Kansas City vs. the rest of KS or MO).. I have a few gay male friends who did undergrad at such places and they said it was great (some actually joked that now living in NYC, dating is much harder since there are too many gay men and the 'scene' is too distracting and would find going to school here impossible)... though you might not be a gay male... and my gay male friends here in NYC are a bit crazy but that's for another site and forum

However, I totally get you when it comes to location being super important. I posted in another forum my desire to move back to California. Totally irrational and an emotional desire. Nothing to do with "Best fit and program". But I did apply broadly and didn't limit myself just yet.

[sleepycat]

um I think. I applied to princeton and Northwestern and got rejected. I think that the programs i'm most attracted to often are sort of liberal/radical-ish/activist minded (hence why I applied to ucsc), which I noticed to be ranked lower for some reason. Although I did apply to NYU so hopefully that will follow through. I looked at Yale and didn't see anyone that I really wanted to work with. When I think of the Ivies/top 20 I don't really see myself. My grades are okay(3.4 overall and 3.5 major at a top ranked liberal arts), but my GREs were terrible. Also I just get scared off by my own anxieties, so it limits me in that way and I really hate it and trying to course correct.

Also my professor talked a lot about having a MA to be really competitive at the Ivies/Top 20. It could be different for Sociology, since he was trying to steer me to Religious Studies.

I do get scared off by "red states." It is hard to really figure out feel through the websites and with no real guidance. I was thinking about Perdue, but I found the fact there wasn't a gay bar close and I really want some place to hang out with my peers off campus. i also read about the undergrad population (nothing about grad) and didn't seem to like the general atmosphere.