Academic Background

[hopefulJD]

Hello everyone,

I will be starting a master's program in history starting next fall. I have specific research interests going into the program but I'm obviously keeping my options open in case my interests change. I realize it's very premature to even speculate what I might want to focus on for the PhD.

Assuming that my research interests evolve into something that aligns more closely with sociology (which is a possibility), I'm wondering if I would have to get a master's degree in sociology before applying to Phd programs. On their websites, a lot of programs specify that a sociology background is not a prerequisite for entry into the program. Given that I would have a limited background in sociology (my undergrad was in another field), I'm wondering if this would put me at a disadvantage.

I know I'm looking too far into the future, but I really don't think I would wanna get another master's degree before going for the PhD. Is jumping fields common within the social sciences/humanities? What do you guys think? Thanks!

[sciencegirl]

Its hard to say... I have a masters in another social science/interdisciplinary field, but not Soc per se (and not History)... and I think it really depends on the program and what they want - and who you are overall as a candidate as well. @jenjenjen for instance has a Soc. background and said that Berkeley seemed to really want that (or at least thought it was a plus to her app), but at the same time, we both got into Stanford this round (but I haven't heard from Cal so i assume its a no-go, and maybe due to my non-Soc background). This shows you a bit maybe of the fickleness of programs, even at the top tier. My guess is this kind of stuff happens at all level of programs.

I think that if you position your History work in a way that seems relevant to Soc than you should have no problem.. (ie, recent history of social movements).. but if you study ancient history in greece, probably won't help you.

[felicidad]

I think you'll only be at a big disadvantage in terms of methods training, which you could easily make up for by taking additional courses outside your field. That's just my opinion though and I'm no expert.

I also think it depends on what specialization of sociology you're interested in. I think you'd have trouble convincing a committee that you'd be a good fit for science/technology with an advanced degree in History. Culture or historical sociology would be a different story.

[jenjenjen]

hey hopeful, so i actually don't have a background in soc either (i probably missed including a "not" when talking to sciencegirl haha) soooo they might reinforce that there isn't a need for having taken course work in sociology. the fellow at Cal I talked to expressed interest in the research ive done that was actually in the communication studies field, as well as my work in political science. but in my applications i stated very explicitly why i was pursuing study in sociology and how i had prepared for that field, despite no formal coursework in the discipline.

i'd second sciencegirl in saying that if your history background is relevant to soc, and you make an effort during your MA to research sociological issues, you could certainly make a solid application for a phD. i do think however that transitioning from another social science, or at least having some experience with it (maybe undergrad?) is going to be more appealing and make your life easier than if you were straight humanities.

and obviously you'd want to be very sure that soc was in fact your ideal destination before beginning the application process. though this is simplistic, i think a phd is soc basically will prepare you to be a professor in sociology. and if that's not your goal, it would be (IMHO) unwise to commit to a 5-6 year program (with a heavy workload and the expectation of relatively low wages) just because you think it would be interesting to learn about sociology.

[hopefulJD]

Thank you for all the valuable information! It's certainly reassuring. I guess I should have added that I'm interested in more recent history and not anything like ancient Greece lol Assuming that my research interests and master's thesis has relevance to sociology it doesn't seem like I would be at a major disadvantage without a formal background in sociology. Though I suppose, as felicidad said, I might want to take up coursework in methodology while doing the history MA. I was just worried that not having prior research/coursework in sociology would preclude admission into sociology, even though my research interests might have direct relevance to it.

[RefurbedScientist]

Prior coursework in sociology specifically should be a non-issue, because *many* undergraduate sociology programs are taught topically. That is, you take a sociology of crime class, a sociology of development class, a sociology of family class, a sociology of health policy class, etc. This means most students come out knowing a lot about, say crime or development or family or health policy, but not much about the discipline of sociology (e.g. methods, more advanced theory besides an intro reading here and there). So what I'm trying to say is, most people with an undergrad soc. background don't have much of a leg up over people with a background in any other social science. People with an MA or MS in sociology are a different story, of course, because these programs are very methods oriented and usually require a (publication quality) thesis. But I don't think the MA/MS sociology person is the modal applicant. A lot of people with Masters are moving in from a related but different field or with a professional degree (MSW, for instance).

History is sort of a unique case, though, because of the many ways to "do" historical research. I think if you know you want to go into sociology, you can try to look to historical sociologists for inspiration. Read their papers, understand their methods, look at their citation lists and syllabi. There are ways to do research in history that are indistinguishable from some parts of comparative historical sociology and there are ways that are totally dissimilar. Aim for writing like a historical sociologist, and there should be no problem whatsoever making the transition. Also, consider submitting work from your MA to a journal where sociologists publish. This will probably not be a flagship journal, but one known in your subfield. Finally, try to get a sociologist on your thesis committee, if possible. A letter of rec. from a sociologist will go a long way in showing that you know what you're getting yourself into by pursuing soc.

I wouldn't sweat not having the background in sociology. I took 3 sociology classes as an undergrad. One was Intro. I don't remember one single thing from that class except reading Mitch Duneier's book Sidewalk. The professor was a sociologist of religion, which is a topic I am not interested in, so we didn't really build a relationship, and I moved on. I was a poli. sci. major. Then in my senior year I TA'ed a sociology class because I knew the substantive material really well, though I still didn't have any background in soc. Sociology is such a diverse and broad field, there is almost no way to identify a core curriculum or knowledge base you need to have to start a PhD. We all come from different starting places.

I recommend you check out the poll and thread on "Backgrounds" in this forum to get a feel for where we all come from academically.

[*Note: I say many without too much evidence to back this up, but it's my experience at my UG and an intuitive generalization. I think, generally, undergrad soc. programs don't do a lot of methods training and theory unless you pursue that track, and most students don't because they're not heading to academia]

[sleepycat]

Prior coursework in sociology specifically should be a non-issue, because *many* undergraduate sociology programs are taught topically. That is, you take a sociology of crime class, a sociology of development class, a sociology of family class, a sociology of health policy class, etc. This means most students come out knowing a lot about, say crime or development or family or health policy, but not much about the discipline of sociology (e.g. methods, more advanced theory besides an intro reading here and there). So what I'm trying to say is, most people with an undergrad soc. background don't have much of a leg up over people with a background in any other social science. People with an MA or MS in sociology are a different story, of course, because these programs are very methods oriented and usually require a (publication quality) thesis. But I don't think the MA/MS sociology person is the modal applicant. A lot of people with Masters are moving in from a related but different field or with a professional degree (MSW, for instance).

My school trained me very well in methods and theory and I have a BA. In the Soc program, there were two, quant and qual, and in Anthro, ethnographic methods. There is even a methods course for community involvement. Two theory course for soc and one for anthro.

I think it depends on what level the university/college is at. My UG school was big in the social sciences so there was that and we are top 40 liberal arts with our consortium top 5, 10, 25. I think the higher they go the more the focus grows on academic and training future scholars rather then training a workforce.

[Darth.Vegan]

So a lot of undergrad soc students didn't have methods stressed in their programs? At UH Manoa it seems methods is a constant theme.I am a sociology major and I have taken an undergraduate methods course, an undergraduate quantitative methods course and a graduate level research methods course. That said there are still plenty of methodologies I don't entirely understand, and many journal articles don't really explain methods. A good methods book is always handy to have around, but those tend to have a ton of general information on a large variety of methods.

Edited February 10, 2012 by xdarthveganx

[felicidad]

Just because it's normal for some colleges not to teach research methods doesn't mean a lack of training in that area won't disadvantage you. As you can see from this thread, you will competing against applicants who DO have a lot of training in theory and methods, at least at a basic level. The point is, if the OP is going into a masters program, presumably he has access to courses outside of history that would make his application stronger. So why not take them?

[RefurbedScientist]

My school trained me very well in methods and theory and I have a BA. In the Soc program, there were two, quant and qual, and in Anthro, ethnographic methods. There is even a methods course for community involvement. Two theory course for soc and one for anthro.

I think it depends on what level the university/college is at. My UG school was big in the social sciences so there was that and we are top 40 liberal arts with our consortium top 5, 10, 25. I think the higher they go the more the focus grows on academic and training future scholars rather then training a workforce.

Right, so cases like this are why I included my appended qualification. There are absolutely undergraduate sociology programs which emphasize different skills and subjects, but I would hesitate to say they represent the majority of programs or the upper tier. I went to a very well ranked school that actually over-produces (proportionate to our size) academia bound students historically. Across the social sciences (excluding econ.), methodology classes were optional. I think a more likely determinant than rank is the school's stance toward requirements. My school was fairly liberal as far as filling requirements, so there was no methods requirement. If you look at Harvard's UG courseload, for example, only one methods class and one theory class is required, and neither of these are more than an introduction. So that's obviously a highly esteemed school with only cursory focus on sociological methods and theory. You have your school at the other end of the spectrum.

On a tanget, I also want to touch on the interesting association you draw between higher ranked scools and academia on the one hand, and lower ranked schools and workforce on the other. Most undergraduate sociology majors, across the board, do not go on to doctoral programs. They get professional degrees, law degrees, other advanced degrees, work in the private, public, non-profit sector, so on and so forth. So graduates with BAs in sociology from even the very best schools in the country still go on to work in other fields besides academic sociology, and they will not necessarily be well served by learning the same things as we bound for academia. Point is, I think that must of the stuff that is required to be a sociologist should be taught at the graduate level (as it currently is). At the BA level, we're teaching to a popular audience bound for myriad professions, and therefore need to serve that general population (insofar as we believe colleges have a responsibility to educate people for future careers and endeavors).

Just because it's normal for some colleges not to teach research methods doesn't mean a lack of training in that area won't disadvantage you. As you can see from this thread, you will competing against applicants who DO have a lot of training in theory and methods, at least at a basic level. The point is, if the OP is going into a masters program, presumably he has access to courses outside of history that would make his application stronger. So why not take them?

I would contend that, while having methods training is always an advantage, not having methods training is not a disadvantage, because you will learn them inevitably. In my opinion, why bother taking stats (for example) as a UG, if you're going to be taking a minimum of three stats courses in grad school? When it comes to admissions, programs want indication that you can become a successful researcher, not that you already are. Already having those skills won't hurt, but one can signify intelligence and potential in other ways, such as through GRE score, letters of rec., and a strong research proposal. Speaking personally (and not suggesting my experience is representative of anything more), I at no point felt as if my lack of training in methods would make me less competetive than other applicants, because I was confident in other parts of my application. Now I've been accepted to a program that is notable for rigorous methods training, and come dissertation time, I will be as prepared as I otherwise would be. Of course, everyone's application looks different, and whereas I was weaker in methods training and stronger in some other area, another applicant may have the reverse profile and do extremely well.

That all being said, I whole heartedly agree that if you have the opportunity to explore the discipline of sociology and all that entails (methods, theory, topics, debates, etc.) during your MA in history, then that can only help you make good choices come application time and improve your chances with an adcom. The other point of eventual consideration is how many courses you can transfer into a PhD program. Many programs prefer you fulfill certain requirements in house, according to their standards.

[sleepycat]

On a tanget, I also want to touch on the interesting association you draw between higher ranked scools and academia on the one hand, and lower ranked schools and workforce on the other. Most undergraduate sociology majors, across the board, do not go on to doctoral programs. They get professional degrees, law degrees, other advanced degrees, work in the private, public, non-profit sector, so on and so forth. So graduates with BAs in sociology from even the very best schools in the country still go on to work in other fields besides academic sociology, and they will not necessarily be well served by learning the same things as we bound for academia. Point is, I think that must of the stuff that is required to be a sociologist should be taught at the graduate level (as it currently is). At the BA level, we're teaching to a popular audience bound for myriad professions, and therefore need to serve that general population (insofar as we believe colleges have a responsibility to educate people for future careers and endeavors).

I think where I base my data is my school's training, at least in the way I see it, and how many people actually go to graduate school (We are ranked 38/153 of alumni in 2007 that pursue soc phds.) My friend, however, who goes to the same school says it more has to do with the fact we attract lots of private high school kids who are better prepared for college and by extension, grad school. I think this also has to do with what major you are picking because others will naturally lead to an advance degree over, like psych. idk my goal to go to grad school was largely set from my second year of college so perhaps that is blinding my vision.

[RefurbedScientist]

I think undergraduate training in sociology is definitely a point of discussion in the profession. Check out this orgtheory post about a "hard science" sociology major, for example. I think there are pros and cons going both ways. To me, it almost makes counter-intuitive sense that people heading to doctoral programs should forgo heady-duty methods training as undergrads because we're guaranteed that training as grad students. Sociology majors heading into, say, the non-profit or private sector might actually need stats and programming and formal modeling more, because their work may require applied sociological skills, such as monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of programs. On the other hand, I believe every person has a right to flit away a little time studying sexuality or the sociology of diet or whatever for the purpose of being a more engaged and critical thinker, regardless of profession. So it's a toss up. I would have liked to take a methodology class, if only so that I wouldn't be peeing my pants on day one of grad level methods, but I don't necessarily believe one is at a stark disadvantage in the admissions process without them.

OK, tangent closed. I guess this illustrates to the OP that there is no sure road into sociology, mostly because there are so many entry points, specializations, and opinions on what constitutes a potential sociologist.

[hopefulJD]

I think undergraduate training in sociology is definitely a point of discussion in the profession. Check out this orgtheory post about a "hard science" sociology major, for example. I think there are pros and cons going both ways. To me, it almost makes counter-intuitive sense that people heading to doctoral programs should forgo heady-duty methods training as undergrads because we're guaranteed that training as grad students. Sociology majors heading into, say, the non-profit or private sector might actually need stats and programming and formal modeling more, because their work may require applied sociological skills, such as monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of programs. On the other hand, I believe every person has a right to flit away a little time studying sexuality or the sociology of diet or whatever for the purpose of being a more engaged and critical thinker, regardless of profession. So it's a toss up. I would have liked to take a methodology class, if only so that I wouldn't be peeing my pants on day one of grad level methods, but I don't necessarily believe one is at a stark disadvantage in the admissions process without them.

OK, tangent closed. I guess this illustrates to the OP that there is no sure road into sociology, mostly because there are so many entry points, specializations, and opinions on what constitutes a potential sociologist.

That point has been well illustrated, needless to say. It's reassuring to know that I'll at least stand a chance in admissions without a sociology BA or MA. Of course, I may very well decide to continue on to a history program or another related social science but it's good to know that I can keep my options open.

[msafiri]

There seem to be a couple of things going on in this thread.

hopefulJD, would you care to share more about your particular interests in history and sociology? Because, what you should do kind of depends. If you're more into qualitative methods, you might want to consider doing oral history work as part of your MA. If you're more into quantitative approaches, you should look into the body of literature where historians combine historiography, archival work, and statistics to tell us new things about the past. In either case, you'll likely need to take a methods course outside of your department to have the methodological background necessary to write a sound thesis. I'd worry less about the publication aspect since you can get into a PhD without publishing as a master's student AND because that lesser publication will follow you for the rest of your academic career.

On the broader issue of methods training: As an undergraduate non-sociology major, I took a sociology methods course primarily to meet a requirement. The course was "Sociological Research Methods", was required for all sociology majors, and exclusively covered quantitative methods. We never talked about ethnography or open-ended surveys or anything like that. So yea, there are definitely gaps in undergrad methods training. That's why programs have a core methods sequence they require everyone to take regardless of their background and also a core sociological theory sequence for people to take. Even if you were exposed to that stuff as an undergrad (or hell, as a MA student), it's good to see it again, discuss it with different people, etc. If you're going to be a professor, you may be teaching these things one day so why not be exposed to it as much as possible first?

[hopefulJD]

There seem to be a couple of things going on in this thread.

hopefulJD, would you care to share more about your particular interests in history and sociology? Because, what you should do kind of depends. If you're more into qualitative methods, you might want to consider doing oral history work as part of your MA. If you're more into quantitative approaches, you should look into the body of literature where historians combine historiography, archival work, and statistics to tell us new things about the past. In either case, you'll likely need to take a methods course outside of your department to have the methodological background necessary to write a sound thesis. I'd worry less about the publication aspect since you can get into a PhD without publishing as a master's student AND because that lesser publication will follow you for the rest of your academic career.

On the broader issue of methods training: As an undergraduate non-sociology major, I took a sociology methods course primarily to meet a requirement. The course was "Sociological Research Methods", was required for all sociology majors, and exclusively covered quantitative methods. We never talked about ethnography or open-ended surveys or anything like that. So yea, there are definitely gaps in undergrad methods training. That's why programs have a core methods sequence they require everyone to take regardless of their background and also a core sociological theory sequence for people to take. Even if you were exposed to that stuff as an undergrad (or hell, as a MA student), it's good to see it again, discuss it with different people, etc. If you're going to be a professor, you may be teaching these things one day so why not be exposed to it as much as possible first?

Very generally speaking, I'm interested in the history of social movements, state-formation, religion and secularism within a specific country. The history department I'll be at for my MA is particularly strong in what I'm interested in. However, I'm just not sure if I'll want to continue on with historical research for the PhD. Wouldn't it make more sense to continue on with a sociology program if I want to do research on contemporary issues that are basically a chronological continuation of my master's research?

I also find it very hard to completely separate the fields of history and sociology (and most other social sciences for that matter). Particularly in my case, there is so much overlap it's hard to determine exactly where I belong! But I guess things will make more sense after I begin the MA. I just wanted to make sure the heavenly doors of sociology will remain open to me in case I come a-knockin for the PhD...

[RefurbedScientist]

@hopefulJD, your interests definitely have a home in sociology if you come 'a knocking. One of the most significant social movement theorists in sociology, Charles Tilly, used comparative historical methods.

[hopefulJD]

@hopefulJD, your interests definitely have a home in sociology if you come 'a knocking. One of the most significant social movement theorists in sociology, Charles Tilly, used comparative historical methods.

Gahhh that's what makes it so confusing. What if I don't wanna be bound by these departmental boundaries? Surely I'll have to make a decision at some point. Dreadful!

[chibuku]

Gahhh that's what makes it so confusing. What if I don't wanna be bound by these departmental boundaries? Surely I'll have to make a decision at some point. Dreadful!

My approach to having inter-department interests was to look at each individual department and find where I would fit in best. I made reference to some informal study of anthropology in my SOPs, but if you can concretely demonstrate interest in the new discipline it would help and give you something to talk about in your statement.

Still waiting to see if I can get into an Anth PhD with my Soc masters.....the Canadian schools (and UC Boulder) appeared stricter about needing to have a Anth MA to go into a PhD there.

Edited February 11, 2012 by chibuku

[sciencegirl]

I would think that if you are studying something fairly recent, historically, sociology would be the way to go. I have a my BA and MA in two different fields, neither of which is strict Sociology and I went through this really crazy process of figuring out which phD program track I should go into... I looked at history actually and also American studies. A lot of mentors of mine said that my work could go through those fields, but it might actually benefit from a grounding in sociology. Also, the draw of having the job market of the larger field of Sociology was also something that was hard to ignore. (If we are complaining now about the lack of TT jobs in Soc., try coming from history or American studies)

[hopefulJD]

I would think that if you are studying something fairly recent, historically, sociology would be the way to go. I have a my BA and MA in two different fields, neither of which is strict Sociology and I went through this really crazy process of figuring out which phD program track I should go into... I looked at history actually and also American studies. A lot of mentors of mine said that my work could go through those fields, but it might actually benefit from a grounding in sociology. Also, the draw of having the job market of the larger field of Sociology was also something that was hard to ignore. (If we are complaining now about the lack of TT jobs in Soc., try coming from history or American studies)

That's similar to how I'm thinking about it. For fields like historical sociology or political sociology I feel like you could pursue them in sociology, history, or political science departments. Ultimately, however, I do wonder if it makes a difference. I've had history professors research and commentate on recent events who are well-regarded across disciplines. I'm sure there are many such examples across the board in all disciplines.

[tt503]

Gahhh that's what makes it so confusing. What if I don't wanna be bound by these departmental boundaries? Surely I'll have to make a decision at some point. Dreadful!

My background is also not in sociology, though I've had grad. level theory and methods classes, and working on beefing up my C.V. in this dept ( my interests are religion, theory, knowledge, historical-comparative, social movements/utopia...clearly I'm interested in more qual. methods which already alienates me from some programs). Next year, I'm applying to a handful of "sociology" programs , but also a lot of interdisciplinary programs too. I'd just say to apply to the programs you'd be happy attending, and not worry whether they fall in history/sociology/poli science. Obviously, you're going to have to tailor your PS to fit their methodologies, but a LOT of students (history included) I know take social theory classes to inform their research, and it might not be as disjointed as it appears.

[sociology27]

I'm coming from a non-sociology background and am having a decent amount of success this cycle, so here's my two cents. Don't be afraid to use the jargon on your SOP. Don't overwhelm them, but, to put it bluntly, talk like a sociologist. Use terms you've read about/are interested in. Bring up specific theories you hope to employ in your research. Reference scholars you hope to specifically build upon/correct. Bring specific research projects into the realm of larger debates in the discipline. In my opinion, that's the best way to convince them you're not gonna come in blind. Oh, and maybe hype up the sociological parts of your coursework.