Methods for a Theorist

[peternewman89]

Any other theorists out there? I'll be starting in the fall, and at my program all 1st-years are required to take a research design course along with Stats 1, and beyond that Stats 2 and possibly even 3 are "highly recommended."  Now I'm coming into this with very little true knowledge outside of theory, but does this coursework and all the statistical tools that I'll 'add to my toolbox,' as they were so very fond of saying, have any utility for a political theorist specializing in the history of political thought from ~1700 to the present? Any advice?

[Cesare]

I would classify myself as a "semi-theorist".... Anyways, I doubt it will have much utility for you, but it is vital that you know it. You may have to teach methodology courses one day and in the future you may be interested in a topic that crosses various subfields where actually understanding the material may be vital. Also, if you ever want to leave academia, having statistical knowledge may help you land a job. 

[phdhope2013]

I agree with most of what is said. It is hard to judge what will be of use to you this early on. Most of the theorists that I know don't really use methods, but you should definitely take those classes and not blow them off. 

[PoliSwede]

Generally speaking my understanding is that statistical methods will have close to no real utility for you in your own research. It might be handy for you if you want to read and understand what's being done elsewhere in the discipline or, as stated above, if you have to teach methods courses (although it is my impression that theorists generally don't, at least not at larger departments).

 

I also know of programs that allow their students to exchange statistical methods for something that would be more relevant for you and your research agenda, like learning a language or perhaps some form of text analysis. I'd examine if that is possible in your future program. If you were applying to PhD programs I'd urge you to apply to programs that allow you to do just that, but I understand that you're already admitted (congratulations by the way!)

[CorvusCorvus]

I would also classify myself as a 'semi-theorist' ... I was speaking with a theory professor at a university that offers a subfield in methods, and she told me that she recommends all of her theory PhD students sit their second comp in methods, unless there's a very compelling reason to sit a different one. Some people who are more semi-theorists, like myself, end up doing things like comparative for their second comp, but she recommends people who do pure theory to always choose methods for their second comp.

 

I have to admit, I was surprised by her suggestion, but when we discussed the matter it made perfect sense. Methods makes you more employable, and theory is the field that makes you least employable. Also, doing a research methods subfield requires a depth of understanding of ontological and epistemological frameworks beyond that of any other subfield, making it relevant to theory.

 

My university doesn't offer a methods subfield, but we're all encouraged to do methods courses. I don't know if I'll ever use them again, but I'm a better theorist for having taken methods courses.

Edited May 20, 2013 by CorvusCorvus

[catchermiscount]

If you can get away with substitution, you might prefer formal theory to statistical methods. Given your interests, you'll probably get more use out of Arrow's Theorem or McKelvey's Chaos Theorem or whatever than you will out of diagnosing and modeling heteroskedasticity.  If you're interested in reading some more formal-theory-as-political-philosophy stuff, feel free to IM me with your more specific interests and I'll see if I can scrounge anything good up.