Math/Math-oriented Classes for Mixed Methods Ph.D. Programs in IR

[Poli92]

Hello, 

 

I've heard a lot of differing opinions on how much math experience you should ideally come into a grad program with and I would just like a little feedback on what everyone here thinks? 

 

I am a poli sci and econ major and have taken the sort of math-related classes one might expect with econ (intro/intermediate micro, applied calculus, two terms of statistical methods). I'm currently a junior so I would have time to throw in more calculus or something along those lines if that would be beneficial. Would I really see any gain from doing this or would I just be suffering for nothing? 

 

Also, my interests are with using mixed methods approaches to studying the intersection of economic factors/institutions and internal conflict if that info is helpful. 

 

Thanks all! 

Edited November 29, 2013 by JoeW92

[TheGnome]

Polisci PhD applicants are not expected to have any math background. 

 

If you are planning to do high-end statistical work, or want to become a sophisticated formal theorist (or both), a good math background can help a great deal. Though it is not really a requirement even in that case, since you can pick it up once you start anyway. 

 

If by "mixed methods" you mean some sort of qualitative research combined with quantitative work, then taking extra math courses is probably not worth the trouble - especially considering you already have some under your belt. Though I guess that would somewhat depend on how far you'd like to go in the statistical side of things. 

 

You can produce good work in the general area of economy/conflict using almost any method (e.g.Will Reno and James Morrow). Thus you can devise a good number of combinations that could be counted as "mixed methods."

 

In an unrelated note, I don't think mixed methods really is as magical of a thing as most people make it out to be. A scholarly work is not automatically better just because it involves mixed methods. I am a believer of good/bad use of methods - not mixed/non-mixed(?) methods. 

Edited November 29, 2013 by TheGnome

[Poli92]

Thank you for your feedback! And yes, I do mean mixed methods as a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. 

 

I am a believer of good/bad use of methods - not mixed/non-mixed(?) methods. 

 

Could you possibly elaborate a little more on what you mean here? I understand how a mixed methodological study can be executed or interpreted poorly, but I guess I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on this. 

[TheGnome]

Thank you for your feedback! And yes, I do mean mixed methods as a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. 

 

Could you possibly elaborate a little more on what you mean here? I understand how a mixed methodological study can be executed or interpreted poorly, but I guess I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on this. 

 

You are more than welcome JoeW92. That said, I don't want to overextend myself. I am in this process with you and others as well. So please take what I say with a grain of salt. 

 

Regarding mixed methods - It seems to me that "mixed methods" is being thrown around as some sort of panacea that everyone should seek, especially in this forum. I have issues with that. First, it is not obvious what mixed methods entail; it can mean many things. Second, I believe the focus should be on the puzzles we seek to investigate. Methods, though absolutely crucial, are secondary to the theories we use and the questions we ask. Selection of methods should depend on the puzzle at hand. Third, using fitting methods and paying attention to executing them properly is far more important than going after mixed methods just because it sounds cool. Fourth, if using mixed methods means sacrificing sophistication (should not necessarily be that way), I don't think its usefulness is very obvious. 

 

In short, I am not at all against mixed methods per se, I am against the cult of mixed methods, so to speak. Also, none of this is directed at you Joe, you just gave me an excuse to ventilate

 

Edit: I don't know English

Edited November 29, 2013 by TheGnome

[rising_star]

If you're planning to use qualitative methods, it would be to your advantage to take courses in that area as an undergraduate, especially ones that have a hands-on/field component. You might need to look into courses in sociology, anthropology, or education to find strong qualitative methods courses.

[Poli92]

Thank you both for your inputs, they were very helpful! 

 

 

 

Regarding mixed methods - It seems to me that "mixed methods" is being thrown around as some sort of panacea that everyone should seek, especially in this forum. I have issues with that. First, it is not obvious what mixed methods entail; it can mean many things. Second, I believe the focus should be on the puzzles we seek to investigate. Methods, though absolutely crucial, are secondary to the theories we use and the questions we ask. Selection of methods should depend on the puzzle at hand. Third, using fitting methods and paying attention to executing them properly is far more important than going after mixed methods just because it sounds cool. Fourth, if using mixed methods means sacrificing sophistication (should not necessarily be that way), I don't think its usefulness is very obvious. 

 

I have to say that I agree with you. I guess my emphasis on pursuing training in mixed methods is something I should translate more into saying that I have an interest in being trained in a diverse range of methodological styles so that my applications will be shaped by the questions I am asking instead of by my proficiency (or lack there of) with particular styles. Maybe that would get me away from falling into the mixed methods abyss.