ideological differences among professors ? how to maneuver ? PLEASE HELP!!

[Ali Adil]

I think this is the kind of problem you get into when you are asked to decide, even tentatively, the professors who would be on your dissertation committee in the first semester of your PhD!!!!!!

 

I did and turns out two of the members (not the chair thankfully) do not get along so well. I have discussed my ideas for research with both and it hits me like a wall of bricks that the advice I received from them was so very different. If I can differentiate in the most simplest of terms it would be: "quantitative ideologically titled towards prevalent system of economy" vs. "qualitative ideologically in preference of alternative economic models".

 

Now that is a significant rift and I am glad I realized that the committee members I have right now SHOULD NOT be on my final committee TOGETHER so I plan to disband the current one and think about having one of the professors off of it so as to have a relatively peaceful PhD experience tbh.

 

Has anyone else come across in dealing with professors with different perspectives to their topic?? This would basically concern fields like mine which is planning and policy, for example, sociology, economics, public administration etc..

 

Although I have pretty clear idea about the set of topics within which I would base my research question for the PhD dissertation, I recognize that its too early to start narrowing down and as I take courses relevant to the topics, I keep stumbling into this ideological rift that make even the menial task of selecting courses to take and which core courses to substitute confusing and difficult !!

 

I'd really appreciate any insights from your experience that might help me maneuver around this situation and be on track with my research without getting into any professor's bad side because a) one the professors happens to the director of the program  the other professor's expertise would really help me in thinking about my dissertation topic.c) the chair doesn't care (lol!)

 

ps: As a background note,  I am interested in pursuing a career in academia after I finish (duh!) although I would rule out a non-academic career right now either.

 

Help?? please!!?

Edited December 4, 2013 by Ali Adil

[amglol]

My field is sociology, and I can tell you that I welcome differing viewpoints. My committee is made up of a postmodern critical theorist (chair), and two positivist data nuts. I'm into critical theory myself, but the quantitative questions raised by the data-driven profs ensure that I'm giving proper attention to all aspects of my theory-based topic. If you surround yourself solely with profs who are going to agree with and support your work, you're doing a disservice to both yourself and your discipline, IMHO.

[danieleWrites]

I've got a BA in soc, with a significant ideological rift in my three main profs. I've also got serious ideological things happening in the literature PhD. Critical theory, or feminist theory, or blah blah blah.

 

Anyway. I'm not sure why this is a problem because there doesn't seem to be any infighting going on with the professors that's making you choose up sides.

 

First thing: what is your ideological perspective? Do you have one?

 

If you have an ideological perspective, then make choices that favor your perspective because that's what you'll ground your research on. Take a course or two in the opposing perspective so you don't get so blinded by ideology that you're thinking in false binaries.

 

If you don't have an ideological perspective, then make balanced choices in coursework and research so that you can figure your perspective out.

 

If it's a quantitative/qualitative thing, or a macro/micro thing, think about why you selected this university to apply to in the first place. In sociology, for example, one University is very well known as a quantitative methods program, and qualitative folks are few. The Chicago "school" is known for it's micro level perspective (social groups are small, dyads and small groups where everyone meets everyone else at least once) while the Harvard "school" is marco level (think regional, national, global, pretty much societies where most members don't meet most members). Some universities focus on the Chicago school, others focus on the Harvard school. Though it's been a few years, so they might have changed the titling.

 

Anyway, the point is, you picked this university for something in its program, so you already have a basic ideology of your own and a basic idea of how you wish to approach your research. Articulate that. This doesn't mean that you should lock yourself into this articulation, but it does give you a point of guidance. If you can't fit your ideology into the two you seem to have available, then take a balance of courses to figure it out, or go and talk with someone (or both of these professors) about how your research ideas fit into their perspectives.

 

Think of it as exploration and figuring out how all of the pieces fit, not as a "rift" where you have to pick one or the other. As far as this rift goes, professors are hired on their research and publication, not on which side of the rift they fall into. Even the quantitative sociology program has qualitative-oriented professors, to be all analogy happy.

Edited December 15, 2013 by danieleWrites