Theory or Methods in social sciences

[Guest criminologist]

Is it more important to take theory classes or methods (stats, etc.) in a PhD program if you have the opportunity to choose? I know that methods classes are more useful for getting a job but theory classes can be more helpful for when it comes time to take the comprehensive examinations? And Would there be any point in taking a Masters/PhD level theory class and then an advanced graduate level (PhD only) theory class on the same subject if only the doctoral one is required, or would that just be a waste of time? Thanks.

[victorydance]

Methods, no question. Digging deep into methods classes during grad school is something that will train you skills for life. Sometimes, these things aren't incredibly easy (and time-consuming) to learn independently without guidance.

 

Theory classes are just seminars with large reading lists that can be read independently with just as much success.

 

When I get into a Ph.D. program, I would imagine my coursework would be at least 50% methods. 

Edited May 21, 2014 by HopefulComparativist

[MakeYourself]

I would disagree with the above poster and say that it depends entirely on you, what type of career you want to have, what your field of specialization is, who is teaching the courses, the syllabus for the courses, and a multitude of other factors. There is no right or wrong answer here. You have to decide which course best suits your needs, and don't take the courses at face value - it's very important who is teaching the course and what the structure of the course is.

 

Honestly, if you're really interested in both topics, I would personally just take both.

Edited May 22, 2014 by MakeYourself

[victorydance]

I disagree. There isn't much of a point to getting a Ph.D. in most social sciences these days if you are going to forego your methods training. How are you going to actually publish good work? How are you going to get a job without methods training?

 

If you are in grad school for the social sciences and only in theory/reading classes, why not just get an MA? Less of a waste of time and just as useful. 

 

Disclaimer: If this is just a 1 vs. 1 class kind of thing, then it's not a big deal. But if there is no requirement for methods classes, and you decide to skip over it almost entirely, that is what I am referring to. 

Edited May 22, 2014 by HopefulComparativist

[Guest criminologist]

Well I am leaning towards taking more methods classes even outside the department because I do want to work in industry but I also know that I am kind of weak in the theoretical side. I have an applied terminal MA degree which I did not take any theory courses for. However I did take plenty of theory classes in undergrad and neglected taking many methods courses. I am just not sure if I need to take any additional theory classes but I agree they are definitely something you can do on your own

[juilletmercredi]

I had to take both a theory and a methods comprehensive exam, so both kinds of classes were helpful.

I think you should take a balance of both, but as long as you get what you need I think the choice is up to you.  I'm a methods person myself so I would much prefer to take a stats/methods course if I had a choice.  I find them more interesting and I also find them useful for jobs.

Methods, no question. Digging deep into methods classes during grad school is something that will train you skills for life. Sometimes, these things aren't incredibly easy (and time-consuming) to learn independently without guidance...I disagree. There isn't much of a point to getting a Ph.D. in most social sciences these days if you are going to forego your methods training. How are you going to actually publish good work? How are you going to get a job without methods training?

I disagree with the spirit of this post, even though I'm a methodologist at heart.  Of course you need methodology skills for research, but you also need a strong theoretical basis for your research.  Sure, you can read the readings for a theory class, but the discussion in a seminar with the professor(s) and the other classmates enriches the experience - it's really not comparable to simply reading all the readings on your own.  Taking theory classes also teaches you how to read theory at a higher level, in a way that you may not have learned in your bachelor's or even your MA program.

Theory classes aren't useless at all.  Every grant you'll ever write will require a background section and specific aims and hypotheses.  A strong grounding in the theory of your field is necessary to orient your work within the larger conversation of scholars.  Methods are just tools to do that.  Every paper you'll write will require an introduction to situate your work within the scholarly conversation as well.

Nobody is saying anything about forgoing methods training; the idea is that what makes a PhD most useful is a mix of both theory courses (and a strong theoretical foundation for your research).  Trust me - before my PhD I would've wanted to take all stats and methods courses, too, but having completed all but my defense, I've realized how very very important theoretical considerations are.

Besides, MA programs are also a mix of methods and theory classes.  I'm not sure where the notion came from that an MA is all theory and a PhD is all methods.  It's not.

[rising_star]

The advantage of taking both the MA/PhD and PhD only theory courses would be that you'd get a deeper grounding in and understanding of the theories being read and discussed. The more opportunity you have to engage with theory, the better you will become at understanding it and using it to enrich your work. For example, I took a similar combined MA/PhD course during both my MA and PhD (at two different institutions, mind you) on the history of X thought (where X = my discipline). Though the courses had similar titles, they did vary in their content and emphasis and I learned different things in one than I did in the other. It's made me a better scholar in the discipline.

 

As for the theory vs methods, the answer is always both. Always, always, always. You want to be strong in your methods but you also want to have a strong theoretical background. As a criminologist, you will probably want to take both qualitative and quantitative methods courses, as well as theory courses in criminology and related disciplines (anthropology, sociology, political science, psychology, public policy) as appropriate. My understanding is that criminology can be a bit interdisciplinary so you'll want a thorough theoretical grounding in the relevant areas.

[victorydance]

I disagree with the spirit of this post, even though I'm a methodologist at heart.  Of course you need methodology skills for research, but you also need a strong theoretical basis for your research.  Sure, you can read the readings for a theory class, but the discussion in a seminar with the professor(s) and the other classmates enriches the experience - it's really not comparable to simply reading all the readings on your own.  Taking theory classes also teaches you how to read theory at a higher level, in a way that you may not have learned in your bachelor's or even your MA program.

Theory classes aren't useless at all.  Every grant you'll ever write will require a background section and specific aims and hypotheses.  A strong grounding in the theory of your field is necessary to orient your work within the larger conversation of scholars.  Methods are just tools to do that.  Every paper you'll write will require an introduction to situate your work within the scholarly conversation as well.

Nobody is saying anything about forgoing methods training; the idea is that what makes a PhD most useful is a mix of both theory courses (and a strong theoretical foundation for your research).  Trust me - before my PhD I would've wanted to take all stats and methods courses, too, but having completed all but my defense, I've realized how very very important theoretical considerations are.

Besides, MA programs are also a mix of methods and theory classes.  I'm not sure where the notion came from that an MA is all theory and a PhD is all methods.  It's not.

 

 

I didn't want to make it sound like theory is not as important. But rather, from reading the OP, I got the impression that he was considering foregoing methods almost completely, which is why my post was structured that way. Now that I realize that is not the case, I am totally willing to shift my emphasis from what it was before (that's why I put that disclaimer portion in my post).

 

Theory IS important. Of course it is, but I also believe that Ph.D. student should already have a solid foundation of theory going into a program, and that these skills are a lot easier to beef up independently. Of course, being in a seminar is probably the best environment, but it's hardly necessary for beefing up theory. Personally, I have already taken two advanced seminar theory classes, one reading class one on one with a professor, and a honours thesis on my subfield in my undergrad (on top of typical coursework). Of course, this could easily be switched around in some one else's background (ie. someone coming from a math/stats background). However, for undergrads coming from the social sciences, your exposure to theory is infinitely greater than methods. That's just the way undergrad social science departments are set up presently.

 

Yes, every paper or project will require a background of the theory in the field. However, what is the first step in virtually any research project? A lit review, which is where you learn the theory that is present in the sub-field that you are interested in investigating. 

 

The focal point of my argument rests in what social sciences have become today, and that is methodologically driven work. Economics made the shift, political science made the shift, sociology made the shift, and most of the others are as well. If you are not strong in methods, both qualitative and quantitative, you will simply not succeed in social sciences today. Period. Some programs are antiquated in that they only require a very minimal methods training. Every social science doctoral program requires at least 3 or 4 theory/seminal paper style courses, but some only require a couple methods classes (or even worse, a foreign language exemption).

 

If incoming Ph.D. students don't take the opportunity to beef up their methods training, something that is a lot harder to independently learn, during their doctoral training they will find themselves out of the game when they hit the market. Even if they do get a job, they will find it hard to compete for publications with people who have these skills.

 

So in sum, of course do your theory. Do enough theory to learn your main subfield's large pieces, do your sub-field sub-field, learn the basics of your field in general. But if given the choice after meeting those requirements to beef up your methods training, do it. But that's just my opinion, some may disagree.