PhD in IR - Security preferably qualitative and policy focus

[fenderpete]

Hi all...

Well I'm back. Finished my undergraduate degree and ended up with a First Class Honours and managed to get joint top of my year - hopefully that'll help when applying to the September 2010 session.

I've changed my plans and want to pursue something a lot more specific now. Last year I applied without clear research goals, a lacklustre personal statement and a weak GRE (Q610, V690). I'm redoing the GRE this summer and working through a calculus/stats book.

I now know I want to work in security studies with a view to getting into policy and research post-university.

Coming from a UK university, my quant skills aren't great, and it's also not my preferred methodology - so with that in mind I'm looking for good security departments where I can work qualitatively and then get a decent policy job post-PhD.

With that in mind I'm looking at the following programs:

Georgetown

[PeaceDoc]

Hey Pete.

The list is good, but quite elite with only minor exceptions. For your sake you may want to consider some schools (hate to say this) of lower pedigree. While it's difficult to say if programs will shrink in the coming year, one thing we can say fairly certainly is that they won't get easier to get into. Give yourself some "backup" schools.

Going the other direction per high-end schools to consider, Tufts and JH are in the same general area and offer very decent qualitative policy programs. Just options.

Also, I would think about removing Notre Dame from the list. Not solely because it is not really in your geographic region of interest, but they are notoriously hard to get into and quite frankly, aren't that strong of an IR/Security program. The new Institute is appealing and it's growing, but is not quite at the level it should be just yet. Cheers.

[fenderpete]

Thanks a lot Where would you recommend in terms of lower pedigree? I thought American and George Mason were a bit more 'safety'. Good to know that ND isn't worth applying to though!

I'd love SAIS but unfortunately you need an MA to get into their PhD.

[natofone]

Academic political science PhD programs are designed to make academic political scientists. You will not get into any of them if you say that you have plans outside of academia. Public policy phd programs seem more in line with your career goals.

[PeaceDoc]

Hey Pete.

One of the issues for you, is as ^ noted, that if you want to do qually policy work you have a few outstanding choices (those you listed), and then your choices drop off rather quickly. This happens also, in that you are limiting yourself geographically. I would suggest you perhaps give Pittsburgh GSPIA a look. Great school, lots of options for approach, and an active internship program. Cheers.

[fenderpete]

The thing is, I want an IR research PhD because it's what I'm most interested in - particularly counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism (which is what I plan on writing my thesis on) and I don't think a Public Policy program would be best suited for that.

Of those I've listed is there enough range there to give me a good shot at getting into at least one program if I get 700+ on the GRE?

Also - Natofone - are there any Public Policy programs you'd recommend that have a very IR/security focus rather than public administration?

Thanks guys

[leetchisgod]

Did you look at programs in Canada, I think Canadian schools are a far easier transition for Brits, as they tend to follow the British school of IR. I guess it would also matter where you did your undergrad, I'm sure students from some programs in the UK would look like a better addition for departments than others.

[fenderpete]

I did my undergrad as a BA Politics at the University of Nottingham, which is in the Russell Group (basically the UK Ivy League) . I'll have a look at Canadian programs, but I eventually want to live/work in the USA so an American PhD might help!

[natofone]

The Harris School at Chicago had some good IR scholars. They've lost a bit of their thunder lately, but should rebound. You would also be able to tap into Chicago's political science department. In my opinion, Mearsheimer is one of the best for security in the qualitative mode.

http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/progra ... es/phd.asp

I still caution against applying to political science programs if your goal isn't academia. You won't get as much policy in them. Do you have a general familiarity with security literature within political science? It is very theoretical and seems like it would be a huge waste of time if your goal is policy. It will also add years to your education as political science PhD programs take 5-7 years, but public policy PhD programs only take 3-4 years.

[fenderpete]

The thing is, while my goal isn't necessarily teaching (I'm not ruling it out) I would like to be able to undertake political research - and maybe end up at a think tank doing research as well as or before actually getting involved in the policy process - I don't want to just be able to analyse public policy.

If I was applying to PoliSci IR programs I would have a totally different personal statement to if I was applying to a Policy program - I'd focus on my research interests rather than the policy linkage. Also, the shorter timescale would be great, but what I want to do for my thesis is very IR based with a bit of comparative thrown in. With a PoliSci PhD I'd also do the Comps and end up teaching a far wider range of material, which I think would give me a great grounding for a foreign policy career.

I'd happily do a Public Policy program if there was one out there that was very IR/Security focused, but I really don't want to do a PhD where I don't get a chance to get inside real security issues and end up studying municipal waste management for three years

Do you know of any such programs out there?

Thanks guys.

[catchermiscount]

Are you looking to do anything quantitative or formal? If you want policy, do policy. If you want political science (note the second word in the term "political science"), do political science. Think-tanks, on average, do not hire political scientists, nor do they perform "research" as we use the term on boards like these.

Clearly, the best options for you are CalTech, Rochester, NYU, WashU, and, of course, Stanford's Graduate School of Business.

[fenderpete]

I'm not particularly interested in formal modelling or quantitative methods but I think it'd be good to have at least a working knowledge of them - but I don't think a heavily quantitatively based program like Rochester would suit me very well.

I want to carry out research on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency and I'm not sure how well a Public Policy program fits that aim.

[catchermiscount]

I hope that my tongue-in-cheekishness was obvious. I just rattled off the boutiques.

Look, nobody's going to convince you of otherwise, so the political science departments where you have the best shot of pulling off what you're referencing are as follows:

Columbia -- very good qualitative IR theory people in Jervis et al and a very strong qualitative security person in Betts.

Chicago -- Mearsheimer is Mearsheimer. Pape is Pape Glaser is leaving, which doesn't help matters. Though he's formal, Ethan BdM is becoming a highly respected terrorism guy.

MIT -- Posner, Van Evera, Fravel, et al.

Harvard -- though rumors are swirling about some of their leading qualitative security people, for what it's worth.

Duke -- something on the Greico/Feaver end might be doable.

George Washington -- That's where Glaser is going (to Elliott, I should mention).

Georgetown -- always good security people around, and now is no different.

The last two are less likely to fund PhD students than the average political science department; I believe Georgetown's website indicates the way that they distribute funding. Only a fraction of students are funded, let alone fully funded.

But the people posting here mean well and are trying to give you some good, sound advice. You're doing yourself a disservice if you aren't thinking about Tufts, SAIS, Kennedy, Harris, Elliott, etc. Same goes for UToronto, LSE, or other well-respected non-American departments. The majority of American departments are going to shove some methods down your throat.

[fenderpete]

Sorry, my sarcasm detector must be off, I've been away from GradCafe too long lol It's disappointing the hear the funding problems that might be inherent at Georgetown or GWU as I really love the look of their programs - particularly Georgetown. If you don't get fully funded do you know if they offer any way to supplement it with RA/TA offers?

Unfortunately both Fletcher and SAIS require you to have already completed an MA, which I haven't done unfortunately. KSG I'll probably apply to, but I'm wary as I only get to apply to one Harvard program. The Harris School looks very interesting though, and I've been checking it out since Natofone suggested it. I will have a look at non-US departments as well, but trying to focus on that side of things for now.

Elliot looks brilliant, but they don't offer a PhD - and I need something that'll be fully funded (coming out of undergrad loaded with debt). I assume you can't get a fully funded MA from any of these places?

Thanks for all the help

Pete

[expatbayern]

I'd generally tell most of those interested in IR to stay far away from Chicago--Glaser's leaving, Snidal's leaving (and those are the only two who could have held together a committee between the disparate personalities/paradigms/turf wars between PS and Harris/etc.), neither one of Mearsheimer or Lipson really does anything I'd call IR research anymore, and Pape by himself does not a department make. But, if you have a very narrow terrorism focus, Pape + EBdM isn't a bad start (if you have broader ethnic conflict interests, note that Wilkinson is leaving as well, meaning that CP is almost as dead as IR), and the thing about Chicago is that although it is constantly losing good people, it tends to hire pretty well, so there'll be someone there, you just won't know who. Harris is pretty quant-intensive (especially its PhDs), but really, what are you looking to do in the way of terrorism research that isn't quant or formal? Unless you're a really experienced area studies type (arabic fluent?), I don't know how exciting you're going to seem to most strategy/policy think tanks without those skills.

Otherwise, if the requirements are East Coast Poli Sci PhD with strengths in terrorism and qual security, I'd echo coach that Columbia or MIT is likely the place to be (add Yale if you do have those ethnic conflict/civil war interests).

[fenderpete]

I'm an Arabic beginner, but it's something I plan to work on during my PhD as I want to get my level up to at least a good reading/speaking level! Terrorism wise, I plan on doing something a bit comparative in terms of looking at the evolution of counterterrorism and making some recommendations for the future. It's a pretty qualitative subject from my point of view I do want to be conversant in quant and formal though, as I know that'll help on the employability front immensely.

I'd like to go somewhere with a fairly deep bench of talent, as I don't want to limit myself in case I end up running down a rabbit hole that's a bit off-piste security wise. Thanks for the heads up on Chicago - and good to know Harris is quant-heavy as that doesn't appeal too much - that seems to be the case with a lot of Public Policy places.

[jackassjim]

looking at the evolution of counterterrorism and making some recommendations for the future. It's a pretty qualitative subject from my point of view

Pete,

Not to belabor the point, but your problem is that you will face very strong institutional pressures that discourage work that is too policy-oriented (you have probably already seen J.Nye's op-ed on the topic in the WashPost).

I have read many of your posts, and exchanged with you via PM a few times. Throughout, you failed to demonstrate an ability to formulate a research agenda, or to describe your interests in a way that would conform to the prevailing standards of academic writing and research in the discipline. It is not only a matter of playing down the policy-angle. It goes deeper than that.

If I would have to guess, I would say that the problem stems from a lack of exposure to American political science. I am not from the US either, and I had to do A LOT of research and an M.A. before I was really able to grasp what was asked of those who wanted to publish in the field. I thus recommend you do the following before you even start writing a new PS:

1) Pick up the 3 most recent issues of International Organization, International Security, and the American Political Science Review.

2) Read all those articles (even those not related to security)

3) Make a list of 20 different things you would be interested in studying at the PhD level

4) Reformulate every single one of these 20 things as a relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. That's generally what you want to study.

5) Start writing your PS

6) From the day you start until you're done, stop using the words "policy" and "recommendation". You have to go cold turkey

If you follow these steps, you might avoid a repeat of last year. I hope this helps.

Best,

Jim

[natofone]

I agree with Jim that you should be reading more to develop a stronger command of political science. You should also try to look into junior faculty or new hires in your area to see what they've been writing (Jason Lyall comes to mind with counter-terrorism). Go here: http://irrumormill.blogspot.com/2007/12 ... redux.html and google the names of people that got interviews/jobs at the higher-ranked schools. Read what they've written so far. This will give you an idea of what types of topics are covered in political science and what methodological approaches are relevant. When you've been able to focus your interests more, then look at the faculty webpages from the top departments and see what everyone is doing. Read their stuff.

I've taken the approach of scouring faculty webpages and reading their stuff after completely striking out last year. I now have a fairly decent command of which schools fit the different elements (substantive, regional, and methodological) of my interests. I can clearly see some huge mistakes that I made last year in terms of department fit and statement of purpose.

[fenderpete]

Sorry that I seem to have come across as such as lay-person - I do understand what it takes to do political research, I just seem to have totally failed to articulate it on these boards. What I'm interested in researching is creating a dataset of counterterrorism cases, extrapolating variables that have led to the success/failure of these counterterrorist responses to use as a codebook and then comparing these to successful practices in counterinsurgency. I imagine my dependent variable would be either negotiated settlement or number of terrorist attacks per annum.

Thanks a lot for the heads up on faculty hires natofone - that's a brilliant resource (and Jason Lyall looks very cool - I see he's gone to Yale now). I'm now planning on spending the next two months researching programmes (both for funding opportunities and fit/faculty availability/faculty interests) and writing a SoP that reflects all that.

I'm sorry I seem to have come across as such a dufus on the boards - but I do know where I went wrong last year and hope to correct it this year.

[natofone]

Nobody thinks that you are a dufus or anything like that. This stuff is definitely really hard to figure out and the whole process is extremely competitive. I struck out entirely last time too, so I'm in the same position that you are with trying to figure out what I did wrong, what to do next, how to apply better, etc.