Advisers not able to help with Grad School questions.

[Disaprovingrabbit]

Hi, I'm new here, it was suggested by a professor that I come and check this place out and kind of crowd source advice. 

 

So here goes, I'm currently a 4th year UG with 1 year left to go, with a double degree in History and in International affairs. I am looking at following up with a MA and then a PhD in IA, (history is nice but I already know there are no jobs in that field, at least with IA there is the possibility of government work)  I know that I don't want to go to my current school for grad school, even though I could probably get accepted without too much trouble (3.74gpa, 4.0s in majors) haven't taken the GRE yet, but will at some point. I've not attempted to publish anything, but I'd like to and I'll explain why not in a minute. 

 

The reason my current institution is completely out of the question is simply this, it's too quantitative. Everywhere I look in the US is too quantitative, in fact it's all any of them seem to care about. I've been flat out told by TA's that I'm wasting my time going to grad school if I don't want to do quantitative research. The problem is, I see no value in quantitative research, it's reductive and constraining and forces square pegs into round holes to make them fit rigid and inflexible models. I fall firmly into the holistic blocks of Wendt's matrix, and am probably right on the line of materialism. According to his matrix I fall somewhere between English-School and World Systems theory. This is where the research and publishing thing comes in, my school is weird in that all undergrad research is handled through the Honors program of which I am not part of due to being a transfer, and then pure independent research has been ruled out as none of my UG professors would agree to work with me on any of my prospective projects (and in order to have school backing I have to have a faculty "reader") because I wasn't using any quantitative methods in them, so it's made trying to bolster my CV a bit challenging. They were nice enough about it, but basically felt they didn't want to invest the time in mentoring me on projects they saw no value in. My school is staunchly neo-realist or neo-liberal  with no room whatsoever for critical theory or constructivism (I didn't know I was going to be a constructivist when I started, it just happened, and if they didn't want me to become one they shouldn't have presented it as an option) and I've been getting more and more pushback about it as i've gotten into more and more advanced classes. Again, I don't have a problem with using quantitative methods as one tool in a box, but I don't want to rely on it. Not everything is a nail. 

 

I don't have a problem with incorporating quantitative methods, but I don't want to focus on it. So I started looking at schools overseas, and almost immediately started to get pushback on that too. "Don't waste your time going to the UK/Germany/Denmark/Canada" no one will hire you with a PhD from those places. So I started to do some digging on schools in the US that had, if not a strictly constructivist approach, at least a holistic-materialist one like world systems theory. I've gotten more and more confused about where to look and the professors in my department are totally unable to help me because they 1) think I'm wrong for doing what I'm doing, 2) don't want to encourage me, 3) aren't familiar with a lot of the people working in these topics. 

 

Which is what lead me here, so if anyone has any advise at all, I'd greatly appreciate it.. even if it's just more re-iteration of what my department has already been telling me. At this point I'm having a hard time justifying my desire to go to grad school to my advisers because they are starting to see it as simply an avoidance strategy. 

 

So, thank you in advance for any/all help offered. 

[slacktivist]

"Wasting your time" seems like a strong statement, but if you're looking to be employed in academia after graduate school, you're really limiting your options about where you can go and what kind of jobs you could get by ruling out using quantitative tools to study politics.

 

For instance, a program like the politics department at New School seems like a good fit for your stated approach to studying politics. However, they have only placed one PhD in the last five years in a tenure-track position at an American research university. (To put that in greater perspective, the department also lists a PhD that went on to become a rabbi.)

 

I'm transferring between PhD programs right now, so I've had greater cause to dwell on placement records more than the average student coming directly from undergrad. In my experience, a lot of people think grad school and the academic job market is a sucker's game, but if you are happy with the median program outcome (placement and attrition) and are fully funded, then, by all means, go.

 

The bigger problem for you is that if your professors aren't supportive of your decision to go to graduate school, then they're either not going to write letters of recommendation, or their letters will not be helpful.

[ZajoncSays]

 

 

The problem is, I see no value in quantitative research, it's reductive and constraining and forces square pegs into round holes to make them fit rigid and inflexible models. 

So ignoring the fact that you've probably insulted a lot of people and their research with your previous statement... 

 

While it might be nice to have something published while in undergrad, if you don't have that I don't think it will break an application. Key question: what is the research question you are interested in and what methods/tools/hammers are you currently interested in using to explore it? This is really going to be key, as you're going to have to justify your desire to go to graduate school to admissions committees in order to be accepted. You stated general (dis)interests above but I unfortunately can't tell what exactly you're interested in studying or what your research interest is, just that you're against quant. 

 

From what I can tell about world systems theory, it's a Marxist approach to analyzing change. Which is fine, but I'm unclear if you're a theorist (in which case, the job market can be very, very, difficult - your advisers weren't wrong - though this doesn't mean don't pursue it) or interested in qualitative, ethnographic approaches. 

 

Additionally, if you think you want to do government work you probably only need a MA for that, not a PhD.  

 

Edit to add: Agree with Slacktivist about the New School being a place that might be of interest. 

Edited March 8, 2015 by ZajoncSays

[AuldReekie]

To begin with you're going to have to learn to be a wee bit more diplomatic when it comes to elucidating your ideas about research! However, I can certainly see why you're frustrated given  your current circumstances. I had the opposite happen at my university in the UK.  My advisor couldn't help me in the slightest with quantitative research - only they were required to supervise.. 

 

The average UK university sounds like it could be a better fit for your interests and they certainly wouldn't hinder you should you wish to work in the UK. As has already been said to you though a US PhD is king if you want to work there. 

 

Unfortunately the major stumbling block if you wanted to come to the UK is likely to be that most scholarships - even if they include living expenses - won't cover the difference between UK/EU fees and international fees. At most places that would be £8,500 per year.

 

If I were you I would keep an open mind with regards to US programs and seek out schools that are more friendly to diverse methodological approaches. The New School has been mentioned, but there are clusters of scholars elsewhere who you could perhaps work with. 

Edited March 8, 2015 by AuldReekie

[law2phd]

As an undergraduate student, it is highly suspect that you have an opinion at all of what subfields and methodologies have "no value."  It's one thing to say that you aren't interested in doing primarily quantitative work for whatever reason; it's another to suggest that people with decades more experience than you in the field know less about what constitutes valuable research.  I can only assume that your dismissal of quant research is because you really don't understand what it is about or what it attempts to do in regard to leading political science in a direction such that it can actually be taken seriously as a science (formal or empirical).  As another poster said, you are going to have to be a lot more diplomatic in your dealings with people in the field than you have been here.

 

It's true that "not everything is a nail."  It's also true that only nails be scientifically analyzed and that the field cannot progress unless non-nails are abandoned to the humanities, which are not constrained by any form of the scientific method.

 

With regard to your substantive question, it really depends on what sort of ideological bent you want your research to take (pomo, Straussian, etc.).  Your question really cannot be answered until you get a taste for which leading theorists tend to think and write in a way agreeable to you.

[Disaprovingrabbit]

I apologize if I offended anyone, it wasn't my intention, I was speaking purely out of frustration not out of malice.  Again, my apologies. This is exactly what I prefer about the Holistic end of the spectrum, it allows for a wider variety of methodologies to attack problems and I get to learn about everything, I just don't want to get forced into using only one tool from the box.  But as I said I haven't completely ruled out Quantitative research, I just don't want it to be a majority of my work. Some of the people in the department at my school may as well be Statisticians, they compare graphical front ends for 'R' just as much as they talk about anything else. And unfortunately while I know how to do some of that type of thing, though my school, for all it pushes Quant, doesn't offer a single undergrad Quant class in any of it's social science departments.. you just have to take it in the Stats department which requires you to have a whole host of pre-reqs like Calc and CS. To me I find the specs of munitions fascinating so if that is what they enjoy I won't fault them. 

 

World Systems isn't really my focus, it's just one of the things that is on my end of the spectrum according the graph that is in a couple of Wendt pieces. Yes Neo-Gramscianism Marxist theory is on that side as well but it's a bit lower down towards the individual factor (EG labor) rather than Holism on the Y axis of the graph than World Systems (which is heavily dependent on Ecology and Cybernetics for it's basis.  But I'd say I'm dead on the Y axis between Holism-Materialism (World Systems) and Holism-idealism (World Society) and this makes me a very poor fit for my department and Slacktivist's mentioning of either no or poor recommendations is a serious concern of mine. Short of transferring, which isn't really an option at this point, I'm not sure what I can do about it. The key problem is that in my heart I'm a History major, but it was suggested to me that taking on the second political science major would make me more marketable. I didn't really understand when I did it that what they meant was, you will become more marketable by learning lots of Quant stuff, which even if I really wanted to, as I mentioned they don't even actually offer at the UG level. 

 

I've been looking at the UK degrees, as stated, but yes the cost of doing so is worrying. If I went to most state schools in the US, the tuition would be about the same but cost of living would be lower. On the other hand if I went some place like the mentioned New School (which I had never even had suggested to me) I imagine there are many locations in the UK that are less expensive than Manhattan. I don't have a problem with working in the UK, it seems like a nice country, but I am not sure I would fit in any better there than I would here in the US, that is for the future though. 

 

Thank you all for your suggestions and you have helped, if not fit in more pieces of puzzle, give me more clues as to where I might find them. 

[AuldReekie]

 

I've been looking at the UK degrees, as stated, but yes the cost of doing so is worrying. If I went to most state schools in the US, the tuition would be about the same but cost of living would be lower. On the other hand if I went some place like the mentioned New School (which I had never even had suggested to me) I imagine there are many locations in the UK that are less expensive than Manhattan. I don't have a problem with working in the UK, it seems like a nice country, but I am not sure I would fit in any better there than I would here in the US, that is for the future though. 

 

Just briefly, but for US PhD programs it's frequently said that you should only attend a PhD program if they offer you full funding (tuition + stipend) and this only widens the gap in cost vs UK. Which is unfortunate, because I'd say you could find more people to work with there.. send you off to Birkbeck and you'd certainly be all right

[NYCBluenose]

To the OP: I'm in the same boat (although a bit further along in the application process). My research perspective is also constructivist, although my interests are in comparative political economy, rather than IR theory, so I'm not sure how much my specific advice re: programs will help you.

 

My impression is that constructivists have established a foothold in American political science, but still a marginal one. You're going to be swimming against the current, and you probably won't love your required methods sequence. That said, there are constructivist scholars working at the very highest level. Again, w/ the caveat that I'm relatively ignorant of IR, I'd direct you towards Harvard (especially since I heard Sikkink is moving there), Berkeley, Northwestern (general reputation for heterodoxy and supposed to be great in IR theory), and I guess Ohio State (Wendt), and further down the chain George Washington (Finnemore/Farrell), Georgetown (McNamara), and Johns Hopkins.   

 

Personally, my approach was to look at departments with constructivists or methodological pluralists, but to present my research interests in a way that wasn't too glaringly heterodox. In many of my apps, I emphasized the overlaps of my regional and substantive interests with faculty members more than my methodological/epistemological focus. My results with this approach have been mixed (one top 20 acceptance, one top 50 acceptance), but your stats look better than mine. I also did an MA in Europe, which was a great experience (people don't take you any less seriously as a qual), but decided not to focus my PhD apps there because of concerns about the UK/EU job market.   

 

Anyway, best of luck and keep fighting the good fight! Feel free to PM me with any questions

Edited March 8, 2015 by NYCBluenose

[Disaprovingrabbit]

Just briefly, but for US PhD programs it's frequently said that you should only attend a PhD program if they offer you full funding (tuition + stipend) and this only widens the gap in cost vs UK. Which is unfortunate, because I'd say you could find more people to work with there.. send you off to Birkbeck and you'd certainly be all right

I have had people tell me that, and it's difficult to weigh the benefits and downsides. Because if I can't find any place here in the US that is willing to fund me, then should I just give up and not bother? Because that seems to be where most of the people I've spoken with have leaned. The thing is, there are lots of people that I find very interesting who are turning out what is to me very interesting work, but they basically are all in Europe. Buzan, Waever, Linklater, Winn, and more.   When all is said and done, if I decide to go to Grad-School it is an investment in myself and I don't have a problem with paying for it, I'd rather not have to, but I'd also rather pay than simply be rewarded for toeing some party line that I don't ultimately agree with. I figure I'll have to do plenty of that in the "real world", I shouldn't have to compromise on my education too.   

 

NYCBluenose: This is very helpful and thoughtful, and I suppose hits at one of the problems that I'm having. I struggle to differentiate between CP and IR, to me it's just too interconnected, and I am also looking at at least doing an MA in Europe, and most of my advisers are more than happy to encourage me to do that, they just then want me to come home, buckle down, and get serious with lots and lots of Quant classes ( I suppose now is as good a time as any to mention the reason my GPA is a 3.74 but my majors are 4.0's is because I failed a math class, so taking more is likely to result in similar grades and is the reason I haven't taken the GRE yet) I really appreciate your perspective on this and all I can do is offer you encouragement and moral support. It's seemingly much more difficult of a road than I anticipated.. 

[NYCBluenose]

I have had people tell me that, and it's difficult to weigh the benefits and downsides. Because if I can't find any place here in the US that is willing to fund me, then should I just give up and not bother? Because that seems to be where most of the people I've spoken with have leaned. The thing is, there are lots of people that I find very interesting who are turning out what is to me very interesting work, but they basically are all in Europe. Buzan, Waever, Linklater, Winn, and more.   When all is said and done, if I decide to go to Grad-School it is an investment in myself and I don't have a problem with paying for it, I'd rather not have to, but I'd also rather pay than simply be rewarded for toeing some party line that I don't ultimately agree with. I figure I'll have to do plenty of that in the "real world", I shouldn't have to compromise on my education too.   

 

NYCBluenose: This is very helpful and thoughtful, and I suppose hits at one of the problems that I'm having. I struggle to differentiate between CP and IR, to me it's just too interconnected, and I am also looking at at least doing an MA in Europe, and most of my advisers are more than happy to encourage me to do that, they just then want me to come home, buckle down, and get serious with lots and lots of Quant classes ( I suppose now is as good a time as any to mention the reason my GPA is a 3.74 but my majors are 4.0's is because I failed a math class, so taking more is likely to result in similar grades and is the reason I haven't taken the GRE yet) I really appreciate your perspective on this and all I can do is offer you encouragement and moral support. It's seemingly much more difficult of a road than I anticipated.. 

 

At the end of the day, you are not going to be happy doing someone else's research, so don't bother doing a PhD somewhere that won't take a qual/comparative historical perspective seriously (like Rochester or NYU). That said, doing one or two quant classes won't kill you, and will at the very minimum help you to understand a huge, important body of poli sci literature. You'll need to understand that approach on its own terms in able to critique it. 

[kaykaykay]

1. Have you thought about applying to History departments? They do various things there which may be more interesting to you.

2. I highly doubt that your professors do not agree with your research proposal because of the methods you want to use. I am in a very quant heavy department but professors know that some undergraduates are not that quantitative and they supervise qualitative projects  all the time. Maybe your idea (do not take this in the wrong way) is not that interesting? I mean you need to read a lot to get some idea where the profession is right now, maybe you have not found the edge yet.

3. If you think the issue is with the methods though, have you tried to study with a philosophy or a history professor (geography sociology depending on your interest)? Maybe that could help you assess whether your research fits to those disciplines better and even if not they may know the relevant political science literature better than your quantitatively inclined professors. Producing a writing sample in your chosen field may matter a lot during admissions.

[rwillh11]

I have had people tell me that, and it's difficult to weigh the benefits and downsides. Because if I can't find any place here in the US that is willing to fund me, then should I just give up and not bother? 

Unless, due to personal circumstances, money is not going to be an issue for you, YES.  There is no guarantee at all of finding TT positions after graduating, even from top schools. You could look at getting a UK PhD, or a continental European one, but funding is super limited. (basically the LSE or Oxford might fund you,but no one else has any money). You should not put yourself $100,000+ in debt to enter a very tough job market. That would be financially ruinous for most people. Look at the costs of tuition for grad programs. Its just not realistic to do it without funding....unless you have the money. 

 

On the other hand, if you are lucky enough to have the money, go for it. Many of us wish we could be so lucky as to disregard the funding and job market and just follow our hearts to the school that suits us best. If you have the resources to cover the cost, you might as well do it. But the only way I would advise considering that path is if you are lucky enough to already have the resources to pay for the school. Do not go into tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to pursue a PhD. Also, if you cannot find someone to find you, you may want to take that as a signal about how your research interests might fair on the job market. We certainly need more heterodox research...but its not going to make finding a job in 5-7 years any easier. 

[rwillh11]

1. Have you thought about applying to History departments? They do various things there which may be more interesting to you.

 

This too...I know you say there are no jobs in that field. But take a real solid look at the job market in our field. If you want a feel for how tough it can be, go read Poli Sci Rumors. While the job market for Poli Sci may be (a bit) better than for History PhDs, it is still not good. And for someone who doesn't want to do heavy quant, its 100x worse. Also, a funded PhD in History >>> an unfunded PhD in Political Science. 

[rising_star]

Have you considered sociology or geography, as kaykaykay pointed out? Because it seems to me like your interests may not fit so clearly in a Poli Sci department but would fit in another department, if you were willing to keep an open mind.

[angellily0330]

I'm also looking to do research in the constructivist realm---I mentioned it in my application, some major works, my recent research etc. Excited to meet a fellow constructivist fan!

Originally, I was leaning heavily towards doing my PhD in the UK or the continent. My advisor gave me some advice (haha) in regards to that aspect. It's basically reiterating what everyone here has said---if you want to work in the US, get your degree from here. No doubt it will be harder to find a good fit, but there are places out there. Finding a program that has constructivists is time consuming, but you need to be meticulous in this. There were several schools that I didn't apply to because I couldn't find a single person. 

 

 

What are your advisors researching? I understand it's quantitative, but maybe there is a topic in there that interests you and you could work something out with them where they do the "math" part and you would do more writing. And keep in mind that most PhD programs nowadays have a required quantitative series that's required. I understand you not wanting to be pinned down, but just your quantitative days aren't over if you do decide to pursue a PhD. 

[Disaprovingrabbit]

Unless, due to personal circumstances, money is not going to be an issue for you, YES.  There is no guarantee at all of finding TT positions after graduating, even from top schools. You could look at getting a UK PhD, or a continental European one, but funding is super limited. (basically the LSE or Oxford might fund you,but no one else has any money). You should not put yourself $100,000+ in debt to enter a very tough job market. That would be financially ruinous for most people. Look at the costs of tuition for grad programs. Its just not realistic to do it without funding....unless you have the money. 

 

On the other hand, if you are lucky enough to have the money, go for it. Many of us wish we could be so lucky as to disregard the funding and job market and just follow our hearts to the school that suits us best. If you have the resources to cover the cost, you might as well do it. But the only way I would advise considering that path is if you are lucky enough to already have the resources to pay for the school. Do not go into tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to pursue a PhD. Also, if you cannot find someone to find you, you may want to take that as a signal about how your research interests might fair on the job market. We certainly need more heterodox research...but its not going to make finding a job in 5-7 years any easier. 

 

Well, no, I don't have the private means to fund myself. But I also don't feel I can do what I want to do without pursuing higher levels of education. As someone else pointed out earlier, why would anyone take me seriously as just an undergrad? Even with two BA's, it's still just a BA. This is amazingly disappointing to hear. I don't even know how to begin looking for jobs as an alternative to grad school because that's what I've been operating under the assumption I'd be doing this whole time. Everytime I've spoken to anyone at my school about it, as soon as they see my grades they immediately ask if I'm going to Law School or Grad School. I have no interest in being a lawyer, so that just left Grad School. I've been to my schools career center once, and their suggestion was just to get a Linkdin page, something I'd never heard of before, which didn't really help as all it did was confirm that the only jobs out there are computer programmers, nurses, and truck drivers; or things I don't qualify for because I don't have an MA/MBA/MPA etc. 

 

As far as a History PhD, the only ones I'd consider would be Ancient, Medieval, or Pre-Modern, and I just don't meet the language requirements. usually including at a minimum Latin reading proficiency and one other language. Depending on your sub field you have to have even more. that boat sailed when I decided to add the second major. While there are some good programs in the US for those topics, I don't think it would be worth the application fees to even attempt it. Though that was my original plan, I just got so depressed because i was being told constantly there were no jobs in that field. Honestly i wonder at this point why do schools even bother having these departments? It's like it's a trap to lure people into majoring in something that has no future. 

 

I've never considered Sociology because I'm not interested per say in how individual persons interact, or even societies of persons interact. I'm primarily interested in how the society of states, nsa's, mnc's, ngo's, etc interact. I feel it would be fairly difficult to find a sociologist who has the requisite IR background in order for me to be a good fit with that too. I'm not sure if there is such a thing as "Systemic Sociology", though I know there is Human Ecology and they are where World Systems developed.. so might be worth looking into. Human Geography might be an okay fit though, but they have their own Quant requirements with learning how to do GIS which requires programming. Everything just seems to require so much math, and the whole reason I went into the fields I went into was so I didn't have to do math.. 

[Espoir2015]

I think that you are approaching your problem from a completely wrong angle. Actually, it is not only you, but most of the comments I have read in this discussion. Although many scholars prefer qualitative or quanitative methods, the position to somehow map the field of international relations or comparative politics along methodological faultlines is hugely problematic and, in my view, false. At the end of the day, as a political scientists, my research is driven my puzzles I want to solve and not by the method I prefer.

 

When I started out studying political science, I was highly sceptical about quanitative approaches (mainly because I never found much interest in math), but the longer I studied I realized how useful it is to learn new methods. I personally made the experience that every new skill I learned provided me with a different perspective on my questions.  Being exposed to Social Network Analysis, QCA, GIS software, and more 'uncommon' methods like ethnomethodology or quantitative narrative analysis quite was super enriching for my development as a scholar. Nobody master the whole methodological skillbox, but knowing about their basic assumptions and mechanics is super useful. From this perspective, I think that simply saying. Simply saying I only do quant (or I only do qualitative) research is an unproductive attitude that does not move the discipline forward in any way.

 

Some of the best researchers I know have actually gone back and forth in using more qualitative and more quanitative approaches to international relations and comparative politics. One person that comes to my mind is Elizabeth Wood from Yale, who has done extensive fieldwork, formal modelling, and also a fair amount of more quant work (she actually has as a MA in Physics). There are also plenty of other constructivist-inspired scholars out that that have begun to creative look at more technical tools, like regression analysis or text-mining (Although many people are likely to disagree with this and say that positivist and constructivist ontologies  underlie quantitative and qualitative methods, respectively). I know that in world systems theory people have begun to look at networks between states or NGOs. In the end, the strongest papers and books I know combine different methods, which makes them even stronger. 

 

No matter which way you go, I would strongly encourage you to take some methods classes (even the more obscure ones). Also, technology becomes more important and provides interesting new perspectives to look at old problems and revisit unsolved puzzles, so you should try to keep yourself up to date.

 

As for gradschools, I you might want to look at Northwestern, OSU and Minnesota.

[Disaprovingrabbit]

Thank you for that well thought out reply. I again don't want to come across as saying that I'm totally against Quantitative methods, just that it is very difficult for me to do (thus I seek to avoid it) and also less interesting to me (as it doesn't focus on what I feel is most important, EG human psychological processes and their essential indeterminacy and irrationality) I'm not really looking to explain, I'm just looking for a clearer understanding, since I don't ultimately feel that people are knowable. I'd take another Quant class if it was offered just to shut my advisers up, but my school simply doesn't offer one at the undergrad level other than in the Stat department which has pre-reqs I don't meet. As for the technology, since I consider myself to be an anti-modernist and anti-positivist, I rather halfheartedly accept its place in my life, but have no especial love for it beyond its ability to aggregate vast sums of knowledge for my ease of access. I've been trying to get a class in GIS for a while, but again, pre-reqs I don't meet, and don't have time to take, combined with departments who aren't interested in me auditing their classes so I can learn the material but not have it negatively impact my GPA should I not be great at it, have somewhat curtailed my ability to pursue it. 

 

I've already looked at Minnesota, but their department seems to be, well, rather weak, they only list about 6 people on the department on the website. OSU is one I hadn't heard mentioned before but makes since considering Wendt is there that they would have a constructivist friendly department. Thank you for the suggestions, I'll do more research. 

Edited March 9, 2015 by Disaprovingrabbit

[AmericanQuant]

This troll was impressive.

[Disaprovingrabbit]

I don't understand how I am being a "troll", I simply want to study what I find interesting rather than what you obviously find interesting. Oh boo hoo, life is full of dissapointments. I've just been told by half a dozen people that if I want to continue my education I basically will have little choice but to leave my own country to do so, or I just have to give up on my desire to learn more because no one will fund me even if I get into a school in the UK. It's not a very rosy picture, or I have to study something I have zero interest in studying, or hope to get accepted to a tiny handful of schools in the US that actually offer something similar to what I want. 

[cooperstreet]

"The problem is, I see no value in quantitative research, it's reductive and constraining and forces square pegs into round holes to make them fit rigid and inflexible models."

 

This is simply because you do not understand it.

[Disaprovingrabbit]

'You don't like what I like, therefore you are stupid'.  Great advice, I'll keep that in mind. 

[Fianna]

It's not about like. Political science is a quantitative field and you seem upset that this discipline is not what you thought it is. Poly sci without stats is a humanity, which one depends on what your research questions are. My husband is applying for poli sci PhDs this cycle, while I apply to history programs. We talk a lot about the differences and approaches of our disciplines, because we have many overlapping interest areas. However, we generate questions and interrogate them extremely differently. One of the large differences in the fields are qual/quant. And frankly, as a historian, I can also tell you that quant analysis is very prevalent in history right now, too. Big data is a trend that everyone is interested in because it creates new research questions and new lines of inquiry. It's a tool, and a very valuable one, in academia right now, in just about every discipline that has things you can count, measure, map or extrapolate from. 

 

Take a giant step backward and re-evaluate where you are at. Start, first of all, by looking at recent issues of the big journals. What's being published in journals is where the research in the field is moving. Even better, try going to a conference, or at least finding CFPs for conferences in the discipline. See what's getting accepted. You'll find that it's likely to be mostly quant-heavy.

 

Second, take your faculty's advice seriously. If they don't want to supervise your work, that signals a big problem, either with the work itself or with you. If they won't supervise you, chances are they won't feel comfortable writing for you, nor will they write good letters even if they do.

 

Third, realize that departments are set up in specific ways, and those ways are slow to change. You've noted that programs that don't have quant-heavy training are few and far between. That means that those faculty positions are fewer and further between.

 

Fourth, the job market in academic political science is not much better than that for history. We're all slightly crazy to be pursuing this as a field, because we are all smart enough to find easier to get and better paying jobs. Think why you want to do this, and if you really need a PhD to achieve your goals. For the government-based jobs, you likely don't. But also bear in mind that many of those jobs are analytic jobs, and not theory jobs.

 

Fifth, you're very, very early in your career to have such strong opinions about the discipline. How much theory and methods have you read? Professors and application readers are going to be very put off by someone at your level dismissing 80%+ of the work done in the field. It shows, among other things, a lack of understanding about the state of the discipline. It also probably relates very much to the second problem above. Academia is a hierarchy and it's often a very traditional one. You don't usually have a lot of flexibility in the training done at whatever institution you attend. You take the classes you need to take, in the sequence you need to take them in. You then write a dissertation that gets approved by a committee both as a proposal and as a finished work. If being told how to approach your education is a problem for you, a PhD may not be an enjoyable experience, no matter which discipline you choose to pursue.

[Disaprovingrabbit]

Being told how to approach *my* education is a problem for me because it's just that, *my* education. If I'm going to invest years of my life, and tens of thousands of dollars, then I have the right to expect what I want out of it. You're right though that I went into the field expecting something that is proving to be very different. The undergrad IA major at my school does not require a single quant class beyond a basic intro to stat class, and then none of the actual classes use any quant methods at all. So in my opinion it's somewhat justifiable on my end to be frustrated that the major I picked specifically because it involved virtually zero math, suddenly turns into a math degree in the grad school level.. but that is what I have to have to get a job. I feel as though I've been lied to, and conned into taking on an extra year of school and thousands of dollars in additional loan debt for a second major that isn't any more valuable than my history degree. 

 

However, I think we are looking at this in cross purposes, I'm not looking for a faculty position, and I'm not looking to work in a theory heavy field. I am not looking to ask any questions, certainly not ones I have to write a 300 page book to attempt to answer. I simply have my own thoughts and opinions about what I want to study while working to earn my "Piece of paper ©" that says I'm qualified to do X job. I honestly don't know what qualifications I need to get X job, because I don't know what X job is. I just know that as a virtual certainty all of my faculty members and my adviser say I need a grad degree, but they also aren't happy with the ones that I'm picking that align with my world view, which makes it harder to get anything moving. 

 

As for why I can't get anyone in the department to oversee my projects, I thought I had mentioned earlier that is because all undergrad projects at my school are handled through the Honors department, which I am not part of because I didn't know I needed to join my first semester and missed out, which means that if the faculty do agree to oversee my projects, they won't get paid for it, and it's much harder to get academic credit for them. I am not actually that upset with them for not wanting to take them on, but if I'm not going to get academic credit for them then I see no reason to pursue them or to ask faculty members to go out of their way to facilitate it. So if I am simply mis-remembering and didn't actually include that detail I'm sorry and I guess that explains where a lot of confusion is coming from. As far as letters go, that's as I mentioned much earlier, already become something I feel is problematic because 90% of my professors are just PhD candidates and not actual PhD's since they are all too busy doing research to actually teach. In so far as my IA degree goes, I don't think I have a single person to ask for a letter from anyway, even though I feel I get on pretty well with most of them. 

Edited March 10, 2015 by Disaprovingrabbit

[law2phd]

'You don't like what I like, therefore you are stupid'.  Great advice, I'll keep that in mind. 

 

Hopefully this is not the general idea you are taking from this line of concerns and criticisms.

 

Poli sci is an incredibly difficult field to get into as a career, even for those whose interests and skills are in line with the direction this field is taking--which is increasingly quantitative, based on statistics and big data analysis.  You are going to face significant difficulty at every step of the way if you are not in line with those trends: you will find it more difficult to write a SoP which fits the strengths of top schools (read: schools from which you can get a job), you will find it harder to find an advisor once admitted who is interested in your work, you will find it harder to find a job as a junior faculty member when you aren't researching or prepared to teach in areas the department actually expects to be specializing in decades down the road, and you will find it hard to get tenure for the same reasons.

 

I applied to poli sci programs as a qualitative-based theorist with absolutely no formal training in political science even at the undergraduate survey level.  I still received a couple of offers from elite programs, presumably because I was able to place my research interests within a coherent framework that can build from and contribute to where the field seems to be going.  Even if you aren't a math person, you probably need to be able to do the same--or find a different field to earn a doctorate in.

Edited March 10, 2015 by law2phd