Comparative Admissions, Region Focus, Language Proficiency

[CKD02001]

I am considering applying in the comparative/IR subfield with a focus on Middle East Politics but am not sure whether my research program would be viewed as credible.

I have a background in Comparative ( research on Sustainability of Peace, Democratization) focusing on the Middle East. I have also completed quantitative coursework including stats, data analysis, game theory, and survey methods. I have never taken language coursework (beyond high school Latin), but am a very rusty Farsi heritage speaker who could become fluent within the duration of a PHD.

I have an interest in studying Comparative Politics of the Middle East (authoritarianism, state capture, factional politics) with a specific focus on Iran.

I have a few questions

A. How do they admissions committees view heritage speakers that are not fully fluent?

B. Is it a bad idea to apply to focus on just one country (Iran) when applying to a comparative program? As Seymour Martin Lipset would say someone

[Parisienne]

Hey there,

A/ Not too sure about that one so take it with a grain of salt, but it would only seem rational/logical for the adcom to simply view you as a candidate who's not fully fluent, regardless of heritage. But then again, not all students entering Comparative programs have total language fluency, so I'm not sure to what extent this would be considered a problem (I've never applied for a PhD in the U.S., but I have a Research Masters in Comparative/Middle East from Europe, and the adcom rarely took students who had too basic a knowledge of the language. It had to be at least almost intermediate).

B/ That's a tricky one, I'll leave the advice to other posters...

C/ You say you're a heritage speaker - do you still have family in Iran? If so, that might help convincing advisors when proposing fieldwork there. I performed fieldwork in a pretty sensitive area in the ME, and it definitely helped me convince my advisor to carry out the interviews I wanted to when I mentioned I knew the area well/had family there.

As for how you actually perform the fieldwork itself, it's most certainly very complicated. People often have trouble opening up especially if you're working on a politically sensitive issue, but you just have to keep at it really. I have to say that the situation's pretty bad in Iran these days though...

[natofone]

I've heard the same thing as cpaige.

[ipsqq]

A. Not an issue, you will have time to take upper level courses to become fluent.

B. Yes. You can do comparative work in one country, but if that country is Iran it is unlikely you will be able to get to enough places to get sufficient variation for an interesting research project.

C. Apply to schools with professors who have already done this and work for them - they will probably be the only way for you to facilitate useful contacts. But that is not something you will have to worry about for a few years.

I am considering applying in the comparative/IR subfield with a focus on Middle East Politics but am not sure whether my research program would be viewed as credible.

I have a background in Comparative ( research on Sustainability of Peace, Democratization) focusing on the Middle East. I have also completed quantitative coursework including stats, data analysis, game theory, and survey methods. I have never taken language coursework (beyond high school Latin), but am a very rusty Farsi heritage speaker who could become fluent within the duration of a PHD.

I have an interest in studying Comparative Politics of the Middle East (authoritarianism, state capture, factional politics) with a specific focus on Iran.

I have a few questions

A. How do they admissions committees view heritage speakers that are not fully fluent?

B. Is it a bad idea to apply to focus on just one country (Iran) when applying to a comparative program? As Seymour Martin Lipset would say someone �who knows only one country knows no countries.�Would it make sense to include the Greater Middle East (Turkey, Gulf States, Afghanistan, Pakistan) without proper language fluency?

C. How do you perform/propose fieldwork in areas that are either war zones or highly censored and politically hostile to Americans?

[curufinwe]

I sort of studied middle east as well. but when I asked my advisor whether I should learn arabic or not, he said "how many times are you going to go to syria and do field work?? instead of spending all that time learning arabic, spend it on reading journals and articles. that'll make u a better political scientist". plus, as cpaige said, being versatile is really good. so never focus on one region, let alone one country.

[rc47]

I sort of studied middle east as well. but when I asked my advisor whether I should learn arabic or not, he said "how many times are you going to go to syria and do field work?? instead of spending all that time learning arabic, spend it on reading journals and articles. that'll make u a better political scientist". plus, as cpaige said, being versatile is really good. so never focus on one region, let alone one country.

This is one view, and you can certainly succeed as a comparativist without focusing on a specific region. However, if you want to claim expertise on a region or country, you will be criticized if you can't speak the language. You have plenty of time to get fluent while you're in graduate school though, so I wouldn't sweat it right now. Also, if you apply with a focus on a specific region or country, it can help or hurt you depending on the program.

[bees]

I wouldn't stress the fluency thing- you can always learn it when you are there (and if you have some background, more the better). The quantitative people tend not to care too much about language stuff, but most qualitative people prefer case studies that encompass more than one case (e.g. Iran), although Odell and others make the case that you can study a 'critical case'. You seem to have a good background otherwise, so as long as you are open to study the whole region, you'll be fine.

[jacib]

B. Yes. You can do comparative work in one country, but if that country is Iran it is unlikely you will be able to get to enough places to get sufficient variation for an interesting research project.

Excuse to for asking a question slightly off topic but Ipsqq indicates that "it is possible to study one country" but that Iran wouldn't be a good example because of its lack of variations... but then what would be? Only huge countries like Russia, US, China. Indonesia and India? Countries bifurcated by ethnicity and, from that, politics, such as Belgium or the Ukraine? A country with a huge urban/rural gap like Brazil?

Iran, with its tons of regionally based minority groups but very few (no?) Muslim identity parties, seems like it could provide as good example of a place where an internal comparison could potentially show a lot of interesting things... and if there were truly no interesting variations, that in and of itself would be noteworthy because how did the minority groups get integrated, and how this successful integraion could prove to be a model for other countries, including neighboring ones... the "Kurdish question" in Iraq and Turkey comes immediately to mind. Now I don't know how integrated or balkanized national politics actually is; I do remember there was tension few years ago between the Azeri minority (something like a quarter of the country) and the Persian majority (who are only a little above 50% of the population), if I remember correctly largely initially brought to the fore of the public debate by a political cartoon about a cockroach which spoke Azeri, but that did not seem to drive the Azeris to identify more with Azerbaijan or Turkey. Anyway, as an outsider (who has experience with comparative religion, if such a field can still be said to exist, and who is moving towards comparative sociology), I'm wondering, if not Iran, then what constitutes a country that is varied enough to allow internal comparison in political science? Perhaps this is too off topic, but I would guess its somewhat relevant to the OP as well.... somewhat.