PhD in Anthro or Soc?

[mfafiction2019]

This is pretty far into the future (as in, I probably won't be applying for programs until the fall of 2017 at least), but I'm just curious as to what kind of program I should be looking for. Currently I'm abroad (originally from the US) doing a masters degree in Social Anthropology, and my research interests can basically be boiled down to "political ethnography" "ethnography of political activism" (right now I'm working with specifically with university student activism, as the country I'm studying in has quite a unique culture of student political activity in colleges and that is basically the reason I chose to study here). I'm also interested in the general study of higher education and the university as an institution (though like I said, right now I'm focusing on political activism, but I'm also interested in non-political aspects of higher ed as well, especially "youth culture" in the university environment).

However, I've been looking at Phd programs in the US in Anthropology and haven't found many that have professors that share my interests, whereas when I searched for Sociology Phd programs, I started to find more (like "social movements" or "political sociology" or "education," and even sometimes "higher ed," obviously using ethnographic and qualitative methods). So I guess my question is, are there any programs in Anthropology in the US that have professors that work with similar themes? Or am I better off looking at qualitatively/ethnographically focused Sociology programs? Also, I know that Social Anthropology isn't as popular in the US as Cultural Anthropology, so I've sort of been eliminating programs that just say "Cultural Anthropology" as opposed to Sociocultural or Social-Cultural...should I be doing that or not?

Thanks!!

Edited November 24, 2015 by nywnorb120191

[farflung]

On November 24, 2015 at 11:06:07 AM, nywnorb120191 said:

 I know that Social Anthropology isn't as popular in the US as Cultural Anthropology, so I've sort of been eliminating programs that just say "Cultural Anthropology" as opposed to Sociocultural or Social-Cultural...should I be doing that or not?

You should not be doing that. If you decide Anthropology is the way to go, you should be looking at ALL social, cultural, and socio-cultural Anthropology programs in the US -- American doctoral programs make few if any distinctions between these categories. 

Historically, "social anthropology" developed within/alongside the British and European schools of anthropology, with a strong focus on charting kinship patterns, exchange/economy, and politics. "Cultural anthropology," in contrast, historically developed within/alongside the American school, with a strong focus on documenting the languages and customs North American indigenous peoples. It could be the case that the British are still clinging to "social anthropology" as its own discrete thing. BUT American "cultural anthropology" is not. Cultural Anthro has come to envelop everything that "social anthropology" historically meant, and there is no meaningful distinction between the two (besides learning the history) in my graduate training.  I am in a cultural anthropologist who works on issues related to public policy, science, education, etc. -- stuff that interests social anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, and many others. Here's the story: you can study whatever you want in an American Socio/Cultural Anthropology PhD program, you just have to be committed to long-term ethnographic fieldwork, learning your field languages well, and engaging with anthropological and social theory. 

To be honest, if you want to do ethnographic work, I think you may be unhappy in a Sociology program. Sociology in the American academy is still HGHLY quantitatively focused, with the exception of a few standout programs. I have several friends doing qualitative or ethnographic Sociology, and their work is consistently sneered at from quantitative folks within their discipline who do not find it "rigorous." On the topic of political activism, the sociological literature often takes the form of typologies -- trying to ID which kind of activism happens in which circumstances. From an anthropological perspective, this literature is boring and does not reflect the nuanced and intricate way that people engage in activism in their everyday lives. Qualitative sociologists on my campus end up taking TONS of Anthro classes. In contrast, anthropologists have a huge umbrella (tend to welcome many topics), and ethnography is the norm -- you'll even be trained in it. Institutional ethnography does of course fit in Anth and Soc, but as someone working on very similar topics to you, I'm glad I went into Anthro. 

In terms of professors working on similar topics, you'll have to do some research! You need to think broadly about your topic. Look for programs with regional (i.e. anthro of the united states) and theoretical resonances with your project -- not simply topical (i.e. higher education). I'll private message you a few program ideas. 

[mfafiction2019]

Thank you so much for your reply farflung! It's good to know that about Cultural Anthro in the US, so I'll definitely be taking a second look at those programs. Also good to know that about Sociology. Now I'll be definitely focusing more on Anthro!

Yeah, in terms of my search, I've been looking for at least one faculty member who has my regional interest, even if it's not the same country that I work in (that would be perhaps narrowing things down too much lol) and one faculty member who has similar topical interests ("social movements" I suppose, or "youth" or "education"). But shared regional interest is the most important to me.

In terms of undergrad GPA, mine is sort of on the below-average side for academia (3.4), but I've lived for 2 1/2 of the past 5 years in the region that I work with, and I'm basically fluent in the language of the region (since I'm doing my current masters program in that language and not in English). Also I haven't taken the GRE yet but I generally test well so I hope that helps...I know that fit and professor research interests are more important than rankings but should I apply to top 20 programs (with professors who share my interests, of course)? Or should I apply to mid-tier? Or a mix?

Edited November 27, 2015 by nywnorb120191

[rising_star]

Just curious, why are you prioritizing a shared regional interest over a shared theoretical or topical interest? I ask because the latter could ultimately prove to be more important, particularly depending on how you intend to market yourself toward the end of your degree. It can be very different to be known as a regional studies specialist versus a scholar interested in youth social movements.

[amolang]

Hey, I majored in sociology but am applying for anthropology because journals, book, and questions that really spoke to my heart were all those of anthropologists. As rising_star said, you might have to focus more on theoretical or topical interests unless you are particularly interested in the history or the literature of a certain region. Think about what kind of coursework you are going to take in Ph.D. program and research projects you are going to undertake. 

Edited November 27, 2015 by amolang

[mfafiction2019]

On 11/27/2015, 12:03:46, rising_star said:

Just curious, why are you prioritizing a shared regional interest over a shared theoretical or topical interest? I ask because the latter could ultimately prove to be more important, particularly depending on how you intend to market yourself toward the end of your degree. It can be very different to be known as a regional studies specialist versus a scholar interested in youth social movements.

I guess I just assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that someone who shared my regional interest would be more interested in my work than someone who only shared my topical interest but specialized in another region, but I'm open to any and all programs that have people with my topical interest.

[rising_star]

2 hours ago, nywnorb120191 said:

I guess I just assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that someone who shared my regional interest would be more interested in my work than someone who only shared my topical interest but specialized in another region, but I'm open to any and all programs that have people with my topical interest.

Yea, I would say this is incorrect. Let's say you're interested in gender and agriculture. It could be that the professors interested in your region are more interested in religion, kinship, globalization, etc. and aren't all that interested in supervising a project in your area. Does that make sense? It would be great to have a regional specialist on your committee but that doesn't mean the person would or should be your advisor.

Speaking from personal experience, I'm in an interdisciplinary social science. My advisor and I shared a thematic interest, though we did research in vastly different places. Some of the professors on my committee were there because we shared a theoretical framework, some due to shared methodology, and some due to their regional expertise (though none had experience in the country where I did my research). That structure worked for me and has worked for many, many people before me.