Determining the Methodological Bent of a Department

[bwgvsu]

How does one go about determining the methodological bent of a particular political science department? 

I am primarily interested in comparative politics (comparative political economy, especially), with a regional interest in Western Europe. While I have taken courses in quantitative research methodology and am fairly well-versed in regression, I think that I am better suited for qualitative research. With this in mind, do any departments/professors in the US (preferably top 30) meet these criteria?

Thanks

[guest56436]

Western Europe qualitative work? You are pretty much fighting perhaps the largest uphill battle in getting a TT job outside of political theory.

[Monody]

I would also recommend to look at Europe for the kind of work you are interested in. I wouldnt bet on a "qualitative" turn in the US while this kind of work is quite prevalent in Europe (mainland).

[bwgvsu]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy quantitative research. I could have written this better. I am really interested in many different research methods. I don't want a department that limits my scope to one mode of analysis. 

[dagnabbit]

My advice would be to revisit articles that present the type of research that you would like to do, and then find out which schools the authors are at. If your only concern is receiving adequate training in both quant/qualitative methods, you should be fine at any T30 program - though you would likely want to avoid heavily quantitative programs like NYU and Rochester.

[PizzaCat93]

UNC would be a good option. 

[CarefreeWritingsontheWall]

I disagree with a lot of what people have said here. While top 20 institutions in the US have leaned towards promoting training in quantitative methods, they are by no means the only form of methods training schools offer. They also aren't the only form of scholarly research political scientists are doing in North America. Just take a look at APSA's recent program from their 2016 meeting, or publications in top journals. A department's overall inclination also says nothing to the particular ontological and epistemological views faculty have. Every department is highly varied. Most will state their perspective on methods training on their website, detailing their required courses in methods as well as their overall disposition. Schools like GWU, UPenn or Cornell, for example, state that they are oriented towards a mixed methods approach on their websites. Usually you can find this information on a department's website in their mission statement or introduction, but it can become clearer in program guides. Take a look at those, and then hone in on the people you want to work with. Look for people who study what you substantively are interested in, but also the way you wish to study it.

The key thing to consider is that more methods will better equip you to tackle questions in the future, but you can't know everything perfectly. I do agree with the view that only focusing on qualitative methods will set you up for a world of hurt. Quantitative data analysis techniques (surveys, text analysis, network analysis etc.) can pair really well with qualitative methods (interviews, progress tracing, ethnographic approaches etc.). That said, if you only focus on quantitative methods, you're also setting yourself up to fail. If you throw a regression with stars into a slide but have no narrative or qualitative evidence for why your theory can explain the correlation you've found, your work also won't be published or believed in. There is give and take between both. The key is to trained in a way that won't restrict your research agenda, and that allows you to answer your research questions of interest in the best, more thorough, way possible.

[bubbatubba]

Here is a list of people that is incomplete but might get you started: Harvard (Peter Hall), Yale (Peter Swenson), Berkeley (Paul Pierson, Jonah Levy), MIT (Kathleen Thelen), Duke (Peter Lange). Not all of them are focused on Western Europe or entirely qualitative though.