Beginner's question! "Good Fit"?

[Parisienne]

Hi all,

While most of you have already applied for 2010, I'm still in the process of considering applying for PhD programs and doing research on schools/degrees/admissions process etc. So apologies for this beginner's question!

OK, so I'm wondering how one can determine "good fit" with a school's faculty. I've read that good fit can be determined by matching interests with 2-3 members of the faculty. This is where my question comes in: how precisely should my interests correspond to a professor's interests/research agenda in order for me to determine that our interests actually match?

Example: let's say I'm interested in comparative politics with a focus on democratization in the Middle East. Let's say I find a professor who's interested in the resilience of authoritarian regimes, with a focus on, say, China. I'd tend to think that our interests match because although we're not interested in the same region, there's obviously a common theme. Am I right? Other random example: I find a professor who's interested in political econ, in the sense of how politics & economics influence each other. I have a similar broad field interest, but I'm interested in the interaction between monetary policy & politics, whereas he's more focused on politics & issues related to growth. Could there be a good fit there? Or do our interests match only too broadly?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Edited January 19, 2010 by Parisienne

[GopherGrad]

Paris,

You're not the only one here just starting out; I thought that question (and paige's answer!) was really helpful.

In my beginner's opinion, I think you're on the right track, too. It seems that matching the process or particular cause and effect is more important than region. I think schools value students that want to study thing complementary to existing profs; not exactly matching.

[Parisienne]

First, thanks to both of you for your replies! It's really helpful to be getting feedback on this issue

Actually, my intuition & thinking was that my 1st example was that of a good fit, and the 2nd example, one of a "so-so" fit: suppose I browse through the papers/CV of the imaginary professor from example n°2. I find out that, sure, he's interested in political economy too, but has been so far mainly interested in issues relating to growth & development economics and has never written anything regarding monetary policy for example, whereas I'm really interested in the politics of central banking. In terms of field, both research agendas pertain to political economy, but those are two very different issues. Do you still think that this would qualify as "good fit"?

In the first example, professor and student are both interested in the same general theme (democratization) within a certain subfield (comparative politics). On the other hand, the second example, in my view, would've been similar, in the field of comparative politics, to having a student be interested in democratization and having a professor focus his research on issues of ethnicity.

What do you think?

Thanks again

[ladedodaday]

First, thanks to both of you for your replies! It's really helpful to be getting feedback on this issue

Actually, my intuition & thinking was that my 1st example was that of a good fit, and the 2nd example, one of a "so-so" fit: suppose I browse through the papers/CV of the imaginary professor from example n°2. I find out that, sure, he's interested in political economy too, but has been so far mainly interested in issues relating to growth & development economics and has never written anything regarding monetary policy for example, whereas I'm really interested in the politics of central banking. In terms of field, both research agendas pertain to political economy, but those are two very different issues. Do you still think that this would qualify as "good fit"?

In the first example, professor and student are both interested in the same general theme (democratization) within a certain subfield (comparative politics). On the other hand, the second example, in my view, would've been similar, in the field of comparative politics, to having a student be interested in democratization and having a professor focus his research on issues of ethnicity.

What do you think?

Thanks again

I'd actually say that you need to be more specific on both. Because democratization is such a broad topic (just like IPE), regional specialties can be very important. But, that really depends what you want to do. For example, if you want to study democratization in a specific region, than you should pay a lot of attention to scholars' regional specialties. On the other hand, if you are interested in democratization on a global level, you might want to make sure the school has someone doing something similar.

For example, if you want to study democratization in China, a good fit would be a school with someone studying democratization in China and a professor who studies democratization in Latin America would probably be unable to help you very much, and might refuse to take you on as a student. Likewise, if you are just interested in democratization (period), you might want to find scholars who do larger studies, like James Robinson or John Gerring. That's just my feeling though, and others might have better insights!

Ultimately, however, cpaige is right: you need to ask yourself whether you are interested in that person's work, would want to be a RA for them, and whether they could advise you.

Edited January 19, 2010 by great joy

[natofone]

Actually, my intuition & thinking was that my 1st example was that of a good fit, and the 2nd example, one of a "so-so"

I agree. Political economy is sufficiently broad that increased specificity will improve your "fit" argument. Even if you focus solely on IPE and ignore the comparative literature (comparative capitalisms, political economy of specific regions, welfare state, economic sociology, etc), you still have a array of topics to deal with (trade, development, monetary politics, economic coercion and sanctions, cooperation, globalization, regional integration, institutions, etc).

Granted, this won't always be possible and you might need to make more general arguments regarding fit.

[GopherGrad]

I think the way you've phrased the examples invites criticism in the second instance of the same problem the first example glosses over.

To put it differently, I'm sure we could come up with several sub-topics within the broader field of "democratization" that only glancingly deal with one another and ask if that really constitutes "fit" in the same way you have for political economy.

Say you want to study judicial corruption in China; you could probably make a good case for "fit" with either 1) a prof that studies anything about the judicial branch in China or 2) a prof that studies judical corruption in the Middle East.

In the first case, you will likely be asked questions about your work that steer you toward fitting your solutions into the framework of Chinese development. In the second case, you'll probably be challenged to think about processes for alleviating judicial corruption largely without reference to social context.

I think the fit question has less to do with an whether the interests are the "same" and more to do with how complementing academics will enrich your study (and how you can contribute to thiers). Consider that, by the time we're finishing up, we'll be more expert on our topics than most of the faculty. I'll want people who can challenge me to think about how my work fits into the bigger picture; not a set of profs who can correct my mistakes.

Edited January 19, 2010 by GopherGrad

[NEPA]

Not sure if it'll be helpful, but I can only offer my own experience (one of my primary research interests is democratization in the Middle East). For me, regional focus was important; in other words, I first tried to find someone who studied the Middle East. Then, if they didn't research democratization (most Middle East scholars I came across have to some extent), I tried to find someone who studied that theme. If I found those two matches, I'd see how many other profs shared my other research interests. Fortunately for me, I found a number of potential advisers and programs I could get excited about. I'd suggest e-mailing potential faculty you might be interested in working with and going to visit the department if possible. You could also seek out the advice of grad students at each program.

[Stormy Waters]

First, thanks to both of you for your replies! It's really helpful to be getting feedback on this issue

Actually, my intuition & thinking was that my 1st example was that of a good fit, and the 2nd example, one of a "so-so" fit: suppose I browse through the papers/CV of the imaginary professor from example n°2. I find out that, sure, he's interested in political economy too, but has been so far mainly interested in issues relating to growth & development economics and has never written anything regarding monetary policy for example, whereas I'm really interested in the politics of central banking. In terms of field, both research agendas pertain to political economy, but those are two very different issues. Do you still think that this would qualify as "good fit"?

In the first example, professor and student are both interested in the same general theme (democratization) within a certain subfield (comparative politics). On the other hand, the second example, in my view, would've been similar, in the field of comparative politics, to having a student be interested in democratization and having a professor focus his research on issues of ethnicity.

What do you think?

Thanks again

I think you should apply to programs where its obvious that you fit and don't have to ask why. Meaning, don't pick a program just because you like the name. Pick a place that has scholars that you can work with and develop your own research skills. You'll get more out of it, be more productive, and probably enjoy it more.

What programs out there are good at exactly what you want to do?

[Parisienne]

Many thanks to all for the useful feedback!

All points are well taken. If I summarize:

1- when there's good fit, it's probably obvious and it shouldn't be difficult making an argument for it in the SoP for example;

2- the more specifically my interests match those of other professors, the better the fit (that's obvious enough);

3- you can look at fit through different lenses (thematic or regional) and make your argument accordingly;

4- when browsing through a professor's profile, there's good fit if I'm interested in his work and can see how we'd complement each other/mutually learn from each other's research.

Stormy Waters - I'm interested in comparative state-building and more specifically, how economic policy and institutions (such as monetary policy & central banking) help or hinder democratization processes and state-building. Since my interests lie at the intersection of political science & economics (I've studied both), and because what I'm interested in is studying the design and effects of policy, I've so far been focusing on programs that offer PhDs in public policy with a focus on political economy. I'm also looking at poli sci programs that have strong political economy subspecialties (but I feel that a PhD in public policy/affairs would suit my interests better). I'm still doing research on professors at different programs & in the process of determining where I'd fit well

[poli90]

A major thing to look at too is methedological approach. Do you want to be trained in quantitative or qualitative research? Area studies or big-N studies? You can usually tell the program's overal approach by looking at their program descriptions and the structure of the program.