Major Fields and Sub Fields

[HarrisonWinslow]

Hey guys, I thought I would just put this question out there: most of us, obviously, have chosen our intended major subfield of political science, but what are your guys' thoughts on a good combination of the other fields (because, you know, most programs require competency in at least two other fields)? What is most marketable now/in five or six years, do you think? Especially for us lowly theorists, what are we going to do? Theory/American? So at least we can get a job teaching US Government 101? Is marketability even a good strategy? What if you cannot even stand American politics? Would it be worth it in the long run to suck it up in the name of a (possible) job in a field you are probably not even good in anyway (I mean, c'mon!, theory can only make you better than everyone else--which doesn't necessarily mean employed)?

[someone else]

Hey guys, I thought I would just put this question out there: most of us, obviously, have chosen our intended major subfield of political science, but what are your guys' thoughts on a good combination of the other fields (because, you know, most programs require competency in at least two other fields)? What is most marketable now/in five or six years, do you think? Especially for us lowly theorists, what are we going to do? Theory/American? So at least we can get a job teaching US Government 101? Is marketability even a good strategy? What if you cannot even stand American politics? Would it be worth it in the long run to suck it up in the name of a (possible) job in a field you are probably not even good in anyway (I mean, c'mon!, theory can only make you better than everyone else--which doesn't necessarily mean employed)?

In my opinion, the best secondary field for a theorist would be IR. Both Comparative and American are too positivist and would be a difficult mix. IR has some positivism in it, but it is still theory heavy.

[flgirl]

Hey guys, I thought I would just put this question out there: most of us, obviously, have chosen our intended major subfield of political science, but what are your guys' thoughts on a good combination of the other fields (because, you know, most programs require competency in at least two other fields)? What is most marketable now/in five or six years, do you think? Especially for us lowly theorists, what are we going to do? Theory/American? So at least we can get a job teaching US Government 101? Is marketability even a good strategy? What if you cannot even stand American politics? Would it be worth it in the long run to suck it up in the name of a (possible) job in a field you are probably not even good in anyway (I mean, c'mon!, theory can only make you better than everyone else--which doesn't necessarily mean employed)?

I am applying to PhD programs with theory as my major subfield and comparative as my second. My focus is American exceptionalism, and my region of interest is Western Europe. Comparative theory is relatively unusual/new, and I'm hoping that this combination will not only allow me to produce interesting research, but eventually be marketable in terms of the breadth of teaching these fields will allow me to do.

I don't think there's necessarily a magic combination, and I don't think you should choose a second subfield solely based on marketability, since this will depend upon your goals (teaching at a SLAC, focusing on research, etc.) and the shifting needs of particular institutions and the field as a whole.

[Keller65]

Intro to American will be on the menu basically everywhere.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Keller65

[tomorrows verse]

In terms of your question about teaching something that you can't stand--it can be helpful to teach something you don't like just to be a more marketable job candidate. One of my profs teaches methods courses and she can't stand it, but her ability to teach methods is one of the main reasons she got a job at my institution (according to her). It may not be too bad, you would prob only have to teach an intro course and maybe an upper-level every few semesters, depending on where you end up and what your teaching/research requirements are.

[HarrisonWinslow]

In terms of your question about teaching something that you can't stand--it can be helpful to teach something you don't like just to be a more marketable job candidate. One of my profs teaches methods courses and she can't stand it, but her ability to teach methods is one of the main reasons she got a job at my institution (according to her). It may not be too bad, you would prob only have to teach an intro course and maybe an upper-level every few semesters, depending on where you end up and what your teaching/research requirements are.

Thanks guys for the replies. I meant this thread less for actual theorists, but more for all subfields. Any thoughts? Anyone out there planning on mixing their subfields? Actually, any programs with interesting subfields/interdisciplinary subfields?

[Aunuwyn]

Minor field in methods (quantitative only) will do worlds difference for your competitiveness.

[rc47]

Methods makes sense, quantitative and possibly qualitative too.

Edited February 7, 2010 by rc47

[rc47]

Learning a language is basically useful for fieldwork. If you're going to spend extensive time learning Russian, I don't understand why you wouldn't do fieldwork in Russia as part of your dissertation, which would also help you keep up your skills. If you aren't planning on doing fieldwork or reading a lot of primary sources in Russian, then I wouldn't devote time to learning it.

[POLPSY]

Minor field in methods (quantitative only) will do worlds difference for your competitiveness.

The article "A Dynamic Labor Market: How Political Science is Opening Up to Methodologists and How Methodologists are opening up Political Science" by Box-Steffensmeier and Anand Sokhey illustrates the marketability of having formal theory or quantitative methods as a primary or secondary field in polisci.

[anxiousapplicant]

I am planning on doing fieldwork in Russia and I already know Russian very well; I studied abroad in St. Petersburg and have my proficiency in it, as judged by my undergrad institution's Slavic Language Dept. But I'm not fluent and I need to be in order to do my research. Trust me, I'm not planning on mastering Russian for the fun of it (though I have come to love it)

Completely off-topic and random, but have you seen the Soviet version of War & Peace (1968)? I don't understand a word of Russian, so I use subtitles, obviously, but it's my favorite movie of all time. It really brings the book to life. I'd be interested in your opinion of it as a budding scholar of Russia.

Edited February 15, 2010 by anxiousapplicant

[backstreets]

I'm doing American (public law) and theory. Not sure how marketable that is, but it works for me...

[The Realist]

Looking at the job market over the past two years, I'd say that trying to figure out how to combine major and minor fields to game the job market doesn't tend to work. It's better to have a good dissertation and lots of teaching experience. What that means is, if you're interested in IR as a major field and the most useful minor field for you is American, then proceed accordingly rather than worrying if you should do comparative or methods or whatever instead. It's always great to take methods classes--I'd say the more the better--but having methods as a minor field is probably necessary but definitely not sufficient to make you able to teach methods.

The exception is for theorists. I think that theorists should take their minor field choices very seriously and should get experience teaching in them.

So what's the job market like across the major fields? Here's my impression:

American politics: always in demand, especially behavior and institutions. Judicial politics less so (for this, the more quantitative the better), public law even less. APD is good for the very best APD students, but for the rest it's miserable. State politics expertise can be useful if you are shooting for a non-selective LAC or public in the south.

Comparative politics: high demand right now for specialists in South Asia, China, and the Middle East. Not a good time for Latin America, Japan, Russia/former Soviet Union, and Europe (both East and West). Average for African politics and Southeast Asian politics. For these, competence is demonstrated through, extensive in-country experience, strong methodological training, and an original and interesting research question. There are always a couple of jobs around for "comparative politics, non-specified" (people who don't do field research and instead download cross-country datasets and look for significant partial correlations) but for a number of reasons that's normally not where either the best R1s or the LACs are looking. I can go into this in more detail if people are interested.

IR: strong demand right now for innovative IPE and security work--stuff that looks more and more like comparative. Average demand for democratic peace/IO/constructivism/IR theory stuff unless you have a super-original approach and are the very best. Lots of interest right now in terrorism and civil war for obvious reasons but I think that is peaking right now.

Theory: always low in demand. HPT scholars have to be extremely original. Modern PT scholars the same, and also have to show why their approach is interesting to other subfields in a way that they didn't used to have to be. Never a good time to be a theorist and now is no exception. Too bad because well done theory is the most interesting subfield in my opinion.

Methods: if you want a methods job you have to be fluent in Neyman-Rubin-Holland and what it means to identify a causal effect. This is what it's all about right now. There is always demand for good methodologists but it's hard to become one (and if you aren't sure if you can be one you probably can't). Political scientists as a rule are not savvy enough to make methodological contributions to pure game theory. If you can do this, go to an econ PhD program instead.

Public policy: not a hiring priority in most departments. If you do policy, it's best to be able to sell yourself as a comparative or American scholar too so that you can participate in those job searches.

Edited February 15, 2010 by The Realist

[SuddenlyParanoid]

Very interesting. I planned on American/methods but if I take on another subfield, I'm not sure what it will be. Probably IR since picking up a language would take so much time.

[catchermiscount]

I can't say that the best way to be marketable is to do precisely what you love, but I can say with certainty that the best way to be unmarketable is to really suck at something because you hate it. What's more, it is impossible to know what the market will look like in five years when you guys are on the market.

That said, it has become the norm for Americanists to minor in methods---particularly those interested in working on behavior. Institutionalists often go formal; for example, WashU puts out great judicial people, and Rochester is known for Congress.

Comparativists vary. This board has had a lot of good debate on the current state of comparative, but I tend to think that generalists have been underrepresented here relative to area studies people. Generalists are often quite technologically savvy or strong in formal. So, that much depends on what you want to study.

Also, speaking as a person that knows a lot of comparativists: you don't have to learn a language to major OR minor in comparative. Many do, but some do not. If you are a comparative major without knowledge of another language, then it tends to be expected that you're strong in methods or formal. Comparative minors...you have to know the literature and pass a comp. The literature tends to be written in English. You do the math.

IR? We're weird. Don't you be like me! YOU STAY JUST THE WAY YOU ARE! \melvin udall

Coach

PS: It is assumed for the purposes of this post that theorists will read Tocqueville and become American minors. For thoughts on the need for realistic assumptions, see Milton Friedman.

Edited February 15, 2010 by coachrjc

[The Realist]

Comparativists vary. This board has had a lot of good debate on the current state of comparative, but I tend to think that generalists have been underrepresented here relative to area studies people. Generalists are often quite technologically savvy or strong in formal. So, that much depends on what you want to study.

Also, speaking as a person that knows a lot of comparativists: you don't have to learn a language to major OR minor in comparative. Many do, but some do not. If you are a comparative major without knowledge of another language, then it tends to be expected that you're strong in methods or formal. Comparative minors...you have to know the literature and pass a comp. The literature tends to be written in English. You do the math.

You're overstating the distinction between area specialists and generalists in comparative politics. Bob Bates is a "generalist" whose field work is in Africa. Adam Przeworski is a "generalist" whose field work is in Poland and Latin America.

Like it or not, most job searches in comparative politics have a regional focus. That is not because comparativists are just area specialists, but rather because the best generalists also know one or two places really well.

[catchermiscount]

You're overstating the distinction between area specialists and generalists in comparative politics. Bob Bates is a "generalist" whose field work is in Africa. Adam Przeworski is a "generalist" whose field work is in Poland and Latin America.

Like it or not, most job searches in comparative politics have a regional focus. That is not because comparativists are just area specialists, but rather because the best generalists also know one or two places really well.

This is quite right, and I thank you for the clarification. I immediately thought about teaching consequences as well; just about all comparativists are asked to teach "Politics of <insert country or region here>," based on most university catalogs. But, do you feel the gap is smaller for new students than it is for older, more establish scholars like those you mentioned? I'm not asking argumentatively but rather as somebody that doesn't know.

EDIT: is the gap "larger" not "smaller." God, it's early on a Monday.

Edited February 15, 2010 by coachrjc

[The Realist]

This is quite right, and I thank you for the clarification. I immediately thought about teaching consequences as well; just about all comparativists are asked to teach "Politics of <insert country or region here>," based on most university catalogs. But, do you feel the gap is smaller for new students than it is for older, more establish scholars like those you mentioned? I'm not asking argumentatively but rather as somebody that doesn't know.

EDIT: is the gap "larger" not "smaller." God, it's early on a Monday.

My experience is just what I had when I was in graduate school and with the job searches that I've sat on in the years since then. So take that as a caveat.

In my own experience, there is actually less interest these days in the sort of panel-data regression dissertations that seemed super sexy in the 1990s today than there used to be. Comparativists are real social scientists now. We are very concerned with poor data quality, omitted variables, identification, and internal validity. For lots of questions, we just don't learn a lot from mis-specified and underidentified cross-national regressions. The solution is to get better, more reliable data and to think about research designs that give us good inferences.

Now, it just so happens that the way to do that is often to have really good knowledge of a couple of countries, and to use the more reliable data (often original data) and clever research designs from those cases to make broader theoretical claims. One example is Stathis Kalyvas' book The Logic of Violence in Civil War. This is a landmark study of violence civil war--it has defined the field and won every award it was eligible for--and the vast majority of the empirical work in it comes from one country, Greece. No one thinks that Kalyvas is just an area specialist.

In graduate school and since then I have never been in a department that has hired a comparativist who had no experience either in the field or in the archives.

I also happened to look at the Harvard Gov't Department's website. I took a look at all the faculty that could be called comparativists and took note of their work. It turns out that with almost no exceptions, they have extensive experience in the filed or in the archives in at least one country aside from the US. Here they are.

• James Alt: Britain

• Robert Bates: Africa

• Timothy Colton: Russia

• Jorge I. Dominguez: Latin America

• Grzegorz Ekiert: East Europe

• Peter A. Hall: Europe

• Stanley Hoffmann: Europe

• Nahomi Ichino: Africa

• Torben Iversen: Europe

• Alastair Iain Johnston: China

• Steven Levitsky: Latin America

• Roderick MacFarquhar: East Asia

• Jens Meierhenrich: Africa

• Elizabeth Perry: China

• Susan Pharr: Japan

• Robert Putnam: Italy, US, etc.

• James Robinson: possible exception, but even still, extensive research experience in Colombia

• Kenneth Shepsle: exception

• Prerna Singh: India

• Theda Skocpol: Europe

• Daniel Ziblatt: Europe