News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
My former colleagues at another university in Middle East have also been moved to online teaching indefinitely, with the students…
If much of the interest of high-quality papers lies between the lines—in the metaphorical fire that a paper lights in…
I would also recommend that potential grad students make inquiries into how far the compensation package actually goes towards cost…
It’s a mix. I’m still in the UAE with my family, and we feel safe. But some students and faculty…
In the above comment, Michel wrote: “As an aside, every once in a while I check out how the chatbots…
I could imagine LLMs having saved me a *ton* of time in graduate school–e.g., by having supplied reasonable answers to…
The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…
MOVING TO FRONT FROM LAST WEEK IN LIGHT OF NEW COMMENTS–MORE WELCOME
A student in the UK writes:
I am applying for PhD programs this cycle but find it almost impossible to find useful resources on how to write a high-quality proposal specifically for political theory/political philosophy programmes. I am applying to UK universities. Could you recommend any resources or give any advice?
Comments are open for reader input.
Something that I did not do, but wish I had – write to potential supervisors early and discuss potential research projects. Once you establish a connection with some of them, I am sure they will help you put your proposal together so it would suit their particular department.
As for the proposal itself: mine was about 1000 words long, describing the problem I intend to look at as well as the motivation for looking at that particular problem and my proposed method. But at least in my institution that proposal was not really binding, so you do not really need to research that exact thing you write when you apply
By coincidence, I've just been looking at a bunch of proposals, so this is fresh in my mind. My field is philosophy of law, but I have interests in political philosophy too, so some of this may generalise.
1. Spend serious time on your prospective programme's website *before* approaching a potential supervisor with a proposal. I get a lot of boilerplate approaches, asking things like: how many people will be on my committee if I come to Oxford (we don't have committees); when comprehensives must be written (we don't have comprehensives); may I join your 'research team' (I am my research team), and so on. I usually delete these without reply: a serious candidate will spend some time finding out the structure of the programme, and very basic institutional things, before asking someone to consider a proposal.
2. Spend time finding out whether the potential supervisor does any work in the area that interests you. A good start is to look at her/his list of publications. Some people are willing to supervise projects in any field of political (or legal) philosophy, but it is more common for people to specialise. You are also more likely to get better advice on a project from someone who is active in the subfield.
3. Make sure the thesis you are proposing to write has not just been written. Of course what you have to say will in some way be: original, unique, special… but supervisors tend to get bored with the Nth thesis proposal on a topic, especially if it is a narrow topic. Check out recent publications, and indexes to recent theses, at least in the programme you'd like to join.
4. Though every philosophical question can, in principle, be asked and answered again, topics get stale. There may still be people enthusiastic about supervising dissertations on things like 'the liberal-communitarian' debate; but there can't be many. You also probably shouldn't propose a thesis demonstrating that the two principles of justice cannot be derived in the original position. You might have had an excellent undergrad education (or law school training), yet your instructors may not have been very 'research active'. If so, they may be encouraging you to take up projects that were hot when *they* were in graduate school. Some topics are perennial; but lots fall of out fashion.
5. If you do send a proposal to a potential supervisor for comment, keep it brief. A page or two is enough. I rarely get much out of the 'biographical' parts of a proposal–especially ones that go on at length about why the candidate got interested in this, what s/he plans to do in life, next, and so on. (Others may take a different view.) I like to know what the problem is, what preparation the candidate has for tackling it, and at least a hint of a line of argument–even a conjecture.
6. Two things that are probably just idiosyncratic: I like a proposal to be framed around a *question*, not a topic: 'Should nations become states?' not 'Some problems about nationalism'. I like to see ability to read the relevant literature in the original. (I always reject proposals to write about Kelsen from candidates who cannot read German, or Foucauldians who seem unaware that he actually wrote in French etc.)
7. Be flexible. There are probably lots of interesting projects that are worth doing and that will sustain your interest for a few years. Ask around. Pay attention to any feedback you get.
I agree with everything Les says (as usual). I'd emphasise doing your research about the person you'd want to work with and the department you'd be joining. Make your application count by starting off on a good footing. One way is to not request to work with people that have never written about or taught. Most of the applications I reject make this mistake. The second piece of advice – again echoing Les – is to make clear what is distinctive about your research project. Projects that scream "Yet Another Thesis About Stuff" don't often make for good projects. And where supervisors may have limited places to accept new doctoral students this is an issue. So learn something about how the department works, only aim to work with people who've done something on your topic before and think about how you could best present the distinctiveness about your future work. I really don't mind at all supervising projects that take angles I am critical about (or critical about me!) so long as I can see something distinctive (and, for me, engaging) about the project.
I used to be PhD admissions tutor in Politics, at Manchester (2007-11) and at King’s College London (2011-13). All PhD proposals, whether in political theory/philosophy or other areas, should:
– state the problem/question clearly;
– explain how others have approached it or similar issues;
– explain in greater or lesser detail how you will try to answer what you want to answer.
You won’t be expected to have read everything in the area, to know the answer already, or know exactly what you’ll do. But as regards the last point, it would help if you can show that you’ve thought through the problem carefully enough to have some sense of what the rough steps in the argument will be. One way of doing this (there are others) is to outline the chapters you propose to write. You won’t be bound to any of this as if it’s a contract! What you end up doing will almost certainly differ from what is in the proposal.
Here is what my department (Political Economy) asks for in PhD proposals:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/study/phd/Guidance-for-Applicants.aspx
And there’s also good advice at Manchester, where I used to be PhD admissions tutor for Politics:
http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/study-with-us/how-to-apply/postgraduate-research/writing-your-proposal/
Personally, I think the Manchester approach is now too formulaic – not all proposals need such a structure – and I prefer the 3000-word limit that applied when I was admissions tutor there, rather than 1500 words. But the things they’re asking for at Manchester are very sensible, even if research design/methodology is sometimes a bit harder to write about for political theory/philosophy than for political science or sociology, say.
And do be prepared to amend your proposal for different departments: it doesn’t look good to send a 1000-word proposal to a department that wants up to 3000 words, as you’ll look lazy. Play the game: it is a game, but it needs to be played.
If you’re applying to the Department of Political Economy, where we have some great political theorists, don’t hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any queries!
Everything that Les Green and Thom Brooks says is great, too.
Just to make the obvious point that much of what has been said so far applies to anyone with aspirations to do a thesis-only MA or PhD in any area of philosophy in a UK/Australasian style program. Check out people’s webpages, check them out on PhilPapers Academia.edu or Research Gate where many of us maintain a presence. Write a draft proposal organized around some question or some topic, with a suggested line of approach, though preferably a tentative one. Then, in the light of the above, tailor it to fit the specific people and programs that you want to study with.
I would also like to remind people that Brian helpfully posted my reflections on what to look out for when applying to for PhD programs outside North America at http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/03/and-some-additional-advice-for-prospectives-considering-phd-programs-outside-north-america.html
Leave a Reply to Leslie Green Cancel reply