Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Other subjects

What can you do with Sociology/Psychology/Cultural Studies/Social Anthropology post-grad qualification

1002 replies

onebatmother · 13/04/2009 21:54

Apart from pat self on back?

I am thinking of retraining but no idea about jobs. Those are the things I'm considering studying - what REAL ACTUAL JOBS might I get with a postgrad MA/PHD in them?

I mean ones that pay money. Any money. But must be money.

Thanks dearies.

OP posts:
LeninGrad · 23/04/2009 23:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

onebatmother · 23/04/2009 23:13

it can be done over 2 years as well.
I'm going to call them.

What does anyone think of it, as a prospect? It's the LSE, that's good, right? In terms of phd possibilities AND other kinds of jobs involving research?

Tell me honestly.

OP posts:
LeninGrad · 23/04/2009 23:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 23/04/2009 23:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

onebatmother · 23/04/2009 23:25

I think I will do a doodle map LG

I keep forgetting eg the option of trying to get some teaching work as an industry person on an undergrad Media Studies course

OP posts:
LeninGrad · 23/04/2009 23:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WilfSell · 23/04/2009 23:30

How long have you got onebat?

There is precious little difference between sociology and cultural studies at the margins, not least because at least in theoretical terms, most engage in the same territory. Now not everyone in the core of the disciplines (though quite hard to claim CS has a 'core'...) would agree with that but most cultural sociology crosses over with cultural studies A LOT. There is, you are right, a touch more of the notion of face to face empirical research in much sociology but many of my colleagues are theorists and spend their time reading and writing about exactly the same ideas as CS types, as indeed people in politics, gender studies, philosophy even literature.

Social anthropology a different case however despite some ostensible similarities. Not least because the anthropologists defend to the death their special status as 'in deep ethnographers'. That and having to have had at least one dose of malaria before they will give you a PhD in soc anth. And they are all utterly, stark raving mad.

But sociology defends itself these days by attempting to have some 'use'. Nevertheless there are different traditions. The critical tradition in sociology (if you've a lit background you will know the Frankfurt School perhaps) sees itself as offering the same review of modern culture as other disciplines.

Cultural Studies on the whole somewhere between sociology and eng lit and meeja studies. Main traditions really probably from the Birmingham School (Stuart Hall) and postcolonial critique (SOAS, LSE, UEL type places). But good old dose of lit crit theory in there too (Leavis, Williams, Eagleton).

Psychology and sociology on the surface must seem similar to many: both study people at the very least.

But in reality, despite politeness to each other and grudging recognition that we share some Big Names (Mead, Freud, Erikson...), we HATE and DESPISE each other, because we believe the other has Got It Completely Wrong. At its most crude, the distinction is between the inside and outside of the person: where Psychs deal in what's inside your head, I deal with how it relates to other people and the real world. [Am joking Fennel... ]

No, properly put, sociology is the study of human social structures and lasting forms of social interaction and organisation. But of course, these cannot be separated from individual agency. Social psychs and us get on very well, it's the rats and stats bunch who hate us.

But not as much as economists. Don't get me started on them...

I am a tart generalist when it comes to my discipline, hence my mediocrity.

ruty · 23/04/2009 23:31

and are there processed meat products still for tea? [runs like a bat out of hell]

BecauseImWorthIt · 23/04/2009 23:35

My favourite joke:

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are shipwrecked on a desert island.

One day, a crate of tinned food is washed up on to the island. They do not, of course, have any means of opening the tins. They all speculate about different means of doing so.

The physicist says "well, if we leave the tins in the sun and use the lenses of our glasses, eventually we can focus the rays of the sun on to the tin and it will bore a hole in it".

The chemist says "well, if we leave the tin in salt water, eventually the salt will corrode the can and we can open it".

The economist says "well, let's hypothesise that we have a tin opener ..."

WilfSell · 23/04/2009 23:38

Really. Do try that meeja teaching thing. Ring up the programme director for undergraduate courses and just ask how likely it is they would want consultancy or part-time contributions. Nothing to stop you doing this at a number of institutions. Many of these programmes are looking for credible practitioners to support the academic side. Whether they have cash to fund it however it another matter.

What Lenin suggested is also a good idea. Our Research Institute is considering internships as a way of getting in more PGs. [And don't forget, universities WANT people to do PG degrees. Nay, they NEED it: it is part of their own credibility, so they will on the whole - if they're serious about research - often bend over backwards to find funding options for good candidates] There's nothing to stop you discussing this with them. It might work like this: you offer to do some free work (teaching, admin, research assistantship); you do this in lieu of PG fees, in part or full. If they go for it, you have some valuable experience, thus allowing you to open up more paid opportunities in future.

LeninGrad · 23/04/2009 23:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WilfSell · 23/04/2009 23:40

heh heh heh BIWI

onebatmother · 23/04/2009 23:51

Bloody hell Wilf. That is spectacularly useful and brilliantly expressed. Really.
I am going to bed to think.

lol BIWI

OP posts:
BecauseImWorthIt · 23/04/2009 23:56
onebatmother · 23/04/2009 23:57

Okay then in summary I think I will tomorrow

a) research programme directors of media studies courses to call next week (no childcare tomorrow)

b) call LSE and ask if there's someone I can come in and see. I'm looking at my cv (inbox, wilf!) and thinking that there are some things that are really v relevant and might make them think I'm a good bet. Feeling much perkier than I was an hour ago.

OP posts:
LeninGrad · 23/04/2009 23:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Threadworm · 24/04/2009 06:11

lolol at 'rats and stats bunch' Wilf. I hate those people too.

Fennel · 24/04/2009 09:38

Wilf's description of the distinctions between these disciplines is, in my opinion, flawed. While there are distinctions between mainstream psychology and mainstream sociology, roughly as Wilf suggests, in practice there is a big overlap. My main area - feminist social psychology is actually virtually indistinguishable to feminist sociology. A lot of the time I work in interdisciplinary teams with sociologists and anthropologists, most of my publications are in sociology journals, though I still say I'm a psychologist but it's just a tag. I'm working mostly in sociological fields, and if you look at my publications, I'm a feminist sociologist.

In other words, though there are distinctions between the disciplines, there is a lot of overlap. Similarly between the other subjects on the list. They all study human behaviour, differences and generalities. They study it at slightly different but overlapping levels. If you're interested in one, you're likley to be interested in the others to some extent.

ruty · 24/04/2009 10:15

I would love to have done something like that fennel.

the MSc in Gender and Media studies sounds really good onebat.

I loved this book when I was doing my A levels , I think it was responsible in some part for me getting into Oxford. Then when I got there I was trying so hard to become like a nob typical oxbridge student I ditched all the feminist literary theory/cultural materialism/comprehensive school chip on shoulder and started writing utter rubbish. Deep regret.

Fennel · 24/04/2009 10:21

Ruty, I studied rats and stats at Oxford, not a trace of social psychology or feminism, but moved into all of that during my phd. Oxford philosophy was mostly dead white English men too. Oxford wasn't/isn't the greatest place for feminist or political understanding.

Threadworm · 24/04/2009 10:22

oh hell Fennel. You are rats and stats -- sorry for offence. Some of my best friends were rats-and-stats types, honest.

Threadworm · 24/04/2009 10:24

(Disagree though re Oxford philosophy and political understanding)

ruty · 24/04/2009 10:30

it may depend on college/tutor Threadie. I always wanted to go to Wadham or Balliol.

Threadworm · 24/04/2009 10:35

Oh, yes, they were meant to be dens of lefties, weren't they. Steven Lukes of Balliol taught me for a bit. And there were still a few marxists hanging around when I was there.

Fennel · 24/04/2009 10:37

My philosophy tutor must have been political, in her obituary it described how she spent the 80s taking banned books to Eastern Europe. But she wasn't around much for tutorials and frankly, the philosophy we covered as part of PPP wasn't terrifically exciting. I think the PPE people got a slightly more exciting syllabus.

Locke, Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Utiltarianism (OK I liked that), formal logic. A bit of ethics. a lot of Dennett - consciousness etc. By white European men.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread