The Qualifying Field Exam: What Is It Good For?

Abstract

Most political scientists self-identify as a comparativist, theorist, Americanist, or another label corresponding with the qualifying field exams (QFE) that they passed during their doctoral studies. Passing the QFE indicates that a graduate student or faculty member is broadly familiar with the full range of theories, approaches, and debates within a subfield or research theme. The value of the QFE as a form of certification, however, depends on the extent to which the subfield or theme is cohesive in and of itself as well as whether departmental lists draw on a common pool of publications. This article investigates the value of the QFE by examining the cohesiveness of 16 Canadian politics PhD QFE lists. Our findings suggest that it is problematic to assume that scholars who pass a QFE share a common knowledge base.

Beyond the “Add and Stir” Approach: Indigenizing Comprehensive Exam Reading Lists in Canadian Political Science

“…Most PhD programs in political science in Canada require students to participate in field courses or reading courses in one or more chosen subfields of the discipline and to subsequently complete an associated comprehensive exam that assesses students’ knowledge across the subfield. Although the format of these exams varies widely across programs, many include written and oral components that test students’ understanding of the core research, debates, theories, methods and practices within the field (Mawn and Goldberg, 2012; Wood, 2015; McMahon et al, 2020). For many students, the comprehensive exam preparation period provides them with an opportunity to engage with important works in the literature and to develop an understanding of the evolution of the field.…”

“…Unlike research pertaining to a student's dissertation—which focuses on a specific topic within the subfield—comprehensive exams and their associated preparation are often aimed at exposing students to broad themes and topics at a level that qualifies them to teach within the field. Indeed, as McMahon et al (2020: 94) point out, passing the comprehensive exams generally signals that “the department has certified that an individual is suitably prepared for advanced study and teaching in a particular area” (see also Ishiyama et al, 2010).…”

“…In Canada, research by McMahon and colleagues (2020) suggests that there is considerable diversity across universities’ field exam readings lists in Canadian politics. Analyzing all available lists from Canadian universities offering qualifying exams in Canadian politics, McMahon et al (2020) found that there was, in fact, no single topic or reading assigned on all lists. They therefore argue that there is not a singular canon that all departments approve.…”

“…In this article, building on McMahon et al's (2020) research, I specifically focus on analyzing the content of reading lists that are dedicated to Indigenous politics and peoples. This article addresses the following questions: At present, how many of the assigned readings on comprehensive exam reading lists focus centrally on Indigenous politics?…”

“…As Diament and colleagues (2018) argue, graduate-level seminars signal what constitutes “the canon” across various subfields of political science. Doctoral students, in particular, are generally required to complete qualifying or comprehensive field exams in various subfields of political science, which serve as an indicator that the individual is qualified to teach in an area of study (McMahon et al, 2020; Ishiyama et al, 2010). Though there are many approaches to exam formats and preparation requirements that differ across various departments, completing the exams signals that the student is fully versed in the core debates, literature and theories in a given subfield.…”