My meeting with Professor Bernhofen this past week was certainly illuminating in terms of my research direction, although it didn’t happen how I might have expected. After telling him a bit about my basic questions, he told me that my interest was, for the most part, not very compatible with his research specialty. Rather than being economics questions with elements of strategy, he explained that the kinds of questions I was asking were in reality strategic questions with economic dimensions – in effect, the field of international political economy as opposed to international economics. Most of the work he focuses on is large-n statistical analysis to test things like the theory of comparative advantage, he said, whereas my questions more closely tied to states’ aims and political considerations. For questions such as those, he recommended I see Professor Kahler, another professor who focuses more on the intersection of security and institutions and economics. This made sense – I’d actually met with Professor Kahler a few times both over the summer and in these first few weeks with some relatively fruitful results. However, he will be on leave this semester in Canada, which puts me in a slight dilemma. In sum, I’m still working through some challenges to find my exact focus, but the meeting at least helped clarify the directions I’m less interested in pursuing, which is nevertheless helpful in finding the essence of the puzzle I’m looking for.
David — sometimes these kinds of conversations, as unexpected as they might be, are the best when it comes to helping you understand/define your research interests and (perhaps more importantly) when it comes to hearing about alternative perspectives on your areas of interest. At the very least, you have a bit more clarity now on the topic/puzzle that you are pursuing. And, rest assured, we will make sure that you have mentor support as you go through the 206/306 research process!