The Philosophers' Cocoon

Peer-review: what works and what doesn't?

Several months from now, I'm scheduled to take part in a discussion on our profession's peer-review practices: what works, what doesn't, and what might be improved. To prepare for the session, I'd like to run a new series here at the Cocoon soliciting readers' opinions on our peer-review practices and norms, and what (if anything) readers think might improve the process.

In today's post, I'd like to ask readers to weigh in on two initial questions:

1. What do you think currently works well in the peer-review process?
2. What do you think the biggest problems are with the peer-review process?

After hearing what readers think, my plan is to run a few informal polls, so as to gauge readers' overall satisfaction with the peer-review process, desire for change, and priorities if change is pursued. Then, after those polls, I hope to have a series of posts discussing some of specific issues in more detail, including more detailed debates about whether the peer-review process should change at all, if so how, and so on. 

So please do considering weighing in on questions (1) and (2). The more readers we hear from, the better discussion we are likely to have in the series overall!

A little milestone

This is just a quick note that the Cocoon passed two million page views today. Many thanks to all of the blog's contributors and readers for making the Cocoon such a great place to blog and discuss early-career issues, issues in the profession, etc. If you're a reader and interested in becoming a contributor, please do let me know (marvan@ut.edu). We're always looking for new voices to add to our forum!

What kind of colleague do you want? (Or, why we don't want passionate teachers and kind people as academic colleagues)

Imagine you're a tenured faculty member at an average sort of department, not super-prestigious but still with some aspirations for research excellence. You're hiring a new tenure track faculty member. Although people do sometimes move from tenure track positions, it is still a safe bet that a new hire will stay and will be your colleague for many years to come.

What kind of colleague would you rather have? Would you like someone who is ambitious, puts their research first in everything they do, certainly does not have a passion for teaching? Or would you like someone who is an excellent scholar but who also is kind, considerate, collegial, cares about their students?

Supposing you're hiring someone for a senior position, such as an endowed chair, or a Reader or Professor or Department Head (in the UK the latter is not uncommon). Would you like someone single-minded focused on their next excellent book with a prestigious press--OUP or Cambridge, perhaps a few select other publishers for subfields? Or would you like someone who is an excellent research but who is also caring, compassionate, who thinks about the wellbeing and prospects of the graduate students and about the department's wellbeing, who serves the department and puts other people's needs (regularly) above their own? 

Going by advice for cover letter writing and for writing letters of recommendation, it would seem we want a colleague like the former. We want the ambitious, single-minded person for whom teaching is a necessary evil. Take the following handy advice sheet for how to write letters that don't show gender bias, from the University of Arizona (pictured below).

When to expect interview requests?

In our job-market discussion thread, ED asks, "Is it reasonable to expect to hear about interview opportunities (positive or negative) before the holidays, from departments in the US advertising tt jobs with deadlines in October or November?"

Good question. Our job-market reporting thread has been pretty dead so far this year. Is this because not many hiring departments have set up interviews yet, or is it because people aren't reporting? It's been a few years since I've been on the market, so I'm not sure what the market calendar is like these days. Anyone have any insight? When do the lion's share of interview requests go out these days?

Sustaining Activism

This is a guest post by Mark Lance, Professor at the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace Studies Program at Georgetown University:

Early in my activist career, I had a mentor, Molly Rush. Molly has done an enormous amount in her life, but was most famous as a member of the first “Plowshares” action. She, Dan and Phil Berrigan, and others broke into a missile plant in Pennsylvania and poured their own blood on documents and damaged Mark 12a first-strike nuclear nose-cones. She was sentenced to five years in federal prison. I worked with Molly a couple years after her release and one day was saying how much I admired her courage. She insisted that this was not the right thing to admire. She felt called to perform this action, but insisted that sustained lifetime involvement was much more important and harder than bold, dramatic, performances.

She told me about, and later introduced me to, a woman in her early 60s. Mabel had decided in her 20s that she could devote one evening a week to social justice work. Sometimes she attended a protest; sometimes stuffed envelopes or worked a phone bank; sometimes she organized teach-ins. But she had not missed a week. In 40 years. (20 years later, when I was organizing one of the large mobilizations around the IMF/WB meetings, she emailed me with a long apology, because her doctor had forbidden her from coming to DC on her broken hip for the protests. In introduced her to a bunch of young activists over the phone.)

I’ve had a second career in activism for roughly 35 years. I have seen hundreds of passionate committed young people jump into the work, doing everything, 80 hour work-weeks, nights in jail, enduring verbal and physical abuse, inspiring the hell out of me and others. And then disappearing after a total burnout, never to be heard from again. I’ve also come to know a smaller number of folks who have made movement work an enduring part of their lives.

Interview practice and candidate rankings

In the comments section of our, 'Ask a search-committee member' thread, Anon writes:

Do search committees usually have a ranking in mind when they invite candidates for Skype interviews? How can candidates best prepare for these things, particularly on short notice when one is balancing a heavy course load?

Both are very good questions. I will be curious to hear what readers think--particularly search-committee members, though job-marketeers may be able to help with the second question. Here, at any rate, are a few thoughts of my own.

Interview questions

In our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Recent PhD writes:

I was wondering if any search committee members would be willing to share the kinds of questions one might encounter in an interview. In particular, are there any difficult questions that get asked that tend to throw off candidates? What should a candidate be especially prepared to talk about beyond their research, teaching, etc.

This is a wonderful question. It would be great to hear of examples from search committee members. Here are a bunch that spring to mind to me...

Thank-you notes after interviews?

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Anon writes, "Should candidates send follow of thank you notes after Skype interviews?" Ah, the perennial question! I'm curious to hear how other people who have served on search committees answer. But here are a few quick thoughts...

'Nonideal Justice as Nonideal Fairness'

After over 11 years of work on the project, I am happy to report that my article, 'Nonideal Justice as Nonideal Fairness', is now forthcoming in the Journal of the American Philosophical Association. The abstract:

This article argues that diverse theorists have reasons to theorize about fairness in nonideal conditions, including theorists who reject fairness in ideal theory. It then develops a new all-purpose model of ‘nonideal fairness.’ §1 argues that fairness is central to nonideal theory across diverse ideological and methodological frameworks. §2 then argues that ‘nonideal fairness’ is best modeled by a nonideal original position adaptable to different nonideal conditions and background normative frameworks (including anti-Rawlsian ones). Finally, §3 argues that the parties to the model have grounds to seek a variety of remedial social, legal, cultural, and economic ‘nonideal primary goods’ for combating injustice, as well as grounds to distribute these goods in an equitable and inclusive manner. Finally, I illustrate how the model indexes the nonideal primary goods it justifies to different nonideal contexts and background normative frameworks, illustrating why diverse theorists should find the model and its output principles attractive.

Applying to postdoc & TT in same dept?

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Mercado writes:

(1) Should someone who is ABD apply to a tenure-track job and a postdoc that are in the same department? The worry here is that applying to both positions will cause the committee to undervalue your application.

(2) In this kind of case, is a job-search committee the same as the postdoc search committee? That is, do these committees have the same members?

Good questions. Although I could be wrong, I see no reason not to apply to both. To the best of my knowledge, there are usually separate search-committees for each job advertised. I also think it is unlikely (though not impossible) that the committees will talk to one another about their candidate pools--with perhaps one exception (one that might benefit you!): if the TT committee thought very highly of you but you end their second-place finalist, it's possible they could lobby with the postdoc committee to hire you into that position. I've actually heard of something like this happening before. On the other hand, if you don't fare well with the TT committee, the postdoc committee still might think highly of you. So, it seems to me best to apply to both jobs, as I'm inclined to think it will maximize your chances for both jobs.

But perhaps I am wrong about this. Admittedly, I haven't been in a department where simultaneous hires like this have been done, so I could be offbase! What do those of you in the know think?

Seeking out external committee-members

A reader writes in:

I'm in a low-ranked PhD program located in a geographical area surrounded by much larger, more highly ranked departments with lots of rockstar faculty in my AOS (metaphysics). I would really like--no--I would LOVE, when the time comes, to have them on my committee. I know people do this from time-to-time. But what's appropriate? How proactive should one be? What's appropriate assertion, vs. being inappropriate/ annoying? What I'm most interested in hearing is if any faculty who check this blog have received such contact from graduate students in nearby departments. How did the exchange come across on your end? 

I'll give my own thoughts in a moment. But given that this reader is most interested in hearing from faculty with some experience in these matters, are there any out there willing to weigh in?

Asking about spousal hires

A reader writes in:

When is a good time in the interviewing process to bring up spousal hires? My spouse is an academic in a different discipline. I’ve heard some people say that they’ve had remarkable success being upfront about their dual body problem— that is, early in the interview process. And yet I can’t help but feel that a committee would be less inclined to invite or extend an offer to a candidate with a dual body problem. At the same time, my fear is that a department would be resentful if I didn’t bring it up until the last minute. I also worry that it would be more difficult to negotiate a spousal hire within a two-week exploding offer window.

I don't have any experience with this, so unfortunately I don't have any idea! Does anyone who has served on the hiring side of things have any insight they are willing to share? 

Tips for a first-time colloquium speaker?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Lauren writes:

I've been asked to give a colloquium talk at a different university for the first time (well, the first time in a department that isn't my own and where I am not a job candidate). If it matters, though I am in the same very large metro area as the university where I will give this talk, I don't know anyone in the department or university. I'm very excited, but not entirely sure about the norms for things like: how soon before the event do I need to have the topic nailed down? Is it appropriate or expected to ask what they want to hear or suggest a few different talks and see what they're interested in? Since the department where I'll be giving the talk is undergrad-only, what should I be thinking about in terms of pitching the talk? Should I be thinking of this as an extended classroom-style lecture, or is that the wrong way to think about it?

I haven't done a colloquium talk in a few years, so I'm perhaps not the best person to ask. But I guess my suggestion is for Lauren to simply ask the person scheduling the colloquium some of these questions! The reasons I'd give for this are simple: I expect different people are looking for different things in a colloquium speaker. For example, some people might want to know the talk topic fairly well in advance so they can advertise it on the university schedule, others may not be so concerned about this. Similarly, some might want a talk to undergrads to be akin to a classroom lecture, whereas others might not mind the talk being pitched at a higher level. My advice, then, is to just ask!

But of course these are just my reactions, and again I might not be the best person to ask. What do you all think?

Tailoring cover letters to schools

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Tom writes:

This question is for those folks who care to see ye olde `I want to be at your specific school because X' thing in the cover letter.

Do you care where in the letter it happens? Should it be first? Right after the stuff about my research but before stuff about teaching? Last? Have I completely misunderstood what a cover letter should look like?

I will be curious to hear what other search-committee members think. Having served on three search committees at a liberal arts university, my sense is that at schools like doesn't matter precisely where you tailor a cover letter to the school. What matters is that you do it and how you do it. Let me explain.

Relationship-status and the market

In the comments section of our "Ask a Search-Committee Member" thread, Anon writes:

Suppose a candidate has a partner who is finishing their PhD and won't be on the market for a couple of years. Would knowing this about the candidate make you worry about whether they might become a flight risk? Should candidates in this situation, and relevantly similar ones, just not talk about their relationship status until after a contract is signed? What do you infer if candidates aren't mentioning anything about having a partner (e.g. on a visit, where multiple faculty members keep bringing up their partners in conversation.)?

My sense is that search committees may indeed worry about flight-risk in cases like this. I would advise most candidates to avoid talking about their relationship status. I don't think people are likely to infer anything from candidates not mentioning their partners. Remember, you are applying and interviewing for a job. Search committee members are not permitted to ask questions about things like these, nor should they expect you to volunteer any personal information. Fortunately, in my experience, they don't! The only time I'm inclined to think it could be wise for a candidate to volunteer any information like that might be if their partner's status might provide the committee reasons to think the candidate will not be a flight risk (such as in cases where one's partner has family in the area).

But these are just my thoughts. I'll be curious to hear what other search committee members think.