The Philosophers' Cocoon

'X and philosophy' books

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I was wondering what people think about contributed chapters to "X and philosophy" books. Are they just considered a 'popular publication' or are they closer to a contributed chapter to an edited volume? Are they peer reviewed in any serious sense?

Good questions! I contributed a chapter a few years ago to Westworld and Philosophy, a book in Blackwell's Philosophy & Pop Culture Series. I enjoyed writing the piece a great deal, and it was cool to have the piece featured on a major fan site--and in addition to being fun to write, I think it's good for our discipline to be engaged in public philosophy and outreach like this. Obviously, given that the series is written for the general public, the piece wasn't technical or very advanced. But I do recall it being peer-reviewed, going through one round of minor revisions.

As for "what people think" of pieces like this, my sense is: it depends. Presumably, hiring and tenure committees at R1's aren't going to assign much (or any?) weight to these pieces, but I know second-hand that people at teaching-oriented colleges and universities--including tenure committees and (especially) administrators--love stuff like this. Remember, at teaching-oriented places, the primary focus is on students. More down-to-earth, popular-facing pieces like these can not only interest students in our disciplines, but also be featured in college magazines for parents, alumni, and donors--particularly if and when the pieces are featured various places online, increasing the university's visibility. In terms of how they should be listed on a CV, I'm not sure there is a clear-cut answer. On the one hand, my experience is that they are peer-reviewed, and often 'do real philosophy.' On the other hand, they are pitched toward a popular audience and presumably not reviewed with the same kind of rigor as more professional-facing work does. 

What do you all think? How do you view these pieces, and how do you think they should be listed on a CV?

 

How are R&Rs handled?

(Update: comments now open!)

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

When I re-submit a revised manuscript to a journal after an R-and-R decision, will they go to the editor first, or will they be sent out directly to the reviewers? I ask because I think I should clear something I've done in the revisions with the editor (a slight compromise of anonymity) before the reviewers see it.

Good question. My sense is that all submissions (both initial submissions and R&Rs) go to editors first, and then the editor decides whether to send it out to review, and if so, to whom. Sometimes (e.g. for an R&R with 'minor revisions'), editors may not send out an R&R to reviewers at all, deciding for themselves that you have adequately addressed the reviewers' concerns. Other times, the editor may send out the R&R to some of the reviewers but not others (my sense is that this can happen if one referee initially submitted an incompetent or unfair review: an editor might not be interested in hearing that referee's opinion again). Finally, sometimes editors may send out the R&R to all of the previous reviewers, or even (sigh) a new reviewer, if one of the original reviewers is unavailable. I guess my only concern about the OP is their note that they are interested in "clearing something" with the editor that might involve a "slight compromise of anonymity." If the journal is triple-anonymized (so that editors do not know the author's identity), this seems to me to be problematic. Although I can understand situations where this might be tempting (such as a reviewer misinterpreting some of the author's previously published work cited in the paper!), authors should still respect anonymous review in submissions and resubmissions, I think. But perhaps the OP can chime in and provide further context in the comments section.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. What are yours? 

Listing job talks on a CV?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

May/should I list (research) job talks under the 'presentations' section on my CV? Or is that cheating?

Good question, and I'm curious to hear from readers, especially those who have served on search committees. Here are my thoughts...

My guess is that it will be pretty obvious which talks are job talks, and that listing them could make one look particularly desirable. At the same time, there is one equally obvious way that this could backfire: namely, by scaring search committees away at 'less desirable' institutions, making them think "we'll never get this candidate to work here. Interviewing them or flying them out for an on-campus visit may be a waste of time." These are not, I think, idle concerns. My experience is that search committees can worry a lot not only about perceived "flight risks", but also about doing a failed search. For example, at some institutions, the administration will only fund 2 or 3 on campus interviews. If all of the candidates who are flown out turn down the job, it's a failed search, and no one may be hired. Which is really bad for the hiring department, not only because of wasted time and energy, but also because there is no guarantee the search will be renewed the next year. 

Long story short, it seems to me that listing job talks on a CV are a double-edged sword. Yes, they can make you look highly desired by other institutions, but that can (at least in principle) backfire in a really serious way. So, I guess I might only recommend it for candidates who are competitive for jobs at top research departments, where this sort of thing is likely to only be perceived as a positive.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Learning how not to rely on one's PhD advisor

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Anxiously Attached writes:

I don't think I'm alone in this, and I'm looking for advice from those who've gone through it or something like it.

I have an excellent relationship with my advisor. With his guidance, my mediocre ideas become significantly less mediocre, and even, on occasion, quite interesting. I've worked with other professors and, to be honest, we're on the same wavelength in ways that I haven't experienced with others.

While I'm incredibly grateful to be working with them, I'm also a bit anxious about what's to come. At some point, I'll move on, ideally to a job, and it will be less and less appropriate for me to lean on my advisor to lift up my work and make it more intelligible. What can I do to prepare for this? Should I just hold on as long as possible? Will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?

These are very good questions. Timmy J. submitted the following response:

My own adviser told me that most of the point of grad school is to get voices in your head. You get your adviser’s voice is your head. You get some of your cohortmate’s voices in your head. Maybe you get frege or Kant or whoever’s voice in your head. Then you leave but the voices stay and some large portion of the help they could give before they can still give later, albeit in a disembodied way. Yeah yeah it’s weird and mystical and whatever. But it sorta helps me deal, and maybe it’ll help you too.

This seems right to me (I still bear in mind many lessons that I learned from my advisor). However, I don't think they are the only way to handle the OP's situation--and I also think it can be critical to develop one's own voice, as it were, becoming one's 'own philosopher' (there are, for example, some preconceptions about research that I was taught in graduate school that I now firmly reject). In any case, what other strategies are there? One strategy that I have seen is for people to slowly wean themselves off of their advisor, staying in close contact with them for their first few years out of graduate school, meeting with them via Zoom, sharing work, etc. My sense is that this can work if one's advisor is a caring and conscientious person, particularly given that advisors can want their former students to succeed. Not all advisors are like this, however--and so, one might very well find oneself 'ripped away' from being able to rely on them. In that case, my sense is that one's situation can be very much akin to being thrown into the deep end of a pool and simply having to learn how to swim. 

Long story short, I don't think there's just one way to answer the OP's questions. I think a lot depends on you (are you 'naturally independent' or someone who really needs support networks?), on your advisor (are they willing to stay in close contact and be helpful once you graduate?), and on context (is your first job out of graduate school in a large research department or small department with high teaching loads?). Because things can differ so much, I'm very curious to hear from readers. How did you handle the kinds of issues the OP asks about? Did your strategy work well or not?

Finally, I do want to say a few things about the OP's third and final question: "will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?". My sense is that you probably will. My own advisor once told me in graduate school that at some point, one undergoes a transformation of sorts. You begin to realize that, whereas for your entire academic career as a student, you had to satisfy your professors with your work, now the main person you need to satisfy is yourself. Sure, you need to convince referees to publish your work. But, at some point, you'll get a sense of how to do that while being the kind of philosopher you want to be. And, in my experience, it can be a really wonderful experience, generating not only a kind of confidence in your work, but indeed, a kind of confidence that doesn't depend so much on others for validation (which, I think, can be a really liberating experience). But again, this is just my experience. What's yours?

Indicating post-dissertation research on a CV?

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

I have a separate section on my CV for papers under review. I was wondering whether it's a good idea to highlight which of these papers are derived from my PhD thesis, and which ones are not? I can imagine it's helpful if a search committee sees that about half of my papers under reviews aren't thesis chapters, meaning that I am (hopefully) capable of producing further non-thesis research. On the other hand, it also somehow feels as if I define myself by my thesis, especially as I am currently in a postdoc position. I would appreciate some input on this!

Good question. Another reader submitted the following response:

You are way over thinking things. These papers are JUST under review. They are not publications - it matters not whether you wrote them as part of your dissertation or as part of a new project. That is something you can talk about, if you get an interview, but even then it does not matter.

I half-agree with this response. Speaking as a search committee member, I think it can matter whether a candidate has a robust research program beyond the dissertation. Search committee members can want to know whether candidates are likely to publish enough to get tenure, and at least typically, that requires publishing articles beyond the dissertation. So, I think it is a good idea for a CV to show that the candidate has such a research program. I just don't think the OP needs to explicitly indicate this in their CV. This is because it is usually pretty easy to tell, just by looking at the candidate's dissertation title and/or research statement, what is a part of their dissertation, and what's not. So, that's what I would do: just list the papers they have published and under review, and let the reader infer what goes beyond the dissertation.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Alex Guerrero (Rutgers) on research methods

Over at Daily Nous last week, Alex Guerrero (Rutgers) shared some really helpful advice for applying to PhD programs. But, in addition to being helpful for grad applicants, I actually think his remarks on writing samples may be helpful for graduate students and other early-career scholars who are struggling to publish. Here are the key passages that I have in mind:

Let me begin by saying some possibly controversial things about how good philosophy comes into existence. I’ll begin by describing a method that rarely works. First, start with an interest in some topic that has been discussed a lot by philosophers. Second, read everything on that topic, over a long time, keeping kind of neutral notes on the views throughout. Third, try to think of something new to say. Disaster!

Maybe some people can do it that way, but it’s very hard to find your voice and keep your passion and energy throughout that process. Instead, you learn about the 18 moves that have been made, the 14 positions in logical space that have been occupied (like tanks running over flowers), and you can maybe spot another 2 or 3 that haven’t been occupied. You can write a paper that takes up one of those, but often you aren’t really excited about that position, it’s just kind of left over. And maybe for a reason…

Much better: start with something that is bugging you or disturbing you. Maybe it’s an actual thing in the world that is happening. Maybe it’s an idea that was presented in a class that just seems wrong somehow. Maybe it’s some text or topic that seems philosophically interesting, but which no one is talking about. Maybe it’s just a way of looking at things that comes to you from who knows where, while your mind wanders around (like flowers growing over tanks).

What I find so interesting about this is that the first method--the method that Guerrero says rarely works--is the one that I initially adopted when trying (mostly in vain) to come up with a viable PhD dissertation topic. After my comprehensive exams, I spent something like one-and-a-half years doing just that: reading everything on moral motivation, taking copious notes, and trying to come up with something new. It was a disaster. I found myself in exactly the position Guerrero describes: I knew the "14 positions in logical space" that everyone had already occupied, as well as the 2 or 3 that hadn't because, well, those positions were obviously wrong. So, I couldn't come up with anything! It was like running into a brick wall, day after day after day. Then, I did what Guerrero says to do instead. I found something that was bugging me. I read Rawls again, and noted that he never did nonideal theory in any kind of systematic way, and that no Rawlsians really had either. So, I immediately had an idea--to use Rawls's machinery to develop a nonideal theory of justice--and wrote a dissertation on it. Just like that!

Anyway, it's really amazing what a simple change in research methods like this can do, so I figured that I would not only share it--as I expect there are probably grad students and early-career philosophers who are struggling to come up with dissertation ideas and publishable work. I also figured it might be good to see (1) whether other readers have found Guerrero's approach to research beneficial, and (2) whether you have any research tips of your own! Any readers care to weigh in what you've found helpful in coming up with good research ideas or otherwise being productive as a researcher?

Open thread on hiring timelines

In our job-market discussion thread, Bill Vanderburgh (CSU San Bernardino) chimed in to clear up some confusion/misinformation about the search he is chairing at his institution:

We have barely begun evaluating candidates. The email that candidates received was automated. It is meant to indicate that they have advanced from "applied" to "under consideration". I didn't even realize the system would be sending those notices, or I would have tried to change the wording. The department has a meeting scheduled for mid-November to begin building our list for preliminary interviews by Zoom, and we hope to schedule those to take place in the second week of December.

Some job candidates in the thread appreciated, with one asking:

It would be great if other chairs or members of search committees would share similar timelines of their searches, which may as well be public but typically aren't, either in this thread or elsewhere. Is there a way you (Marcus Arvan) might facilitate this, for those search committee chairs or members who are able and willing to share such information?

I think this is a great idea, and so I hereby open this thread for any members of search committees who are able and willing to disclose their timeline (e.g. for reviewing applicants, holding first-round interviews, on-campus visits, etc.). My experience is that many committees need to give administrators rough timelines for all of the above anyway, so hopefully some search committees will be willing to weigh in!

How many applicants are jobs receiving?

A reader writes in:

I have a question...  Our department is currently taking applications for a tenure-track position.  Although our advertisement has been out for only a couple of weeks, we have not received nearly the number of applications that we were expecting at this point.  I recently mentioned this to the chair of the department where I earned my PhD.  That department is also conducting a tenure-track search, although in a different area.  My former chair said that they too have received far fewer applications than they had expected at this point.  So, I'm wondering how widespread this is.  Are many departments who are conducting tenure-track searches receiving fewer applications than they expected?  

This is an interesting question, and I'm curious to hear from other search committee members. If you are hiring this year (particularly for a tenure-track job), are you receiving fewer applications than you expected? Depending on what we hear in the discussion thread below, it might be good to hear from others about why this may be. Have many candidates given up on pursuing an academic job due to COVID (and the 'Great Resignation')? Alternatively, have many candidates decided to stay in grad school longer, delaying dissertation defenses due to COVID?

Language requirements for jobs?

A reader writes in:

I'm wondering how relevant (and necessary) a language requirement is for the job market. Many top departments have no language requirement, so I've heard. Does this suggest that the language requirement is not necessary for the job market?

Good question. I'm assuming the author has in mind language requirement for history of philosophy jobs (e.g. Modern Philosophy, etc.), and perhaps jobs in diverse philosophical traditions more broadly (i.e. Chinese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, etc.). Traditionally, there was an expectation that philosophers working in such areas became proficient in the relevant language(s). But, like the OP, I get the impression that language requirements have faded over time. Is this indeed the case? Should it be? Should language requirements not be necessary on the job market? I suppose, in principle, it's up to hiring departments to decide, but if more and more grad programs are dropping these requirements, I can imagine language requirements for jobs putting otherwise-qualified candidates in a difficult position. What do you all think?

Reference info in online applications

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I'm currently in the process of filling out job ads. Many places require applicants to fill out online forms. These forms usually ask for reference contact info such as an email address and phone numbers. If you're using a third party document service like interfolio are you supposed to enter the "send.Referee" emails addresses that interfolio provides as the "contact email" for your references? Or should you enter the email addresses of the references? I've been told that it's the former, but in some cases, the job ads suggest that your references will be contacted directly and that makes me wonder if entering the interfolio address will suffice. Of course, emails for references are standardly found on our CV's, too. But I don't want to mess up these forms. Any help would be appreciated.

Good question. I don't know how search committees approach this stuff, but I suspect that many of those online forms that say that references will be "contacted directly" involve automated emails to letter writers. Since it can be a real pain for letter writers to continually upload letters (particularly if they have written letters for multiple candidates applying to many different jobs), I suspect the thing to do here is to put in the Interfolio link whenever possible, just to save your letters writers time and energy. I highly doubt much turns on it for search committee members. Are they really going to look askance at a candidate who submits a letter this way? It's hard for me to see how, especially if the letter writers' direct contact info is listed in the candidate's CV. But perhaps I'm wrong about this. Any search committee members able to weigh in?

Tips for (pre-tenure) research leave?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I am newish assistant professor at a school with a medium-level teaching load, where I am fortunate to get a guaranteed pre-tenure research leave (one semester at full salary or two semesters at reduced salary). I would love to hear tips from readers about how to make the best use of this time. Here are some specific questions. Where might I look for funding to support the longer leave? And then, assuming I can swing that financially, what are the advantages and disadvantages of staying put vs. going somewhere else as a visiting scholar? At present I am slowly recovering from burnout related to making a number of demanding life transitions during the pandemic and I am instinctively resistant to any more upheaval. But I fear I might regret not taking the opportunity to travel, especially since I am not an a research-intensive institution and do not have much local accountability for my scholarship.

Good questions! As far as funding is concerned, visiting fellowships seem to me to be one obvious answer--but as the OP notes, moving for a fellowship could involve quite a bit of upheaval (moving to a new place). So, it could be good to hear from visiting fellows/scholars whether it is worth it. Grants are another obvious source of funding, though they can take a lot of time to apply for and be hard to get. So, I'm not sure what to recommend here, especially given that I've never had a research leave myself. Finally, in terms of making the best use of one's time, I guess I expect that a lot turns here on how one works best--but, in my case, I find it's usually a good idea to have an idea of which projects I want to write on before I have time set aside for it. My guess is that one way to "waste" a research leave is not to have any good idea what to work on, and then spend most of the leave reading and trying to come up with ideas. So, I guess I'd say: have a clear picture of which projects you want to work on and (roughly) how you think the projects should go. Then spend the research leave focusing on writing, etc.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? For obvious reasons, it would be great to hear tips from people who have had research leaves themselves (both tips on things to do, but also potentially things to avoid!). 

Discussing grad school with undergrads

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I have been advising an undergraduate senior thesis for several months now, for a student who expressed early on that they were interested in applying to a philosophy PhD. I'm becoming increasingly certain that they don't yet have the skills or preparation to be accepted into a program this year (ideas can sometimes be good but writing quality not so much, etc.), especially the mostly top-10 programs they seem set on applying to. I'm early-career at a PGR-ranked but not top department, certainly not "famous" enough for my letter to have much clout, which makes me even more pessimistic about the student's chances. I've talked with the student multiple times about how competitive (and random) the PhD process is, to consider some MA programs seriously (which I think would be a really good step for them before a PhD anyway), and have a backup plan if things don't work out this year. But I'm wondering whether I'm still not being straightforward enough and should give a little more tough love. On the other hand, I've never sat on a grad admissions committee, and maybe my pessimism is misplaced and harmful. Should my role be to build up the student's confidence, based on their stated application goals? Or would it be better to let them know very clearly that I think they have a minuscule change of getting in?

These are really good and (I think) difficult questions. On this case, I guess I feel torn between the following two responses: (1) honestly telling the student you don't feel they are quite ready for a PhD program and encouraging them to pursue an MA to better prepare themselves, or (2) support them in applying to PhD programs but strongly encourage them to apply to MA programs, explaining to them that many (most?) students who pursue PhDs these days go to good MA programs first. I myself tend to "err on the side of tact", as my experience is that frank honesty sometimes can do more harm than good. But, that being said, I also understand the argument that we should be honest with students. So, I guess I'm inclined to say that either of these approaches may be legitimate, and honestly, if the student really isn't quite ready to get into a good PhD program, then my sense is that this will probably be reflected in their application results (i.e. them perhaps getting into a good MA program but not to any attractive PhD programs). So again, maybe the thing to do is to just encourage them to apply to both, and then give them good advice once they hear back on the places they get into. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Saturday sounds

 

Including graded work in a teaching portfolio?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I'm working on an application that has the following request in their add:

"In the requested teaching portfolio, we would like to see a statement of teaching philosophy that speaks specifically to a liberal arts context, student evaluations from previous courses taught, sample syllabi, samples of graded student work that demonstrate the sort of feedback that the candidate offers to students, and at least one letter of recommendation from someone who has conducted classroom visits and is familiar with the candidate’s positive impact on students."

I'm particularly concerned about the request for examples of graded work. (We can set aside for the moment how little regard this department has for the time and effort of applicants). Is it even legal to include examples of such graded work? Is it ethical? This strikes me as worrisome. Should I just suck it up and send it along, or would that be violating a legal or ethical requirement?

Interesting questions. I think the answer here is that it's legal, provided you suitably redact the work (deleting any student-identifying information). Assuming that is the OP's main ethical concern as well, I guess I don't see what is plausibly unethical about it. If there is no way to identify the student, then what is the ethical concern? Maybe I'm missing something here I'm not thinking of. Is the concern about requiring so much time and effort on behalf of applicants? Here too, I guess I'm not sure what the concern is. Allow me to explain.

Geltung: a new journal on the origins of contemporary philosophy

Gabriel Ferreira (Assistant Professor, UNISINOS University [Brazil]) draws my attention to a new journal that he co-edits, Geltung (Português/English). Here is a self-description from the journal's manifesto: 

A distinctive phenomenon of twentieth-century philosophy is the radical schism between two traditions, “Analytic” and “Continental” (better: “Phenomenological-Hermeneutic”) Philosophy. . . The proposal of this new journal is to offer a space for historical-philosophical studies of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century that ultimately contribute to a better understanding of the parting of the ways, without assuming or taking for granted the principles of a presupposed self-identity. . . Geltung explicitly proposes to keep an open and pluralistic attitude that, instead of deepening the parting of the ways, goes beyond it insofar as it is conceived from a strictly historical-philosophical perspective.