The Philosophers' Cocoon

Engaging with philosophical work outside of philosophy?

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

Occasionally, I found other disciplines like animal studies or nursing or jurisprudence also discuss some very general philosophical questions like "what is conceptual analysis". And they do refer to lots of philosophers' work in their papers. My question is whether discussing these works by non-philosophers (not just referring but devoting two or even more paragraphs to discussing their views, putting them on a par with other prominent philosophers) is proper. From time to time, I found some interesting views from their works or their works offer a clearer and more careful literature review.

Another reader responded:

I sure hope it's acceptable to discuss works by "non-philosophers." Why wouldn't it be? Even if we accept the sanctity of disciplinary boundaries (which I think is a mistake), it does not seem justified to limit who's views you discuss based solely on which academic hat they wear. I work in philosophy of science and I hope (*hope*, mind you) that scientists at least occasionally read and take up my work as they have taken up the work of other philosophers of science. I often use a specific scientist's professed views as a foil to philosopher's, and this has allowed me to give a richer exposition of potential viewpoints/arguments/etc than would have been available had I only focused on philosophers. Maybe philosophy of science is somewhat unique in this regard as we are often debating and engaging with the work of historians of science, HPSers, and STS folks. But I'd argue that other sub-disciplines of philosophy should also consider viewpoints and arguments from other disciplines (if this don't do this already -- someone from another sub-discipline of philosophy would know better).

I'm curious to see arguments which push in the other direction. If enough academic philosophers think we should only consider/discuss other philosophers' views, then maybe there is a prudent reason to focus only on other philosophers' views. However, this way of thinking has it's own problems...

I too am curious whether there are other arguments that point in the other direction. I routinely engage with work in other disciplines, and am inclined to think that philosophy is better for it when we do--though I do wonder whether some philosophers might hold it against you in publishing. Some moral philosophers, for example, are pretty adamant that they think empirical work is irrelevant to normative and metaethics. But, I don't think this is any reason not to engage with other disciplines. If you think it's relevant and interesting, I say: engage away!

New post and features at 'New Work in Philosophy'

This is just a quick note that New Work in Philosophy has a new post up today by Berislav Marušić (University of Edinburgh). Do check it out!

Also, thanks to some helpful feedback that we received on NWP's launch yesterday, we have rolled out a new feature and point of emphasis:

1. In addition to posting contributions by authors on their own work and the work of others (e.g. book/article reviews), we encourage submissions by established (or somewhat established) philosophers that discuss/recommend new work by less/un-established philosophers who aren’t their colleagues or students. We also continue to encourage posts by or about the work of junior philosophers and underrepresented groups in the profession more generally.

2. We encourage readers to draw our attention to other Substack pages with professional philosophical content. Substack has a nifty “recommend” feature, so we will now feature an “Other Philosophy Substacks” button on this site’s top navigation bar. Recommendations will also go out to subscribers in a Substack Recommendation Digest (which can be unsubscribed from if you only want to receive notifications of original NWP posts).

Both new policies are intended to advance NWP’s aim of being an anti-elitist forum that highlights exciting new work by diverse philosophers at a wide variety of institutions, career stages, and employment situations.

So, if you'd like to pitch a piece about your own work, work by someone else that you would like to recommend or discuss, or another philosophy Substack, just let me know!

"Pay me for my expertise"--on the issue of honoraria for talks by academics

Every few years (months?) discussion surfaces on what a "fair" remuneration is for academics who give a talk. For instance, today on Twitter Jennifer van Alstyne argued that PhD holders should charge a minimum of $3500 for a one-hour talk. This struck many as unrealistic. Very few academics other than, say, Yuval Harari, will be able to command large honoraria. Many very stellar folk are willing to come and talk for a modest honorarium. 

In defense of the claim that our speaking fees should be higher than they are we often see a variation of the justice argument: van Alstyne writes, "PhDs have varied salaries. Only a small % of professors are tenured. Do you think an adjunct professor should be happy with their 'salary'? That they don't deserve to be paid for a speaking engagement? That's wild to me. All professors deserve to be paid for their expertise." 

We also often see the time compensation argument: $3500 is not as excessive as it first appears if we see the speaking engagement as a whole in terms of specialized academic labor.  A one-hour talk involves a lot more work than just one hour. I estimate (fairly accurately, as I have kept time diaries in the past)  if I write a talk from scratch and it is on a new topic it takes me about 10-14 hours to do so (I am not counting the amount of prep reading as this is usually preceding the talk, as it usually relates to things I'm working on). There is the inconvenience of travel. Moreover, you will also socialize, sometimes talk to the grad students (in colloquium talks), go to dinner after etc (this is usually pleasant and not a chore, but still part of the professional broader time commitment of giving a talk).

Finally, there is the argument of proper remuneration for expertise by minorities. Oftentimes, minorities such as Indigenous, Black, trans, and disabled scholars are expected to give free advice and free consulting. This is unjust. It is only normal and proper we should be properly compensated for our labor.

Ultimately, I think those three arguments do not work.

Introducing 'New Work in Philosophy: A multimedia newsletter'

I am excited to announce that Barry Maguire (University of Edinburgh) and I launched a Substack newsletter today, New Work in Philosophy.

The site aims to improve the dissemination and discussion of new published work in the field by featuring short, accessible posts (blog posts, short videos, prezi presentations, argument maps, etc.) about new books and articles in philosophy. The site also encourages professional discussion of posts modeled on a conference Q&A period (for the site's unique commenting and moderation policy, see here).

While we have commissioned a series of posts to launch the site, our aim is for the site to be an anti-elitist institution. We welcome unsolicited submissions from any professional philosopher (PhD students or beyond) or anyone who has previously published or presented philosophy in legitimate peer-reviewed venues.

We also particularly encourage submissions from junior philosophers and underrepresented groups in the profession, as well as postdocs, VAPs, and full or part-time faculty from a diverse variety of institutions.

The site's first four posts are now up:

1. An 8-minute video and lightboard presentation by Mark Schroeder (USC) on his paper, "Attributive Silencing."

2. A short blog post and 7-minute lecture by Wendy Salkin (Stanford University) on her paper "Democracy Within, Justice Without: The Duties of Informal Political Representatives" (Noûs, 2021).

3. A blog post by Sukaina Hirji (University of Pennsylvania) on her new paper, "Outrage and the Bounds of Empathy" (Philosophers Imprint, 2022).

4. A blog post by Farbod Akhlaghi (Christ's College, University of Cambridge) on his paper, "Non-Realist Cognitivism, Truthmaking, and Ontological Cheating" (Ethics, 2022).

If you would like to pitch a post, just email marvan@ut.edu or barry.maguire@ed.ac.uk. 

Your pitch could be anything: just a couple of sentences, a longer blog-style post, a video of any length, an argument map, a few powerpoint slides with commentary. Your pitch doesn't need to be an actual summary of your work. It could be a broader pitch that simply motivates the point of the paper in the larger context of a new project, or a zestier pitch that says more loosely what you hope the takeaway will be.

If you would like to subscribe to the newsletter, you can do so here, and the site's Twitter page is here if you'd like to follow. I also highly recommend downloading the Substack app from the App Store for ease of access.

Are hiring departments still doing Zoom "flyouts"?

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

Are hiring departments conducting finalist interviews face-to-face or via Zoom this year? Or, rather, are any departments conducting finalist (day+ long, short-listed candidates) interviews via Zoom?

I ask because my department is considering doing 4-5 finalist interviews via Zoom, then flying out the candidate(s) to whom we make offers. The thinking is that we can conduct more finalist interviews, with less department stress and expense, this way. Normally, we are limited to 2 on-campus interviews.

Interesting questions, and I'd be curious to hear the answers. Personally, I'm inclined to think that face-to-face on campus visits are superior for various reasons (performing over Zoom is very different than performing in person, candidates who visit campus can spend more unscripted time with students, faculty, and staff, etc.). But I can of course understand various rationales for holding finalist interviews by Zoom, including the one the OP mentions.

Anyway, I'm curious too. What are departments doing for finalists these days, and why?

Boilerplate journal rejection language?

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

Recently got desk-rejected by Ethics after waiting 4 months. The comment " I am afraid, however, that it is inappropriate for the journal." is boilerplate right?

Interesting question. I'm not sure this is boilerplate. I took a look at a couple of desk-rejects that I received from the same journal, and didn't see this kind of language. Curious to hear what others think!

Asking editors for referee clarifications?

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

I'm working on revising an R&R, but for one comment by a reviewer, I'm finding it difficult to understand exactly what the reviewer's concern is. Part of the issue is that the comment is full of typos and incomplete sentences. But that aside, my question is more general: Is it ever alright to ask the journal's managing editor to reach out to the reviewer on your behalf in order to ask the reviewer a question of clarification?

This is an interesting question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. I've never approached editors with a query like this, and wonder whether any readers have (and what editors and referees might think if approached in this way). Anyone have any helpful experiences/tips to share?

How can we help you? (December 2022)

Now that it's been almost a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new one.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

As usual, feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask away - we're here to help! 

Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post.

Holiday stressors & the job market

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

Here's one concerning holiday stressors, which is not so much a question as it is a request for the opportunity to vent and/or swap stories of frustration during this time of the year.

I am an early-career person with a large publication output and a series of decent postdoc and VAP-type jobs at good institutions, but no TT job. It turns out that, to my friends and family (nearly all of whom are non-academics), such a career profile makes me indistinguishable from someone who has spent the last many years living in the basement and playing video games.

I've just spent a mentally exhausting few days "back home" among these people for the holidays. It quickly became clear to me that they cannot parse my efforts as successful given that I'm still on the job market.

Some annoyingly ignorant questions I got include, "When do you get to start teaching your own classes?" (I've been teaching my own classes for nine years, five as a PhD student and four as an early-career non-TT prof); "Is the reason you don't have tenure because you don't publish?" (which especially smarts given how aggressive I've been with publishing my research compared to my peers), "How's life as a philosophy major?", and, perhaps most annoyingly, "How's school?" (clearly implying the inability to distinguish between being a professor and being a student). Given the stressors of the job market, etc., dealing with the alienation that follows from friends and family members who cannot see one's hard work and instead read one as a slacker who needs to "work harder" to get that job is especially mentally taxing.

In posting this, I'm not really asking for advice. The rational part of me knows that I should assess myself through the evaluation of my peers (who are experts), not laypeople who do not understand my field; that I cannot expect friends and family to understand my field; that I should remember that I don't even really understand what *they* do for a living; etc. But nevertheless, I would benefit from the opportunity to vent about this, and imagine others might be able to relate.

As someone who spent many years on the job market, I deeply empathize with the OP. Given that they did not ask for advice, I won't attempt to provide any. But, if you are a job marketeer, please do feel free to use this thread to commiserate about these issues--and if you would like to ask for some advice for how to handle these kinds of stressors, please do feel free to ask for some in the thread. As always, the Cocoon is here to help in any way that we can. 

Campus visit tips?

I've noticed on our job market reporting thread that a few hiring committees have already proceeded to invite candidates for campus visits (not many so far, but a few). Given that campus visits will increase in frequency over the coming weeks and months, and some job candidates may be doing campus visits for the very first time, I thought it might be good to run an open thread on campus visit tips.

It would be great to hear tips from past job-candidates, as well as from search committee members. Are there particular "do's and don'ts" for campus visits that you think job candidates should be aware of? Do have any helpful tips for common or unexpected situations that candidates might encounter during a visit?

Presenting papers currently under review?

In our November "how can we help you?" thread, an anonymous postdoc writes:

I've seen a few discussion here about presenting papers before they are under review. And the consensus seems to be that this is fine (as I think it should be).

However, I'm not sure you've touched on presenting papers that are currently under review.

Specifically, I am giving a talk next week on a paper that is already under review, and at a venue where I expect some of the most obvious reviewers for the paper will be attending (although it is not a particularly niche paper, so the probability the reviewers are actually there is reasonably low).

The following reasons make me think this should not be a problem: 1. I'm pretty sure I've seen people do this before. 2. If the reviewers are in the audience and haven't started reading the paper yet then this is really just an instance of pre-review presentation.

But the final reason goes rather the other way: 3. If the reviewers have started reading the paper and my presentation changes their views of the paper (either positively or negatively) then they might need to excuse themselves (or feel that they should) from review—and that would be annoying for everyone (me, the reviewers, the editors) due to the wasted time and effort all around.

So, have I made a mistake? And assuming that I will present the paper anyway (it would be difficult to change now), is it better to flag that the paper is already under review or not to mention it?

My sense is that it is fine to present papers that are under review at journals. I suppose it could "pollute the reviewer pool", as it were, particularly if the paper is on a niche topic where there aren't many reviewers for the journal to choose from. But this is a problem even before a paper is under review, as presenting at conferences or colloquia can disclose your identity to potential reviewers too. I also don't think it's a good idea to flag it to the presentation organizers or participants. But, I'm not sure. I have to confess that I've never thought about the OP's questions before myself!

What do you all think?

Taking breaks from writing & research?

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

Does anyone have advice for what an early scholar might do while taking a break from writing? I'm in a post-doc and feel a bit(lot) burnt out on writing, having done it at a blistering pace for so, so many years. I'm starting some time "off" from this particular aspect of my career and hoping to spend more time reading, exploring philosophy, and perhaps other things.

Has anyone taken a similar sort of break from writing? How was it? Do people have tips as to how to stay engaged with philosophy even if not through new research projects?

This is a great query, and I'm curious to hear how readers respond. I myself go through peaks when I feel inspired to do write and do research and troughs where I feel worn out and uninspired (often when, like the OP, I've worked at a blistering pace for a while). And I've found it to be helpful to listen to what my body and mind are telling me, as it were. In fact, I'm taking one of these breaks right now, as I've been working really hard the past several months and feel like I need some time to recoup.

When I'm feeling worn out, I'll take a break and focus on other things for a while--either other aspects of work (e.g. trying to teach a particular course really well), and/or hobbies (such as writing and recording music, listening to podcasts, or reading historical nonfiction). Oddly, I've found that many of these hobbies can be great (and unexpected) sources of inspiration for new philosophical projects--so, it's sort of like "doing research without doing research." To be clear, I don't pursue hobbies looking to mine them for philosophical ideas. I often just find that new ideas occur to me out of the blue when doing other things for pleasure.

Light blogging this week

This is just a quick note that there may be comparatively few posts on the Cocoon this week, as I will be traveling to visit family for the holiday.

If readers have any topics you'd be interested in seeing discussed here this week, please feel free to post them at our November "how can we help you?" thread. I can get discussion threads up quickly and am happy to moderate them while I am away!

How to choose readers for paper drafts?

In our October "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asked:

What goes into selecting a potential reviewer for your article? Is it normal for junior scholars to select, for example, their thesis advisor or another person at their graduate institution? Should it specifically be someone who works on this exact topic, or someone who you know in the general area of philosophy?

I've never presented this exact argument, so I don't feel that I would have met someone at a conference who clearly responded well to this particular work. Although, I did attend a conference on this topic and met some folks there. What's the best strategy?

It wasn't clear to me whether this reader means "suggesting reviewers" when submitting to journals (which some journals request or even require from authors), or whether they simply mean "readers of paper drafts." I'm assuming the latter, as it would surely be inappropriate (a clear conflict of interest) to suggest a thesis advisor or someone else one is close to as a journal reviewer.

So, I'm assuming this person means to ask: what goes into selecting readers for paper drafts? Should a junior scholar ask mentors in their graduate program (even if, say, they already received their PhD)? Should they seek out other specialists? If so, how? Any helpful tips?

Are new hires expected to do graduate mentoring?

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

I have seen several job adverts recently for Assistant Professor roles that seem to request graduate mentoring. Are new Assistant Professors actually expected to mentor graduates from day one, or is this listed as something that will be expected in the future? Or am I misunderstanding and they do not mean PhD dissertation supervision but something else by graduate mentoring in the US? It seems like a lot to ask recent PhDs to mentor graduates.

My experience, from what I have seen and heard second-hand, is that new hires in graduate programs are absolutely expected to do graduate mentoring from day 1. Are recent PhDs well-prepared to this? My sense is: probably not--which, personally, is why I think it may be better for people to be not to be hired into these kinds of TT jobs right out of graduate school. Postdocs and/or a VAP or two can greatly help one find one's footing, as it were, and for my part I recall feeling profoundly unprepared for a tenure-track job when I got my first VAP (in retrospect, I'm profoundly thankful that I did not get a TT job right out of the gate; I think I probably would have failed in one!).

But anyway, maybe I'm wrong about the expectations here. Any readers care to weigh in?