The Philosophers' Cocoon

Spring sounds

Making time for research in a TT job?

(Comments open now!)

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, a reader writes:

Having been a postdoc for a long time, as a new TT faculty I'm finding it hard to find time for research whilst attending to my teaching responsibilities (which I take very seriously). Any tips on how to make time for writing with everything else going on during the semester so that it doesn't only become a 'summer hobby'?

This is a great question, and I'll do my best to provide some helpful tips--and I hope readers on the tenure-track chime in with some tips of their own. But before I make a few suggestions, I'd like to say a few things about the broader issue: namely, lack of time in tenure-track jobs for focusing on research during the academic year.

Unfortunately, many people who begin tenure-track jobs are in for something of a rude awakening. My experience is that unless you have a job with a very low teaching load at a research university--and sometimes even then--you simply won't have much time for research during academic terms. Seriously. I do probably 90% of my research during summer and winter breaks, and as this TimesHigherEd article points out, I'm not alone: a recent survey of Dutch academics found that, 'Those lucky enough to have become full professors – supposedly the light at the end of the tunnel for struggling junior scholars – spend just 17 per cent of their time on their own research.' Indeed, you can see how much time for research falls in the following figure:

Tenure-track jobs & departmental politics

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, the OP asks: how involved should you get in department politics or the direction of the department (if at all)?

This is a good question, and not an easy one to answer. On the one hand, departmental politics (and university politics, for that matter) can involve all kinds of risks--alienating people with power over your career, etc. On the other hand, I know of some cases where departments have factions of various sorts and not getting involved in departmental politics is itself risky--as members of the various factions might expect a new TT member to 'choose sides', as it were. Finally, as a tenure track faculty member you might feel like you have a right and duty of some kind to get involved: to help push the department in one direction rather than another.

In my 12 years at my current university, I have seen tenure-track faculty adopt vastly different styles here. I've seen faculty who try to stay out of the fray, as it were, and I've seen faculty get deeply involved--and speak out a lot--in both departmental and university politics. It's never been entirely clear to me what the best approach is. 

What do you all think? It might be good to hear some stories or experiences from TT faculty who have adopted one approach or the other. Was getting involved in departmental (or university) politics fruitful, or did it turn out to be more trouble than it was worth? Or, did you just keep your head down and focus on teaching and research?

Handling 'meaningless service'?

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, Timmy J writes:

The upshot of my question is this: do you care about all the weird trivial crap it seems like people expect you to care about? If so, how do you bring yourself to do so? If not, is it ever a problem?

In more detail: as a new TT faculty member I was floored by the mountains-out-of-molehills shenaninganry that was *constantly* going on. Let's talk for three hours about how to rename our courses. Please vote for the dean's select committee on rethinking the language in our requests for members of dean's select committees. What should our priorities be as we move toward thinking about beginning to talk about addressing the question of whether there's bias on campus---please give your feedback within 48 hours via an 82-question google survey.

These examples are exaggerated for effect, but I imagine many people at many institutions get the joke, and that's what my question is about: there's a presumption that you care about these things. I find myself not caring, in even a small way, about 99% of them. I anti-care. I would like to not know that my feedback is wanted or not know that we're renaming our courses; etc. I would in fact like to not live in a world where there are Dean's select committees.

Do you care? If so, how on earth do you manage to do so? If not, has it been a problem? Have you found ways to manage that problem?

David then added:

I totally agree with Timmy J about all the meaningless "service" and committee work required at these jobs and would love to see a thread about it, especially the never-ending "assessment" initiatives. It blows my mind that so many people really seem to love this stuff. They seem no longer interested in philosophy itself or any actual subject matter, but are rather now obsessed with second and third order meta-analyses of "learning outcomes", etc. Is there real evidence that these initiatives really result in improved student learning? Doubtful. And skeptics about all this busywork are not well-tolerated either.....

Good questions. As someone who worked a bit outside of academia before grad school, my sense is that 'meaningless busywork' is pretty common in the workplace in general (see this great scene from Office Space). I'm not sure what's to be done about it. As David notes, complaining about it or expressing skepticism doesn't seem to work very well. So, my general attitude is: let the people who want to do that kind of stuff do what they do, and try as far as reasonably possible to focus on things that matter to you. This isn't to say it's always easy or even possible. As David notes, 'learning outcomes assessment' is all the rage these days, in large part (it seems) because accrediting agencies increasingly demand it. So, for better or worse, one sort of has to do some of this stuff. It is, as they say, what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, these are my not-too-terribly-helpful thoughts. Do any of you have any more helpful tips to share?

How do you decide what to read?

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

I'm a second-year PhD student, and I often struggle with deciding on what to read at all, how to prioritize the reading assingments I give myself, and how thoroghly I should read a text. As my time and my ability to focus are limited resources, I often find myself doubting whether a paper or a book I began to read is really worth the time, and whether I should rather read something else instead. These doubts occur quite frequently, and I begin to jump back and forth between papers and rarely finish one. Maybe one could describe this as a kind of fear of missing out on the most important readings. I would like to know how other people approach these problems.

This is a good query. In my experience, one of the traps that graduate students can run into is reading too much. Of course, it's important to read, so that you have a good grasp of the literature. But when I was in graduate school, I knew fellow grads who spent most of their time reading and little to no time writing--and it very much stifled their progress through the program and in publishing. So, it really is crucial to find the right balance. But what is the right balance, and what are some practical tips for finding it? I'm curious to hear what readers think. Obviously, I'm not a grad student, so my own approach may not generalize to the OP's situation. But here, very roughly, is how I go about things...

Where the non-TT jobs were (2020-21 season)

A couple of months ago, I gave my annual informal report breaking down last job-season's tenure-track jobs by AOS. Because of a confluence of events--ranging from professional deadlines to family issues--I had to put a report on non-tenure-track jobs on the backburner for a while. However, I've now completed it and report my findings below.

Today's post is based upon a PhilJobs search for 'fixed term' and 'contract open' jobs for ads posted between August 1st, 2020 and April 21st (so that the data would cover roughly the same amount of time as in previous years). A few quick notes on methodology. The methodology I've always used in this series works as follows. When I encounter jobs with two AOS;s (e.g. metaphysics, moral philosophy), I counted each job as '.5' jobs in that area (or in the case of 3 AOS, '.33' jobs, etc.). Although I recognize this is a bit odd, it seems to me to make sense, as a job like that could go to someone in any of the listed AOSs, not just one particular AOS. Because I did this with all jobs, the numbers seem to me to accurately weight whether a job is in a particular AOS simpliciter, or whether it was also available to candidates in other AOS. Second, I only counted "junior-level" non-TT jobs (i.e. postdocs, lecturer, and Assistant Professor positions), not senior-level tenure-track jobs. Finally, one quick note before proceeding: although I've done my best to collect the data in this post accurately, this is just an informal report, not a formal study, so if there are any errors, I apologize in advance (though, if there are any, I'm fairly certain they would be very, very minor).

Here's a breakdown of what I found (and here is a copy of my spreadsheet):

TOTAL # of non-tenure-track jobs: 210

• • Value theory (ethics, political, etc.): 81.5 jobs (38.9% of all jobs)
    • Ethics: 57 jobs (27.1% of all jobs)
    • Legal, political, PPE: 24.5 jobs (11.7%)
  • Open AOS: 56.6 jobs (27% of all jobs)
  • Philosophy of Science: 26.3 jobs (12.5% of all jobs)
  • 'Core' areas (Language, Logic, Mind, M&E): 17.9 jobs (8.5% of all jobs)
  • Marginalized groups & non-Western philosophy: 15.5 jobs (7.4% of all jobs)
    • Marginalized groups (race, gender, etc.): 11.3 jobs (5.4%)
    • Non-Western philosophy: 4.2 jobs (2%)
  • History of philosophy: 7.6 jobs (3.6% of all jobs)
  • Aesthetics: 2.2 jobs (1%)
  • Philosophy of Religion: 1.75 jobs (.8%)
  • Continental Philosophy: 1 job (.4%)

One interesting thing here is that in comparison to tenure-track jobs, advertisements for which dropped by nearly half relative to 2019-20, ads for non-tenure-track jobs did not fall nearly as much (there were 244 non-TT jobs in 2019-20). 

Publishing on controversial topics while TT?

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, a reader writes:

Is it (un)wise to write controversial stuff on the TT even if it’s published in good journals—theism/atheism, nihilism, socialism/libertarianism, materialism/idealism, etc.?

This is a good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. On the one hand, there is evidence that some philosophers are willing to discriminate in the workplace along ideological lines. On the other hand, I know of philosophers who have written on very controversial things--including philosophers who were the subjects of serious public controversy for what they wrote--who ended up getting tenure. What I don't know here is anything regarding the probabilities. Is writing on controversial stuff while on the tenure-track more likely to help or harm a candidate for tenure? I'm just not sure. Can any readers with experience in these matters weigh in? 

Spring sounds

Graduate certificates and the job market?

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

A number of PhD programmes offer various graduate certificates (many of which involve taking additional modules in other disciplines). I'm wondering, how significant are such certificates for the job market? How do admissions committees view such certificates?

I'm not familiar with these kinds of certificates, so I'm not entirely sure how to answer. Can any readers fill us in on the kinds of certificates that are offered? Bearing my ignorance here in mind, I guess my initial reaction is that I don't think certificates per se are likely to play a significant role for most jobs, as most hiring committees seem likely to be more concerned with your overall accomplishments as a researcher and teacher, rather than a certificate. But I can imagine possible exceptions. One case here might be a job in 'clinical ethics' (i.e. ethics consulting in health care), where a certificate in the area might help, particularly it involved experience in clinical contexts. Another case might be artificial intelligence, as jobs in this area are often interdisciplinary and interdisciplinary hiring committees may very well be concerned with the kind of breadth of background understanding that a certificate might involve. In any case, if certificates are helpful, my sense is that it is probably not the piece of paper that matters so much (in most cases) as the extra education the certificate involves.

But again, these reactions are admittedly grounded in real ignorance on my part of what kinds of graduate certificates are offered and how they might be relevant to jobs. So, do any of you with more experience in these matters have any helpful tips or insights to share?

Is it important for TT faculty to 'network'?

In the OP of the thread I recently posted asking readers to share any questions they may have about how to flourish on the tenure track to discuss in this new series, a reader asks whether it is important to '[get] to know academics outside your department (is this important? why or why not?).' These are really good questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Here are a few quick thoughts.

Notice, to begin with, that the reader's query is ambiguous between two questions:

1. Whether it is important to get to know academics outside of your department at your university.
2. Whether it is important to get to know academics at other universities (in the profession more broadly).

My sense here is that the answer to (1) is 'Yes and no', and that the answer to (2) is 'It depends on what kind of job you are in and what your priorities are. Let me explain why.

Handling troubles with dissertation supervisors?

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

I am about to go on the job market, and I did not enjoy working with my supervisor. I am therefore determined to avoid having to interact with them or rely on them for the next steps in my career, however I worry that such independence from one's supervisor, if one lacks a strong academic network beyond that of the supervisor, is impossible. I also worry that maybe some of my misgivings aren't about this person and their team in particular, but about certain power structures in academia altogether, and so perhaps I should just pursue a non-academic career. It would be great to hear from people who might have thoughts on any of this!

I suspect that troubles with dissertation supervisors or other dissertation committee members are not uncommon. So it might be good to hear from readers who have been through similar situations on how they handled it. It would also, of course, be good to hear tips from readers more generally. Although I admittedly haven't been through the kind of situation that the OP describes, here are a few quick reactions.

Teaching over-confident students?

In the comments section of my recent post on whether teaching is meaningful, Joe writes:

As a new philosophy lecturer, my enthusiasm for teaching declined significantly after I met a few students who greatly overestimated themselves. These students seemed to believe that they know many things and they must be right in most, if not all, of their beliefs, and behaved impolitely in class. I am not able to convince them as a math lecturer. Now I tend to only do "the bare minimum as a teacher", to avoid been frustrated or offended by these students, especially when my position is just temporary. But I know this may not be right. I wonder what are the thoughts of more experienced philosophy teachers?

This is a great question. Early in my career, when I was still obviously pretty young, I had students like this pretty regularly: students who seemed to think they knew everything, and challenged my expertise a lot, both in class and in terms of challenging assignment grades. Fortunately, as I've progressed further in my career, it happens a lot less. But regardless, it's a good question how to best handle these kinds of situations as a teacher. What do you all think?

Handling mistakes in published work?

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

How often do you all notice small mistakes in your published work? I have recently noticed one or two mistakes that rise above the level of a typo, but don't really ruin the rest of my article. As an example, I mistranslated a word and emphasized the word that was mistranslated. Another example in another article: I mistakenly characterized a potential identity between concepts in a footnote ("Most people think X, DESCRIPTOR Y, is the same thing as Z, DESCRIPTOR W." W and Y should be switched.) Ultimately, neither matters for the broader argument of the articles, but it just makes me feel like an amateur. It's especially annoying because I feel like if I had just put a little more care and attention into my work, I could have avoided this.

Any advice for dealing with such issues? Should I just accept that this is going to happen?

Good questions! I take it that most of us have published things with minor mistakes (not to mention some non-minor ones). It doesn't help much, I think, that publishers often give authors something like 48 hours to proof articles (and in some cases, entire books). I'll never forget that this once happened to me over Thanksgiving holiday here in the US. I was on holiday with family, and my publisher emailed me in the middle of the holiday to let me know that my proofs must be completed within a couple of days. Needless to say, I wasn't very happy--and what do you know: the final published manuscript ended up having several significant editing errors. Anyway, mistakes happen. The question is how to best handle them. One reader submitted the following reply:

Projects to (not) take on prior to tenure?

As I mentioned on Friday in response to a reader's request, I'd like to begin a new series here focusing on tips for tenure-track faculty. If you're currently on the tenure-track or otherwise have questions about how to flourish in a tenure-track position, please feel free to share your query in the comments section below that post. I'd like to begin the series today by addressing the first question posed by the reader who originally suggested the Cocoon focus more on these issues. The reader asks: what projects shouldn't one take on before tenure (e.g. maybe writing a book?)?

This is a very good question, as my sense is that people on the tenure-track can get themselves into difficult positions by either over-committing to things or by committing to the wrong kinds of things. We actually discussed the other week whether it makes sense to try to publish a book prior to tenure. Although only a few people chimed in there, the general sentiment appeared to be that trying to publish a book before tenure is risky--though, as one reader noted, the best thing to do here is to ask one's department chair (and, I would add, get their answer in writing). Here's one other reason to believe this to be really important: I actually heard of a case on social media recently where the reason given for a tenure denial (at an R1) was that the philosopher in question hadn't published a book. Indeed, in addition to asking one's department chair, cases like these suggest to me that it's vital to find out (and again, get in writing) exactly what is expected of one in progressing successfully toward tenure.

But this is just one example. Are there other projects that individuals on the tenure-track should--and, importantly, should not--take on while on the tenure track? I'm really curious to hear what readers think. But here are a few examples that occurred to me:

1. Editing a book: As gratifying as it may feel to edit a book, my sense is that this is in general probably not a great way to spend one's time prior to tenure. The reason why is simple: I've heard that editing a book takes a ton of time, but it probably won't carry much weight in a tenure-and-promotion decision. When it comes to evaluating the research productivity of a candidate for tenure, my sense is that T&P committees (both in departments, and equally importantly, at the college level) tend to focus far more on original research (i.e. authored articles and books). It simply doesn't seem plausible to me that editing a book is likely to be a positive difference-maker in terms of getting tenure. What it may do is take a great deal of time, impacting your ability to publish the kind of original research that T&P committees are actually likely to care about.
2. Publishing articles in edited collections: While there's nothing wrong with publishing an article or two (or three) in edited collections prior to tenure--particularly if your piece is in an edited collection with a notable press--my admittedly anecdotal sense is that some pre-tenure people go overboard here, primarily publishing in edited collections rather than in anonymously peer-reviewed journals. For what it is worth, my experience here is that in cases like these, T&P committees may have real reservations. Many publications in edited collections, after all, are 'invited' and it's not always clear just how anonymized the reviewing for such collections is. The mere fact that a piece is invited, after all, is itself a kind of 'thumb on the scale' that doesn't exist in the case of journal submissions--and peer-reviewers for pieces in edited collections may be inclined to be more supportive than reviewers for journals, assuming that if a piece is invited, that is a prima facie reasons to provide a favorable verdict. To be clear, I'm not asserting that this is the case (that is, that edited collections don't have the same peer-review standards as journals). What I am saying is that T&P committees--who a candidate for tenure has no control over--may have these kinds of reservations, for better or worse. My recommendation for anyone on the tenure-track, then, is to prioritize publishing in anonymously peer-reviewed journals. It's okay, I think, to publish a few pieces in edited collections. However, if most of your publications are in edited collections, I worry that it could come back to haunt you in a T&P decision.
3. Overcommitting to service: People in universities today tend to take service very seriously. As a tenure-track faculty member, my experience is that you will be nearly-constantly bombarded with requests to take on more service--to serve on this committee or that, or to even head some kind of institute. Alas, my experience here is also that as serious as people take service, one's service record is probably the least likely thing to 'make the difference' in an eventual tenure and promotion decision. Here, my experience is that T&P committees tend to care the most about research and teaching. If (depending upon the kind of institution you are at) your research and teaching records are sufficient for tenure and promotion, chances are you'll get a favorable decision--and conversely, if either your research or teaching record is insufficient for tenure or promotion, you may get an unfavorable decision. Service, in my experience, is sort of regarded like 'whip-cream on the top' of a dessert. T&P committees look favorable upon service, and you should almost certainly engage in some fair amount of service. The problem, though, is that it can be very easy to take on too much service. Again, my experience is that once you are on the tenure-track, you will get asked to do more and more service on a near-continual basis--and so, if you don't learn how to say no and 'jealously guard your time', you may very well find yourself in a situation where you lack sufficient time to publish and/or teach effectively...and these are the things that, far more often than one's service record, are likely to make a difference when it comes to tenure. 

Anyway, these are just three things that immediately occurred to me off the top of my head. What do you all think? Which projects should--and shouldn't--one take on before tenure?

External dissertation committee members?

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

PhD student here. What are reasons for and against having a dissertation committee member who is not part of your department? How do you go about inviting a professor from another department to be on your committee? Should you be working with them first/already, or at least be acquainted with them? What are the odds of their acceptance if you ask them? Are there any drawbacks to asking?

These are great questions. I imagine there are two different types of dissertation committee members who are not a part of your graduate department: committee members from other universities and committee members from a different discipline at your own university (e.g. psychology, political science, etc.). In both cases, I imagine there are two main reasons to want an external committee member like this: (1) to draw on their expertise, and (2) get another recommendation letter for the job-market. I'm not entirely sure what reasons there are against having external committee members, though, nor am I at all sure what the process looks like for seeking one out. Do any readers with experience in these matters have any tips to share?