The Philosophers' Cocoon

Doubts about continuing on in academia: to carry on, or not?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Questioning Their Career asks:

I'm close to finishing my PhD - I could be done this coming year if I so choose - and I'm not sure what to do next. I'm just not sure that I really like this work anymore. In the last month or so, I have absolutely dreaded the very thought of writing, and even just talking about philosophy, whether with professor, friends, or students, feels painful at times. I know this is a common reaction to finishing up a dissertation - none of my friends have liked their work by the end of it - and so this could just be the result of burnout. I also know that I now am closer to a professional philosopher than I've ever been, though. I have a much clearer sense of what the job is now than I ever did in the past. I don't think I should just dismiss my current antipathy because it might go away in the future.

I also currently have an opportunity to pursue a very different kind of work that I have good reasons to think I could find deeply meaningful and enjoyable, and my life on that path would be much easier if I started the pursuit sooner rather than later. I plan to finish my dissertation regardless, but my plans for going on the job market and all that would entail would seriously conflict with my ability to start on this alternate path.

This has all left me feeling deeply conflicted. I've poured so much of myself into pursuing this degree and a position in this profession. Being an academic feels like a deep part of me. I've also, historically, loved it. It's sometimes been bad just like any job, but that's never made me doubt that I should pursue it. It feels like I could be throwing something away needlessly because of a temporary setback.

I'm hoping for some insight into what sorts of factors have lead folks either to decide to carry on with academia despite some significant doubts or to leave the profession. I think hearing about others' experiences would help me to better understand whether what I'm experiencing now is a case of mere burnout or something more serious. Thank you all so much for any insight you might have!

I'm sorry to hear that the OP is going though this, and I empathize. It is a great and very understandable query, and I'm curious to hear from readers.

Norms for meetings and feedback with dissertation supervisors?

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

I'm wondering how much feedback others get from their supervisors and also how much they expect from you and your work. I've talked to others both in philosophy and outside, and I am very surprised to hear from a lot of people, mostly those from outside philosophy, that they get fairly little feedback, sometimes just once a year with committee meetings, and also often requiring fairly little revision at all. Are the expectations in philosophy much higher than other fields? Are they healthy?

Good questions! My sense is that there may be a lot of variance. I didn't meet terribly often with my dissertation supervisor, who was pretty content with me working independently at my own pace--and though I got helpful feedback from him, I don't recall it being a ton, and I was happy with this. On the other hand, I had another committee member (Jerry Gaus) who would give tons of feedback, which was great but could also be pretty overwhelming. But I'm curious to hear from others.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I started with meeting with my supervisor roughly every two weeks for the first two years. The supervision was mainly about honing my writing skills such that I a) write on topics my supervisor believes to be worth writing on, and b) write in a way that, roughly paraphrasing my supervisor, won't lead to a straight rejection from editors or reviewers upon finishing the first or second page of the manuscript. After the first two years, it's pretty much meet whenever I have a draft or revision of a manuscript ready, roughly every 1-3 months. I think compared to some other graduate schools, my supervisor (and others in the department) are rather hands on. I'm not sure whether this works for everyone, but it surely worked for me in terms of publication quantity and quality, and in finding a job. Philosophical writing is, from my own point of view, extremely difficult unless one is innately blessed or properly trained. (Hint: I don't belong to the former group, if such people exists at all.)

Any other readers care to weigh in? How much did you/do you meet with your supervisor, and what are their expectations/feedback like? Do you think the expectations are healthy and/or higher than other fields?

How can we help you? (May 2023)

Now that it's been nearly two months since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new thread.

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.

The publishing arms race for philosophy students

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

Can we have a thread on publication trends among philosophy students (including BOTH those already in PhD programs AND those yet to be admitted to PHD programs)? Apologies if this has already been discussed/over-discussed elsewhere, but I read in another thread about an applicant to PHD programs already having five publications prior to even beginning their PHD education. This strikes me as ridiculous but also, perhaps, understandable in light of the publication arms race.

So, a question (and one that I'm guessing has been entertained already on this website) is: what should we (can we) do about the publication arms race in philosophy? Perhaps it needs to be tackled in conjunction with the publication arms race in academia more broadly, but perhaps not...

Further, maybe some folks this [think] it's not a problem. If this is the case, I'd be curious to hear why. For my part, I'm tired and overwhelmed by the # of publications out there...even those that just relate specifically to my sub-sub discipline.

This is a good query. I personally know of several cases of students publishing multiple papers in good journals before even getting into a PhD program--and these days, my understanding is that, generally speaking, job candidates need publications to be competitive on the market, which has indeed led to a publishing arms race. Some job candidates these days may even have more publications than the people interviewing them!

What I'm not at all sure is what, if anything, can (or should) be done about this. Do readers have any thoughts?

"What Grad Students Wish They'd Known About Doing a PhD"

This is just a quick note that the excellent podcast, The Philosopher's Nest, has a new bonus episode up entitled, "What Grad Students Wish They'd Known About Doing a PhD." Here's the episode description:

In this second special bonus episode of The Philosopher's Nest, we've asked each of our last 12 guests the same question, and we've compiled each of these answers into a single episode.

We'll be hearing the following 12 Philosophy PhD students answer this question: "What do you know now that you wish you knew when you started your PhD?"

I'd be curious to hear what readers at the Cocoon think, including current PhD students but also those further along in their careers, both those who remained in academic as well as those who have left for jobs elsewhere. 

Do you wish you knew the same things as the guests interviewed here? If not, what do you wish you had known?

 

Do PhD students at unranked programs get a fair shake in peer review?

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

In the opinions of Editors of Journals (who decide on whether a paper moves to reviewers), what are the chances of a paper coming from Ph.D. students from "unranked" or not top 50 schools getting to the reviewers? That is, do editors automatically desk reject papers from grad students they haven't heard of or universities that aren't top 50? I ask because this seems to be the sentiment amongst the grad students from these "lower" ranked schools. And it seems to be supported by anecdotal evidence and conversations between students from varying schools and their prestige. If this is true, I doubt the editors of the "good" journals will admit to it, but worth asking.

I would by surprised if editors would automatically reject papers by anyone, and some journals practice triply-anonymized review, in which case no one knows the identity of a submitting author. On the other hand, some journals are only doubly-anonymized, in which case editors may know who the author of a submitted paper is--and it's always possible for bias to come into play when a person's identity is known. In any case, I wouldn't know how to gather good evidence one way or another about this issue aside from asking authors who are from unranked or low-ranked programs whether they get referee reports and/or publish in journals.

Do any editors or authors with experience here care to weigh in on this?

Norms for checking on the status of conditional acceptances?

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

Are the norms for emailing an editor to inquire about a submission's status any different for minor revisions/conditional acceptances than they are for initial submissions? Is it appropriate to email after just three months, say, if you still haven't heard back about a conditional acceptance?

I would think the norms are the same as for any submission. If three months have passed, you can always write to check on the status. But these are just my thoughts. 

What are yours?

Teaching asynchronous online in the ChatGPT era?

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

I am teaching an asynchronous online course next academic year. I am having a hard time thinking of ChatGPT-proof or ChatGPT resistant assignments for this class. ChatGPT seems like it is capable of doing all of the following:

-Essays
-Quizzes and exams (any question format)
-Discussion boards
-Reading response short essays
-Prompt ChatGPT and write about the responses

Are there any good options for assessments in asynchronous courses, given ChatGPT and other LLM AI bots?

Great question! I haven't ever taught online, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. However, at least when it comes to essays or short reading responses, my sense is that if one makes essay prompts sufficiently detailed, requiring students for example to engage with specific parts or passages of texts, it can be hard to produce a ChatGPT-written essay. There are also, of course, AI detectors that can help.

Does anyone else have any helpful tips or insights? It would be great to hear from readers in general, but particularly from people who teach asynchronous online.

Publishing a paper critiquing one's own work?

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

I've discovered a weakness in an argument I published recently. It would be very easy to write a paper pinpointing this weakness and strengthening the original argument to avoid it. Is this advisable? If so, how far should I go to hide the fact that I am the author of both papers from editors/referees?

Great questions! There was a great case of this recently, in which Hanno Sauer (Utrecht University) published a rebuttal to a paper he published just a year earlier critiquing the history of philosophy. 

Although one doesn't see this sort of thing very often, I personally think it's a nice reflection of intellectual honesty. We're after the truth as philosophers, are we not? So, if you think something you've published is mistaken in some way, why not critique it? Further, if you can use the critique to strengthen the original argument, that seems to me like all the more reason to do it!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Going on job-market after getting a TT job: how soon is too soon?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, Cam asks:

How soon is too soon to apply to another TT job after getting one? I was blessed with the good fortune of receiving a TT job. How long do I need to stay in the job before applying elsewhere? Even if I like it, there are jobs I'll like more: it seems like sending off a few applications per year would be the smart thing to do, when particularly desirable jobs for my profile come up. Would it be OK to move on after say only one year?

Fair question! We actually had a thread related to this back in January, and while we didn't receive too many comments, the general sentiment (which I share) is: it's your career--no one has a right to your employment. As another reader writes in a submitted follow-up comment to Cam:

On the one hand, you are always on the job market. Everyone should be open to changing jobs throughout their lives. In fact, each of us may need to at some point. But, on the other hand, do not think that you will endure yourself to your new colleagues by going on the market. In fact, if they get wind of the fact that you are applying to "more desirable" places it will just reinforce any thoughts they might have had that you were a flight-risk. So be aware of that. It is can hard to hide that you are looking for a job. One former colleague discovered that a junior colleague was on the job market because the photocopier jammed on the weekend, trapping pieces of her applications in the machine until Monday, when my colleague found them.

While I think it is generally unlikely that your colleagues will find out that you are on the market, it's a risk, but one that one can probably mitigate by exercising due care!

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Self-plagiarism, or building on previous ideas?

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

I am writing a short article for an anthology. Because of the length limit, I cannot fully develop some ideas and arguments. However, I still want to include many or even most of them. Will it be appropriate if I write a separate and longer paper later that basically includes the same ideas but develop them in detail? Or will this be a case of self-plagiarism? I think see some "famous" philosophers doing this sometimes, but I wonder what would be a good rule of thumb here.

At least offhand, this doesn't sound inappropriate, but maybe it depends on how much one develops the relevant ideas or arguments in the anthology chapter? I do know that many journals require authors to attest that papers are original and haven't been previously published "in whole or in part" (or some such). So, perhaps if the ideas are fleshed out in some detail in the anthology paper, then defending them again at greater length might run afoul of this standard?  

Another reader submitted the following reply:

Why wouldn't you just write another paper on the topic, without including "the same basic ideas"? Of course you can build on what you argue in this shorter paper, but why not write a new paper on the topic?

What do you all think?

Publishing on off-the-beaten track or mainstream topics?

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

I'm a grad student who works on a topic that some hardcore Western analytic people will think is weird/niche/not rigorous/not "real" philosophy.

This year I met someone at a conference who seemed to imply that EVEN IF I were to get a paper in this area published in a reputable journal, people would STILL be skeptical that what I do is worth taking seriously. They suggested that I try and publish on more "mainstream" topics to have a better shot on the job market.

But I would have thought getting any paper published in a reputable journal would have been pretty good evidence that what I do is worth taking seriously. How much weight should I give this person's advice?

FWIW, I would not change the topic of my dissertation to be more "trendy" or "mainstream." All I might do is put significant effort into writing an additional paper that is distinctly more "mainstream."

Excellent question! I think it may be a bit hard to say, without knowing more about the 'weird' topic in question. But when it comes to things like these I have three main thoughts:

1. All things being equal, you're probably going to do better work on things that genuinely interest you.
2. It's possible to have the best of both worlds: to publish on mainstream and niche topics.
3. Standing out on the job-market is important, and you can stand out by doing original/unique work.

Early in my career, the first year or two post-PhD, I worked on topics that didn't deeply interest me, but which I thought I might be able to publish in. Because I wasn't passionate about them, I struggled. As my career went along, I shifted to working on anything that interested me, mainstream or not--and I became much more productive. Finally, as a search committee member, my sense is that many candidates blend into each other by working on similar topics. It's hard to stand out in a job application pile, and working on something unique may help (though, of course, it may depend on what the topic is and how good/interesting the work is!).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

CV norms for different career stages?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, a junior faculty member asks:

What are the norms around what to include on your CV at different stages of your career? I recently got a TT job after a couple of postdocs and received my Ph.D. 2ish years ago. My CV still has a number of grad-school related things on it: dissertation abstract, coursework, TA appointments, grad student service, etc. I don't want to give the impression that I'm still at the grad student stage, but I also don't know whether any of these things are still helpful or important for giving a picture of me as a scholar.

Good question! I'd definitely take grad school stuff off once in a TT job, but beyond this I'm not sure. 

What do you all think the norms are for CVs at different career stages, and why?

 

Times of the year when peer review is quicker/slower?

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

Are there periods of time throughout the year when the journal peer-review process is either quicker or slower?

I suspect, at least anecdotally, that peer-review tends to be quickest during the summer, when many faculty do not have teaching duties, and slowest during the end of fall and spring terms (when people's grading loads are highest). But, of course, this is just anecdotal speculation, and moreover, there are substantial differences in when academic terms begin or end across different institutions, countries, and hemispheres. So, I'm not sure!

Does anyone have any helpful insights? It could be great to hear from journal editors and reviewers!

Women Philosophers in the Twitter ‘Manosphere’ (or, that light-hearted Hume Tweet that ended in r*pe threats)

This is a guest post by Daisy Dixon, Lecturer in Philosophy at Cardiff University

Content warning:

This post includes discussion of abusive language, misogyny, body-shaming, and rape threats. The Cocoon’s mission is to be a safe and supportive forum that focuses on issues faced by early-career philosophers. We do not believe that this precludes all discussion of sensitive topics like these, and we are hosting this discussion in the belief that a safe and supportive discussion of the author’s story is both possible and a good use of this forum’s unique space in the profession, and for the author. Readers who may be sensitive to the above elements, please take note. Also please note that the blog moderators (Marcus and Helen) will moderate discussion carefully to ensure that discussion abides by the blog’s mission.

--

Having recently secured my first permanent post in Philosophy at Cardiff University (something I still cannot quite believe), two weeks ago I excitedly posted on Twitter a familiar meme: ‘What People Think Philosophers Look Like/ What We Actually Look Like’. For the respective clauses, I posted a photo of David Hume – resplendent in lace and wig – and then a photo of myself, casually dressed wearing a leather jacket and sunglasses.

Not that this Tweet needs spelling out, but the point I was making is that philosophy looks different nowadays – basically a version of the hashtag ‘#thisiswhataphilosopherlookslike’ – and this is worth celebrating.

The Tweet was also a bid to dispel stubborn beliefs about who can do philosophy. As Helen Beebee’s and Jennifer Saul’s 2021 SWIP report shows, along with other under-represented groups in philosophy (e.g., people of colour, LGBTQIA+ and those with disabilities), we still have a way to go to reach equal gender representation in academia – with women comprising 30% of permanent staff in UK philosophy faculties. So, part of the Tweet was to raise awareness that the landscape is changing, albeit slowly.

However, within an hour, the Tweet blew up.