The Philosophers' Cocoon

How does having an emeritus advisor look on the market?

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

How does it look for the job market to have an emeritus adviser? If there are any disadvantages, what exactly are they? And what should you do if your dissertation adviser is planning to retire and your department doesn't have any other senior faculty working in the area?

I wouldn't think it matters at all. In fact, I suspect that most search committee members aren't going to have clue whether they are retired/emeritus or not! As long as they actually supervise you and are able to write a strong letter, I don't see any disadvantages. But maybe I'm missing something?

What do readers think?

Resources for designing undergraduate paper topics?

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

I teach several undergraduate courses which require me to assign short papers. I have been struggling to come up with good topics for my students to write on, especially in areas of philosophy that I am less familiar with, but I am still required to teach. I don't want to make the assignments too easy nor too hard. And I want to make sure that AI will not do well on them and that students somehow go beyond what we discussed in class/lectures. Do you have advice/ know of resources that would be helpful in regard to designing paper topics?

Do any readers have any helpful tips?

Prepping for next year's job marker: polish dissertation or write other papers?

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

I'm currently writing a dissertation on a niche topic (in a popular AOS but the specific topic is underexplored). I am finding it a bit difficult to get work on the dissertation published (as I was helpfully warned about by my dissertation committee). I am on track to have 3 chapters done by the end of the semester.

I am going on the job market soon, and have two paths I could do down.

In general, I could spend less time polishing my dissertation and more time working on developing other papers that are more publishable. For example, I could try and write a fourth chapter on the same niche topic (and eventually try and get it published) or I could try and write a paper that is still in my AOS but less niche and more obviously suited for a generalist philosophy journal.

Any advice on which path might be better job-market wise?

I guess I don't think there are two paths here: one can do both simultaneously, and learning how to juggle multiple major projects is an important thing to learn how to do. All the same, if the OP feels like they have to choose one path or the other, the answer seems to me clear: publish. As the common saying goes, "A good dissertation is a done dissertation." Unless you're coming from a tippy-top ranked program, publishing may be the surest way to increase one's competitiveness on the market. Or so it seems to me. 

What does everyone else think?

'Protecting ownership' of a big idea?

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

How does one protect ownership of a potentially big idea?

How realistic is a fear that someone in the peer-review process will sabotage a paper and steal its idea if they think it is potentially a big idea?

I'm not sure about the peer-review process per se, but I think fears of idea theft aren't necessarily unrealistic or unfounded. I've not only had a few sketchy things happen to me in my career and known other people (including well-known senior people) who've reported similar things. There are also quite a few cases in intellectual history where people took other people's ideas and ran with them. One example is David Hilbert inviting Einstein to give lectures on general relativity at the University of Göttingen (while staying at Hilbert's house!) before Hilbert immediately tried to write and publish a paper to beat Einstein to the field equations. Not that any of us are the next Einstein or whatever, but the point is, there may be people out there who either take big ideas and run with them, either knowing that it's untoward behavior or (for whatever reason) thinking it's just fine to do.

Have other people found this to be a legitimate problem? And are there any ways to protect oneself against it? 

Personally, I've simply tried not to worry about it and simply get on with my work. But, in other fields such as Math and Physics, my understanding is that this is sort of what the ArXiv functions as--a place where one can post preprints to 'establish priority' as it were. Of course, we have something similar in philosophy (the PhilArchive), but I'm not sure that professional norms treat it the same way. What do readers think?

Which AI tools have you found useful for doing philosophy?

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

What AI tools have you found most useful for doing philosophy? What philosophy-related tasks have you found them most useful for? (I am asking because I use very few AI tools but want to start using more.)

Do any readers have any helpful tips?

Tips for seeking feedback on papers (for a philosopher in a non-Anglophone country)?

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

I am an early-career philosopher from a non-Anglophone country. After earning my PhD from an institution in my home country, I secured a tenure-track position here. The academic publication system in my country has its challenges; submissions are rarely blind-reviewed, and editors often desk-reject papers from junior philosophers due to concerns about citation potential. Consequently, I prefer to publish in English.

However, I face difficulties obtaining feedback on my manuscripts. The community of analytic philosophers here is small, making it hard to find individuals with the expertise to provide constructive feedback. Additionally, I don't have many personal connections with philosophers from Anglophone countries, and I feel it might be presumptuous to ask for comments on my drafts from those who don't know me. Currently, I submit my manuscripts to journals and wait for several months, hoping to receive helpful comments from reviewers.

Given these circumstances, I wonder if there are more effective ways to obtain feedback on my manuscripts. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Good question, and it would be great to hear from readers, particularly those in a similar situation. But here's one idea: why not use ChatGPT and/or other large language model AI for this? Although I share a lot of common worries about their use (and safety), I've heard that they can provide an excellent sounding board for philosophical ideas, as well as for refining writing. 

Do any readers have any helpful tips to share?

Tips for struggling with the social aspect of conferences?

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

I am a grad student and I find conferences difficult, particularly the social aspect. I have found myself getting lunch or dinner alone when I would have rather been able to talk to others. Do others feel this way? How do I better spend my time at conferences so that I can connect with others?

I empathize with the OP. Especially earlier in my career, I spent quite a few conferences feeling quite isolated in the ways they describe. As my career has gotten further along, I've simply gotten to know more people in the profession (often from past conferences), which has made it easier to find people to hang with at conferences.

But I do have a couple of suggestions:

1. Hang around in or around the room after conference talks, particularly ones before lunch or dinner. Oftentimes people will gather together chatting, which often involves into the people present "making plans" to do something after the talk. If you're in the vicinity and look interested (particularly if you make an effort to chat), people may introduce themselves to you and see if you're interested in coming along. It can be a bit awkward, especially if that doesn't happen, but I've found it can be a great way to get invited to food or drinks, which in turn are opportunities to get to know and talk at length with groups of people. Then when you see some of the same people at future conferences, you have a connection with them!
2. Consider reaching out to people before conferences by email to see if they'd be interested in grabbing a coffee. I'm not sure if I have ever "cold called" someone this way that I didn't already have some connection with (such as meeting them at a previous conference), but I have found it to be a good way to get to know "acquaintances" better and become more like "professional friends." I've developed quite a few friendships in the profession, and have found meet-ups like these to be among the things I look forward to the most when I go to conferences.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips for the OP?

Grappling with worries about teaching content in the current political environment?

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

I teach at a state school. In light of recent developments at the executive level, I am worried about potential blowback from teaching a class on the philosophy of race (in addition to content on race in my other classes).

I'm open to strategies as to how to minimize my exposure to negative attention. More fundamentally, though, I'm also considering not teaching this content until I get tenure. Assistant Professors are vulnerable, and I just worry that, at best, I won't get hurt by teaching this material, and at worst, I will get hurt.

I'm sorry the OP is grappling with this, and suspect there may be other readers with similar concerns. Do any readers have any helpful tips, experiences, or other insights to share?

How can we help you? (February 2025)

Now that it's been several months 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 (including in the age of A.I.)
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask away - we're here to help! 

Finally, a quick reminder of the following RULE: Please do not submit replies to other comments in this thread. It makes these threads unwieldy and difficult for me to keep track of which queries I've posted new threads on. If you'd like to respond to a comment in this thread, please wait until I dedicate a new post to the person's query myself and comment in that thread instead!

How (and when) to preemptively address objections?

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

I have a question about preempting objections in journal-length papers. It seems to me that, given the constraints of length, you can’t always argue for every premise that supports your central thesis in detail. Sometimes, you have to take certain premises for granted or only offer a brief justification for why you endorse them, in order to keep the paper concise. However, since most philosophical theses are controversial to some extent, it’s not uncommon for me to receive referee reports that say something like, "The argument relies on Thesis A, but there are obvious objections to Thesis A that should be addressed."

In response, I’ve tried preemptively addressing possible objections at the start of my papers, but then I often get feedback like, "The introduction is too long and makes the paper feel unfocused."

It seems that the root of the issue is that some referees agree with the basic premise of my paper, while others do not. So, I’m wondering: when, and to what extent, should I preemptively address possible objections to my paper’s central premise? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Good query. I haven't had this experience too often, but basically like the OP I sometimes find out in the peer-review process which objections probably need to be preempted, and I usually try to address those. Another thing to possibly do is to simply cite others who have defended Thesis A in the past, if this has been done, and then frame the argument as a big conditional, "If A, B, C, etc., then D" (which is sort of what they are anyway). A third thing I've learned to do is to not preempt objections in the paper's introduction, but instead later in the main body of the paper.

Do other readers have any other helpful tips? 

Host a Central APA watch party

Colin Marshall (University of Washington) writes in:

The Central meeting of the American Philosophical Association will run Feb. 20-22 and Feb. 27 - March 1. Following the successful 2+1 Campaign, the APA will be entirely online. The program committee also put extra thought into making it accessible to philosophers at all career states.

One of those features is especially citing: a low-cost Watch Party registration option. With a Watch Party, a department or an undergraduate philosophy club can watch cutting-edge, live philosophy together. Please consider asking your department to host one!

Philosophers for Sustainability has set up a page with some details here: https://www.philosophersforsustainability.com/watchparties/

(Also: the APA will also have several free public sessions. Anyone can tune into these without registering. You could even build a small watch party around them.)

How to react to mean reviewer reports?

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

How much weight should one give a mean review? One reviewer just tore into the paper and didn't have anything nice to say at all.

The second reviewer felt the opposite. While they weren't huge fans, they said they thought my thesis was ultimately convincing, and they said the reasoning was 'rigorous'. They provided quite a long review with lots of helpful feedback.

So, I'm not sure how much weight to give the mean review. I mean, the reviewer's comments are such that it's clear they considered my paper so bad that they were offended by it.

Unfortunately, I think this happens to virtually all of us. My spouse's dissertation advisor (in another academic area) is a seminal figure in their field, but told us that a couple of years ago they received a report saying that their paper must have been written by a grad student who has no idea how to do research. They laughed it off, saying that's just the way things go. Here's my story: a few years ago, I received two reports from a journal where one reviewer stated effusively that the paper stood to make a really important contribution to the area--with several detailed paragraphs explaining why--while the other reviewer wrote maybe five vague sentences that said that I don't have any idea what an argument is. Fortunately, the editor ignored them and rightly so. Other times, though, I've received mean reviews that convinced me that they were right: my paper was flawed and I needed to fix or abandon it.

So, how should one react to negative or mean reviews? In a similar context, noting just how many of his most influential papers were rejected, Jason Stanley once offered up some advice he'd heard from Robert Nozick: "He told me when he sent a paper out to a journal, he would first prepare a stack of envelopes, addressed to different journals. When the rejections came in, he would simply slip the paper into the next envelope." I think I heard something similar in grad school from another senior figure. But, while it's one way to go, I'm not sure it's the best answer. For, as noted above, at least in my experience, although it's sad that anonymized review can bring out the worst in people, sometimes you can learn important things from mean reviews. So, here's my answer to the OP: read the report and make up your own mind! If the mean review is more or less baseless, ignore it--but, if it makes good points, take them to heart, as difficult as it may be.

What does everyone else think?

How are "collected/published papers" dissertations viewed on the market?

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

How are 'collected/published papers' dissertations perceived on the academic job market, whether for postdocs or TT jobs?

The trend toward "collected papers" option for dissertations appears to have started way back in the early 2000s when I was a grad student. When I started grad school, the expectation was that a dissertation should essentially be a book. But, as programs became more concerned with ensuring that grad students successfully complete the PhD and do so in a reasonable amount of time, I saw a pronounced shift toward the collected papers approach. Given how common this is today, I suspect hardly any bats an eyelash toward it, so to speak. But, as I've always understood it, "collected papers" dissertations have generally been expected to comprise a coherent research program, rather than simply be a collection of disconnected papers. Is there now a "published papers" option that sets that expectation aside? If so, I do wonder whether it might be an issue on the market, as hiring committees may want some assurance that candidates have a coherent research program.

What do readers think, particular those who are more "in the know" that I am?

Getting asked to review papers for journals soon after providing authors feedback?

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

I am an early career philosopher currently in a postdoc. I have published enough in a niche subfield X that more established philosophers in TT jobs have reached out to me for feedback on their papers about X. I have gladly given feedback on those papers, either written feedback or over Zoom.

The thing is that the few times this has happened (3 times so far, from different people), I have received invitations to review those papers from top journals within a couple of months. I've never published in a top journal before. I usually accept the invitation, review the paper, and give positive, constructive feedback.

I assume that those established people are putting my contact information as a potential reviewer when submitting their paper. I don't see why a top journal would ask me to review those papers otherwise since I've never published there before. This feels weird because there's an obvious power dynamic at play here: I don't want to say no or give a negative review since the established philosophers would know it's coming from me. I feel like it would hurt my career.

Is this just common practice in the field? You send your paper to a bunch of people and then put them down as potential reviewers? Have I been approaching the peer review process all wrong? Or am I engaging in unethical peer reviewing because I feel like I cannot do otherwise, considering power dynamics? Am I being taken advantage of?

I just received another invitation to review, and it's been making me feel very anxious. I have had a bad year on the job market and received a few journal rejections over the past month. I am just not in a good place right now. And yet, I feel like I must accept this invitation because otherwise, those established philosophers will hold a grudge against me. I also feel silly for *not* doing what those people are doing and sending papers into the void of the peer review process instead of strategizing to make sure it gets in the right hands.

Any thoughts, advice, words of wisdom? Am I overreacting to this?

Wow, I've never heard of this sort of thing happening before. While there could always be a benign explanation (i.e. it could be a coincidence), the fact that it has happened repeatedly with papers the OP has recently provided feedback on seems dodgy to me. If they are attempts to game the system by circumventing anonymized review to obtain a favorable verdict, then I think I'm inclined to say the OP should decline the invites--since, as they themselves recognize, they feel a conflict of interest.

Fortunately, I'm not sure what the OP has to lose by declining, as it's not like journals tell submitting authors which reviewers were approached or declined. 

What does everyone else think?

How/when do you read things not directly relevant to research?

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

I am curious about how/when people read books that are not directly relevant to their research projects, especially for those who are at “teaching schools”.

There are always books that I want to read simply because I am interested in them, not because they are related to my ongoing research projects. For example, books by contemporary scholars always interest me as they represent some cutting-edge philosophical explorations. Also, there are those influential books in the history of philosophy (esp. in non-western traditions) that I would like to read.

However, I do not know when to read them. My teaching load is 3:3, and my research time is already limited. I use my research time to focus on my writing and on works I plan to engage with in my writing. And I do not even have enough time for finishing up the drafts. And the books I want to read seem not those to read before bed. So, when do people read those books that you are interested in but are not directly related to your research?

Good question! I have the same teaching load, and I read quite a few books "for pleasure"--though, interestingly, I often discover unexpected connections to philosophical questions that later informs my research. In brief, I read stuff like this before bed at night. Often, it's only for a half hour or 45 minutes or so--but I find it's a nice way to wind down to end the day. When I come across interesting stuff, I may pull out a highlighter and put a post-it note to flag a page for later, but that's not very taxing.

What about you? How/when do you read stuff not directly related to research?