The Philosophers' Cocoon

Unhappy after tenure?

In our newest "how can we help you?", an anonymous professor writes:

I have tenure but I am not happy where I live.

I won the academic lottery after years on contingent contracts, and then I finally got on the TT and received tenure, yay!! I love my job--I have lovely students and great colleagues (don't take a good work environment for granted). But, I don't like where I live. There are limited options for my spouse. I don't like how car-dependent the place is. I do not like the climate, which is getting more and more extreme due to global warming.

Before the pandemic I felt that my love of the job outweighs the not loving the location. But during the acute phase of the pandemic I got a huge bout of homesickness for my home town. Also, I got worried being so far away from my parents who aren't getting any younger. It would not take many hours and I need to take a long flight to reach them.

The pandemic worsened my sense of homesickness and increased my desire for more geographic control. It's like I'm realizing and now only fully coming to terms with how much I (and my partner) have sacrificed for my academic career.

How do you deal with this? Moving to a place that would fit my criteria of e.g., physical proximity to my parents is close to impossible given how the job market is structured. But I'm also not quite willing to go alt-ac. So, maybe what I need is a psychological shift? Any perspective on this welcome, of people who learned to love where they lived or tips to feel more at home.

This is a wonderful query, and I'm hoping we may be able to help the OP work through their situation by hearing from others. Are you (or were you) unhappy after tenure? It might be good to hear from readers on this, as I suspect that many early-career people conceive of a TT or tenured job as the "promised land"--but, as the OP notes, it's not always that simple. One can be lucky and privileged to get a job like this, and yet still be (reasonably) unhappy for a variety of reasons, such as the job or institution "not being all it's cracked up to be" or (as in the OP's case) due to location. Second, if you are (or were) unhappy, how have you dealt with it? Did you make a career change of some sort, or instead try to make a psychological shift? Either way, how did it work out? Finally, based on your experience, do you have any specific tips or advice for the OP?

Publishing to get a teaching job w/o 'running dry'

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

I am an advanced graduate student in a good, but not elite, program. My goal would be to land a teaching oriented job, not a research focused job. I have over 5 papers in good, but not excellent, journals.

Here's my question. I am plugging away at my dissertation, which is composed of 3-4 stand alone papers. I could submit two of them right now for publication. But, should I do that, I worry I will have nothing new to send out after I land a permanent job, should I be so lucky. Of course, I will have new ideas for papers in the future. But I am so focused on my dissertation right now that I would need a good bit of time to get back in a position to publish new work. So, should I sit on my dissertation chapters, and so have 'rounds in the chamber' when/should I land a permanent job, or, should I just publish as much as I can now, looking as good as possible for the market, but risk 'running dry' after/if I land a job? I understand that maximizing my number of publications isn't necessary or even beneficial for certain teaching jobs, but the idea of sitting on papers that are ready to go is a little annoying, to say the least.

This is an excellent question. Another early-career reader submitted the following reply:

I would submit everything right away and not worry not much about future lack of paper ideas. The review process can be long; a lot can happen after you submit that adds up to the wait. For instance, you might be rejected by several places before landing an R&R.

I entirely agree, but let me add some detail as to why...

Incentivizing attendance in large lecture courses

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

I'm teaching a massive (~300 student) course this fall and looking for tips about how to incentivize attendance. Of course I will make the class as interesting, fun, and interactive (small group discussions/activities, etc.) as possible. But I'm not sure this is enough. How can I encourage students to come to class in ways that don't overburden the TAs?

This is a good question. I haven't taught a large lecture course in over a decade, so unfortunately I don't have any helpful tips to share. But it would be great to hear from readers who do!

Participate in a survey on non-academic careers (guest post by the APA non-academic careers committee)

The APA Non-Academic Careers Committee is seeking input and feedback on how it can better serve philosophers in and out of the profession. To this end, the Committee has created a survey: 

https://delaware.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3JCIC4U196id4ma

While the Committee is particularly interested in hearing from philosophers who have left academia or are considering doing so, we would like to invite philosophers at all career stages and types to respond to the survey. 

Preliminary results from a prior version of this survey have been useful. We look forward to receiving additional feedback from new survey participants! 

- Lynn Chiu on behalf of the Non-Academic Careers committee

Tips for progressing toward tenure at an R1?

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

"Yay!" I tell myself. "I did it!" After many job-market cycles I managed to get a TT job at a R1 school. It's what I wanted. Having said yes to half a dozen collaborations throughout the years and twisting my research to fit the goals and visions of three research projects (through as many postdocs), I made it. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I am pretty happy. But as I'm beginning my first semester "on the clock", I find myself staring at a "timeline to tenure calendar" that I worked up: a 200-or-so column table with each "week" over the next four years taking up one column.

I feel as though I have at least two options. First, I can stick to the spaghetti-&-wall method, where I keep juggling through a bunch of research collaborations that are all vaguely tied together and hope enough sticks to make a coherent case for tenure (especially to an outside letter writer). Or, I can prune off those that I'm less invested in, clear the plate I have in front of me, and drill down into one or two areas within which I might plausibly, to an outside letter writer, be seen as a "field leader."

Going with the first tried-and-true method would likely yield a large number of publications and maybe a grant or two, but at the perceived risk of not becoming a top-tier or renowned expert in any single issue or cottage industry or sub-field. Going the second route might yield fewer deliverables, but might also allow me to develop that "expert-flair". Of course, there's also the risk that I'll choose poorly, or never develop that "expert" reputation (what makes one an "expert" anyhow? Is that even something that tenure letter writers really care about or am I just assuming that?). I'm also sure that there are other, perhaps better, options that I'm not considering.

To file it all down to a few points: are there good (better?) strategies for organizing or prioritizing one's projects in an effort to maximize one's chances for tenure? What do tenure letter-writers really look for? Is this just all a species of impostor syndrome? Do / should people "change" their workflow once they're "on the clock"?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers who are in the know. Although I don't work at an R1, based on what I've heard from others my recommendation would be for the reader to ask the powers-that-be in their department and university exactly what is expected for tenure (e.g. departmental tenure committee members, college deans, etc.) before setting on a strategy. Here's why I say this...

Does hybrid conferencing "degrade" the conference experience?

I am grateful to the APA for their decision to implement (at least as a test) the proposal that Philosophers for Sustainability launched to have one of the divisional conferences go virtual. They agreed to implement our proposal starting 2025.

I think this is a step in the right direction. Academic flying culture excludes many people from conference participation and is also harmful for the environment. Our individual actions alone will not solve the climate crisis, but can mitigate it. 

So it was with some disappointment that I saw the letter for the CFP for the APA Pacific divisional conference in San Francisco next year which says up front that videoconferencing and remote participation won't be available. Note that between that time and the implementation of 2+1 there will be two years that people will not be able to attend an APA remotely, except for a few exemptions. Here's the relevant excerpt:

Up front: Videoconferencing and remote participation are not available

While it might seem easy in theory to offer remote presentation to anyone who requests it, the technological logistics of doing so would be complex and costly for a number of reasons. Meeting rooms would have to be equipped with extensive A/V packages and hard-wired internet connections that are not standard in most hotel meeting rooms, which would cost tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum. Moreover, if too many participants present remotely, not only will the overall in-person meeting experience be degraded, but also the APA will incur large financial penalties for failing to meet its contractual obligations to the meeting hotel. As a result, offering remote presentation on a large scale would make the entire meeting unviable.

For these reasons, remote presentation will be offered in only two situations: government travel restrictions and accessibility accommodations. More details may be found on the APA website.

Tips for teaching early-morning classes?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an early career reader asks:

I am in a teaching-heavy VAP (4/4) and am scheduled to do lots of morning teaching this coming year. I would really appreciate hearing from others who have taught early classes (i.e. 8-8:30 start times) about any strategies they've developed precisely for teaching in this early morning (e.g. is there a style of in-class activity you found worked esp. well for early classes?)

Class size is 25 students.

This is a great question. Anyone have any helpful tips?

How can we help you? (August 2022)

Now that it's been 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.

Adding grants to papers

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

Suppose I have a grant starting, say, today. Suppose I have a paper at its final stage before publication. Should I add the grant to the paper (assuming the paper topic is aligned with the grant topic)? I have no idea what the answer is... Please chime in!

To add, I also have no idea whether the grant info needs to appear in a minimal number of papers.

I've never had a grant like this (only internal grants for particular projects), so I don't know the answer. Anyone with experience with grants have any insight?

Best stepping stone to a research job?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, 'Stepping Stone' asks:

[I]f one is looking to land a research job, is it better to apply from 1) a teaching/lecturer job at a more prestigious university or a 2) research job from a much less prestigious school?

This is an interesting question, and I'm curious to hear what readers who are 'in the know' think!

Job-market discussion thread (2022-23 season)

As many readers of the Cocoon may recall, each job season the Cocoon hosts two job-market threads:

1. A job-market discussion thread (the present thread): to commiserate about the market, discuss particular job ads, the market in general, questions about application materials, interviewing, alt-ac opportunities, and so on.
2. A job-market reporting thread: to post news about interviews, on-campus visits, offers, rejection notices, etc.

Although I recognize that it is very early in the year, given that the academic job-market begins to ramp up in August, I thought it might be good to post this season's discussion thread earlier than in the past. After all, readers who will be heading out on the market may already have questions you'd like to discuss (about application materials, the application process, etc.). So, please feel free to bookmark and visit this thread throughout the job season to commiserate with others, or just to see what others are talking about! 

Because someone always asks, "Why two threads?", there are a couple of reasons. First, some people may want to discuss the market but not stress over daily news regarding which jobs they still do or don't have a chance for. Conversely, others may not want to discuss the market but just want news about the jobs they've applied for. Second, these threads can get very long already, so I think the best way for people to get the information they want in a well-ordered format is simply to have two threads.

A few final notes:

• This thread (the post you are reading right now!) will be the home of this year's job-market discussion thread. So, if you want to discuss this year's job-market, just comment below.
• Please reserve job-market news (i.e. interviews, on-campus visits, hires, etc.) for the job-market reporting thread, which I will open sometime in September.
• A 'permalink' to this thread will be on the upper right of blog's right sidebar for the rest of the job season. -->
• Because of Typepad's functionality limitations (which only permits 100 comments before starting a new comment page), readers may elect to bookmark each new page of comments as each new page emerges. I recognize that it can be frustrating to scroll through page after page to get to new comments, and I think this is probably the best solution given Typepad's functionality limitations.

Finally, as always, readers are asked to please bear in mind the Cocoon's safe and supportive mission. I try not to moderate with too heavy of a hand, as I don't like to squelch reasonable discussion and debate. I also realize that the job-market can be an emotional roller-coaster, and that passions can run deep on job-market issues. But the Cocoon has always been intended to be an unique oasis of sorts: as a refuge for early-career philosophers to support each other and discuss issues related to their careers and the profession in productive, supportive way. So, I will moderate carefully to ensure that these threads remain a welcome environment for everyone--and, of course, if anyone has any concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

All that being said, discuss away!

Constructively situating papers in the literature

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

I have some questions about writing and situating oneself in the literature. Most commonly, I see people situate themselves by arguing against others, and I get that people disagree. But I’m wondering if there’s more positive ways to situate oneself in the literature without needing to be on the offence, and instead builds off of others more. What are your thoughts on this matter? And if you have any papers you think do this well, it would be nice to see them too.

This is an interesting question, and I've love to see some examples. I actually tend to favor constructive philosophy myself, as I tend to think it's harder to build new things than to tear down arguments other people have given. But I'm also curious exactly what the reader has in mind--that is, what exactly would count as "building off of others more."

I guess that when I think of my own papers that might be said to do this, the paper that most immediately comes to mind is my 2013 paper, "A New Theory of Free Will", as in that paper I basically combine a bunch of previously defended hypotheses from metaphysics, philosophy of mind, computer science, and physics to defend a new model of reality and "libertarian compatibilist" theory of free will. Another one of my papers that seems mostly constructive to me is my 2015 paper, "How to Rationally Approach Life's Transformative Experiences", which basically argues that if L.A. Paul is right that transformative experiences challenge the dominant conception of rational decisionmaking in our culture, then we ought to adopt a different approach to our lives that involves cultivating resilience rather than control over life-events.

Are these the kinds of things the reader has in mind? In any case, I'd love to hear other examples from readers! Following the OP's query, feel free to give examples of your own papers (but also, do feel free to give examples of other people's work that you think is particularly constructive).

Tips for teaching non-argumentative texts?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, G asks:

I wonder if people can share some helpful tips to teach non-argumentative texts.

I am trained as an analytic philosopher, usually starting my intro class with some basic concepts in logic and arguments. My classes also usually focus on analyzing and evaluating arguments. When I try to include some non-western philosophies, some materials I encounter are not in the argumentative style. They tend to tell some stories or describe some worldviews rather than arguing for philosophical positions.

I tried some active learning activities, mostly on how to develop interpretations of those texts. But I find that my students were less interested in those discussions. Can people share some tips to approach those non-argumentative texts (especially for an intro course that focuses a bit more on skills than contents if that makes sense)?

Interesting query. Another reader submitted the following reply:

G, what Eastern texts are you using? By my lights, there are plenty of arguments in Eastern Philosophical texts: e.g., Buddhist arguments against a persisting self, Mohist arguments about the moral superiority of impartiality, Mengzi's arguments against egoism, various skeptical arguments in the Zhuangzi. Sure, there's also the sort of content you describe, but there's nothing wrong with focusing on the part of the Eastern tradition that you're most comfortable teaching (i.e., arguments), especially in an intro class! For an introduction to Chinese Philosophy that takes an analytic argument-focused approach, check out JeeLoo Liu's Introduction to Chinese Philosophy.

This seems helpful, and coheres with my own experience. When I teach non-western philosophy, I often (but not always) select pieces where there is some sort of explicit or implicit argument--or alternatively, when I used readings that primarily tell a story or worldview, I normally try to get my students to focus on interpreting and evaluating the philosophical 'point' of the story or worldview. But I'd love to hear tips from readers, particularly readers who specialize in non-western areas. 

Do any of you have any helpful tips to share?

Summer sounds

Is it ethical to post preprints?

Liam Kofi Bright, Remco Heesen, and I have argued for transitioning toward a crowdsourced approach to peer review. Yet, one common concern raised to our alternative approach is that it would effectively undermine anonymized review--the main mechanism in our current system for mitigating bias in favor and against authors on the basis of knowing their identity. I honestly appreciate this concern, though I still think the overall benefits of moving toward a hybrid peer-review model like that used in math and physics (which combines a crowdsourced approach with traditional journal review) are likely to outweigh the costs. 

But regardless, I recognize that not everyone agrees that peer-review should change, and this has gotten me thinking a bit about the ethics of particular actions surrounding these issues. For example, one thing that advocates for change might do is to post preprints on PhilArchive or PhilSci Archive, normalizing the practice. But, is it ethical to do this?  Last week, I asked whether journals or referees care whether authors post preprints--and I'm glad I did. For, as Jake Nebel chimed in, at least one philosophy journal, Ethics, does care about this. Their official editorial policy for Submission Eligibility reads:

We ask that authors not post or publish online manuscripts that they have submitted or will be submitting to Ethics, as doing so may compromise the anonymous review process or may disqualify the submission on grounds of prior publication.

So, I'm curious about a couple of things. First, irrespective of whether other journals have a policy like this, is it ethical for authors to post preprints--either on an online archive or on their person website--prior to journal submission (given the manner in which it might compromise anonymized peer review)? If it's not ethical, what alternative steps for promoting reform to peer review (for those of us who advocate for reform) are ethical? I'm really curious to hear what everyone thinks!