The Philosophers' Cocoon

Fruitfulness versus productivity--thoughts for writing what you want to write

What do we want to achieve when we manage our time better? I do not think that productivity should be the aim per se. Productivity, especially in tenured academics, is overrated, and there is already so much to read. The world isn't worse off if a tenured academic publishes a bit less in a given year. Productivity is also overrated in untenured academics, I think, but here lurks collective action problem. In a job market where people have to come with heavier CVs, you have no choice but to be productive. 

Still, even in that context, I think the focus on productivity is misguided. Productivity plays into ableist narratives, neglecting how much variety there is between people in getting various academic tasks done. It also frames people as being a means to their employer's or (in the case of job market), their future self's end.

It is more helpful to think management in terms of fruitfulness. Getting your projects to fruition, flourishing as a human being who is also an academic, sowing the seeds of later projects. Sometimes you do a lot of work, but it doesn't immediately turn into a payoff. A writing project (paper, book etc) can be done in a matter of weeks, or years. 

This excellent blogpost by University of Edinburgh's chaplain Harriet Harris probes this distinction between fruitfulness and productivity. As Harris writes "imagine if trees had been forced to produce apples non-stop. We can make nature do such things for us – turning dairy cows into continual milk-producing machines, for example. We can treat ourselves this way too, expecting endless productivity."

But that's not a sustainable way to live (in fairness, the years I spent on the job market this was exactly how I lived). You cannot treat yourself this way for years on end without burnout. So first and foremost, it is helpful to step away from a narrow focus on productivity toward feasibility and goals you want to accomplish without being burnt out.

To this end, I propose the following tips (you can read an early version, slightly shorter, of this in a series of tweets here). They are not tips to be more productive, per se, but to

• accomplish more what you want to accomplish, and hence reduce frustration
• give you enough time for projects that otherwise go on the back-burner forever, or projects that simply help you to flourish and thrive as an academic though less urgent than others
• feel less stress or the sense you're forever running behind.

How can we help you? (December 2021)

I'm taking the next few days off for some much-needed rest during the Thanksgiving holiday. In the meantime, now that it's been a couple of 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:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire 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!

Contacting EICs in peer-review delays?

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

A question about journal etiquette. I have a paper that has been under review at a journal for nine months. For the past two months, I have not been able to get any response from the managing editor about the status of my paper. My question is: is it ok to write to one of the chief editors of the journal about this? Also, the journal is triple-blind, but as far as I understand that applies to the area editor who is handling the submission.

Good question! Another reader submitted the following reply:

I got a paper off the backlog at [redacted], where it had been stuck for nine months with no response from the ME, by emailing someone from the editorial board. I tried the chief editor first, but they had not responsive either. But the editorial board member was very apologetic and got me a decision in a week. Extreme times call for extreme measures, I think. My only caveat: be extra polite if the CE works in your area or it's a journal you need to publish in at some point (I purposely chose a board member as far removed from my area as possible).

I'm curious what other readers think. Do any of you have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

How to know if you're a good referee?

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

I referee more and more for journals, and there is this question at the back of my head everytime I send a report: How do I know if I do a good job as a referee? Or: What are good signs that you do a good/bad job as a referee?

A bit of context: When I send my reviews to editors, I usually also send them a message saying "if you need more information, or if my report is unclear, please let me know". I never hear back from the editors. When authors get an R&R, they are not dismissive of my comments, but this is hardly good evidence (as an author, being nice is part of the game!). We've all had experiences with bad referees. How am I supposed to know I'm not one of them? Maybe getting new invitations to referee from the same editors is a good sign. But perhaps they don't even keep track of this.

Good questions! In my experience, one of the best indications of one's performance as referee are how one's reports compare to other referees' reports. First, some journals have the (very good) practice of sharing all referee reports when an editorial decision is rendered not only with the author, but with other reviewers. As a reviewer, I've often found this to be very eye opening. On some occasions, I've seen that my worries were shared by other referees--which gave me some independent evidence that I had raised the right concerns about the paper. On other occasions, my reports seemed better than the other reports, giving more detailed feedback. However, on still other (thankfully rare) occasions, other reports led me to wonder whether I did a good job with my report (as they either understood something in the paper better than I did, etc.). For these reasons, I think the practice of journals sharing referee reports with all of a paper's referees is a great practice, and I only wish more journals did it (as in my experience, very few do). Finally, of course, sometimes journals share other referees' comments (or the author's reply to them) when authors submit revised papers for revise-and-resubmit verdicts. I find this to be really helpful for the same reasons. Other than this, though, my sense is that all one really has to go by is one's own internal sense of whether one is doing a good job.

What do you all think? What indications do you think a referee can have that they are doing a good job? And, are there things that journals should do in order to give one a clearer picture of how good of a job one is doing?

Informing your department you're on the market?

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

I am in a TT position in a R1 university in a city where I know no one (also bc of CoViD). I am not unhappy, but another R1 university in a city where I have very deep roots has recently advertised an associate prof. position. It is unlikely that they will choose me, since I am not yet tenured, but it would be foolish for me not to apply. Should I mention it to the head of my department and my colleagues here? How?

My sense is that a lot of people in TT jobs apply for jobs elsewhere, and that it is probably a mistake to let your home department know. First, as the OP notes, the chances of getting a job elsewhere are low (particularly if it is a tenured position, as is the case here). Second, letting your department know could bias people at your institution against you, leading them to think, "So-and-so really doesn't want to be here." Although I'd like to think this wouldn't effect how people would treat you (including in tenure and promotion), you never know what the effects will be. Finally, I just don't think an employer has any right to know that you are looking for work elsewhere. It's your career, not theirs--and I think you probably only have an obligation to let them know once you have accepted an offer elsewhere.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Also, I'm very curious to hear what people think of a TT Assistant Prof applying for a tenured Associate position. Is there any realistic chance of a non-tenured person receiving a tenured appointment? I would have thought not, given how protracted the entire tenure process is (i.e. going through a department committee, college committee, Dean, Provost, and Board of Trustees). I seem to recall hearing that it is possible, but if so, I'm curious how it works and just how good an untenured candidate would need to be for this to happen.

The dissertation prospectus

A reader writes in:

I wanted to see if you have posts on the cocoon about the prospectus. I'm currently writing mine and I wanted to see what people think about it--e.g., it's purpose, the expectations, the features that make it good, etc. 

Interestingly, I don't think we've ever had a discussion of the dissertation prospectus before. My own sense is that the prospectus is primarily intended to evaluate whether one has a viable dissertation topic--one that can fly, as it were, even if you still need to work a lot out. And of course the prospectus defense can help to isolate potential problems and what you'll need to do in the rest of the dissertation. Beyond this, I'm not sure. What do you all think? I actually attempted the prospectus twice, so allow me to share my experience there, as some readers may find it helpful.

How do search committees sift through apps?

In our job market discussion thread, a reader asks:

Does anyone know how search committees typically sift through applications? Does the search committee look at applications before the deadline? Does every member of the search committee look at every application, or do they divide up applications before making a first cut?

These are great questions, and I expect many job candidates would be interested in hearing answers! Any search committee members willing to weigh in? In addition to answering the OP's questions, it might be great to hear a little as well from search committee members on how they actually read and evaluate apps. For example, how long do you spend, on average, on a candidate's file? Which parts of the file do you look at first, and what do you focus on? What matters to you most when deciding who to interview or place in the 'don't interview' pile? Etc.

Inferential model on women in philosophy

Katharina Nieswandt (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Concordia University) alerted me to this new study on the gender ratio in philosophy. To the best of the researchers' knowledge, it provides the first inferential-statistical model of the causes of gender-inequality in the profession. Their primary findings?:

Overall, our findings provide (of course defeasible) evidence for the claim that students choose philosophy because they perceive a good fit between philosophy, qua requiring brilliance, and themselves, qua being brilliant, combative, systematizing, and indifferent towards “worldly rewards,” like family-life and money.

Future research should investigate whether these factors are causes of the gender gap or perhaps partly the result of a self-serving, stereotypical image that philosophy students develop after choosing philosophy as their major (perhaps reinforced by the discipline’s culture).  More research is also needed of the relations between combativeness, systematizing, and the sense of belonging in philosophy:  Is combativeness really the driving factor behind gender differences on these variables, as our research suggests?  In addition, it would be important to test to what extent our results generalize to comparisons between philosophy and other fields than psychology.

Philosophical readers will ultimately be most interested in interventions. Foundational research rarely licenses pragmatic steps directly, of course, but the following two inferences appear justified:  First, there probably is no quick fix for philosophy’s unequal gender ratio, since that might be part and parcel of a general social perception of certain abilities, character traits and life priorities as female or male.  Second, pre-university interventions might be necessary, given the well-replicated finding that gender stereotypes develop early...

Using rec letters for 'internal' job apps?

On Twitter, a philosopher by the name of 'Julia' (Lecturer, Toronto) asks:

Job application etiquette question: is it considered bad form to use a letter of recommendation written by a person who works at the institution to which one is applying?

I'd be very surprised if this were considered bad form, as I would have thought that recommendation letters are generally thought of as 'all purpose' documents (i.e. the recommender supporting your candidacy for jobs in general). But I've also been surprised many times at the kinds of things that people can object to, and I also tend to think that when any question arises in one's mind, it can't hurt to ask! What do you all think? Would a search committee have any problem with this? Should Julia ask the letter writer if they are okay with it?

Norms for applying to TT jobs

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

I have a question about norms around applying for tenure-track jobs. From talking to professors, I've heard of two basic views (which I'm sure admit of gradation). On the one hand, I've been told that I should not apply to any job if it is not the case that, were they to be the only job offer I received, I would definitely take it. In other words, according to this restrictive view, applying to a job basically commits one to accepting an offer (unless one rejects it to accept another offer).

According to other professors, it's acceptable to apply to jobs even if it's not the case that, were it to be your only job offer, you would accept it. This view takes a much more permissive perspective on applying and learning about jobs along the way.

I'd rather take the permissive view, but I also don't want to seem like a nube. More importantly, if it's a norm violation to interview for a job and then decide that it's not right for me (even if I don't have other offers), then I don't want to do that! I have a good idea of how the non-academic job market work, but I also accept that there may be special considerations in the academic world (such as paying for fly-outs, etc).

This is an interesting query. Another reader submitted the following response:

[T]he restrictive view is absurd. You should apply to any job you feel like applying to. You will create only marginally more work for the people on the committee. But either your file is worth looking at or it isn't. If it isn't, you won't have wasted much of their time. It if is, then you haven't wasted their time at all. In either case, you've done no wrong. And they're being paid to read your application. Why apply to a job that you *know* you won't take? Negotiating leverage for other jobs. As a matter of policy at many instituions (my own, my former employer...), a department chair or dean can offer the choicest goodies (extended sabbaticals, spousal hiring, salary beyond your pay scale, etc...) only if you have a second offer. The market thus incentivizes applying to jobs that you will not accept. It's a collective action problem, but as a job-seeker, let the better-off people forgo self-interest to solve the problem. Look out for you. I can only imagine one of your competitors recommended the restricted view to you. That person isn't looking out for you.

My own thoughts are roughly this: I don't know how you can know with any confidence that you will accept a job before applying. Why? Well, there is so much that you can learn in the interviewing process, including the on-campus visit (if you get one). You may or may not gel with people in the first-round interview or on campus interview. You might find that the university's culture and norms don't quite fit your expectations. You might find during the on-campus visit that you wouldn't like living in the city or region. And so on. I was always told by my mentors that the search process is a 'two-way street' in which search committees are trying to figure out whether they should hire you, and for you in turn figure out whether the place is a good fit for you. Of course, you probably have some idea of these things before applying--but this at most seems to me to support the 'permissive view' in the OP. So, my thoughts are: if there's any realistic possibility you would accept the job, apply. The only thing that seems to me morally dicey is applying to jobs you are certain (or near certain) you would not accept. That seems to me to not only waste a committee's time, but also harm other candidates who would (or might) accept the job were it offered to them.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Incomplete grades & temporary faculty

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, MS writes:

How should people with temporary positions deal with teaching demands that extend beyond a particular course’s contract? Suppose I am contracted to teach PHIL 101 in the Fall term, and there is a student who (for legitimate reasons) needs to defer some of their term work until the following term. My inclination is just mark the stuff, since I’m invested in my students. But I also feel like there is something exploitative in having that even minor burden fall to temp workers.

This is a really good question. I imagine there are a few different situations where this can arise. First, one could be in a temporary postdoc or visiting position, and then leave for another institution before the student is able to finish the work they need to finish the Incomplete. Alternatively, one could be in a part-time adjunct position where a student needs to finish up work after the course of your contract is over (i.e. during the summer months). I agree that there seems to be something really unfair about expecting people who are no longer getting paid for a course to have to do substantial amounts of work like this after the term is over (or after they have left the university for another institution). But I also imagine that, insofar as Incompletes are covered in faculty handbooks and the like, they are nevertheless considered by the institution to fall under the terms of your contract. So unfortunately, I'm not sure what to advise other than making things as easy on oneself as possible. Perhaps departments could/should come up with policies to have full-time faculty do this kind of work (though I'm not sure whether that would fly with administrators). What do you all think? 

Promoting new publications?

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

I am an early-career philosopher who recently got published in a highly ranked journal. Given that I am pretty much unknown in the field, I wonder what would be some good ways to promote my publication?

Sharing on social media and posting a pre-print on PhilPapers are some obvious things I plan to do. I was also considering sending the paper directly to people in my field. However, I am not sure whether this is a good idea or it might backfire. In any case, I would be really glad to hear the thoughts of more experienced philosophers on this matter.

Interesting question! One reader submitted the following reply:

I would encourage you to send the paper to people, BUT only to those whose work you engage with in the paper. When someone I do not know sends me a paper on something I write on, but it does not engage my work, I wonder what they are up to. I am a busy person. I have enough to read. But I have send my work to people I have discussed, and it has been worth it.

I guess I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I've had people send me papers of theirs, and I normally do take a look to see if the paper interests me. I also have sent people papers of mine on relatively rare occasions where we are working on similar stuff and I think they might find it interesting. On the other, I guess sending one's papers to a bunch of people seems to me a bit 'salesperson-ish', and I suppose I've always thought that the best way for one's work to get attention is to just keep publishing good stuff. Finally, though, I guess I doubt there is much risk in sending people your paper. At worst, some people might give you a subtle brush-off, as it were. So, I don't know. What do you all think? 

'X and philosophy' books

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

I was wondering what people think about contributed chapters to "X and philosophy" books. Are they just considered a 'popular publication' or are they closer to a contributed chapter to an edited volume? Are they peer reviewed in any serious sense?

Good questions! I contributed a chapter a few years ago to Westworld and Philosophy, a book in Blackwell's Philosophy & Pop Culture Series. I enjoyed writing the piece a great deal, and it was cool to have the piece featured on a major fan site--and in addition to being fun to write, I think it's good for our discipline to be engaged in public philosophy and outreach like this. Obviously, given that the series is written for the general public, the piece wasn't technical or very advanced. But I do recall it being peer-reviewed, going through one round of minor revisions.

As for "what people think" of pieces like this, my sense is: it depends. Presumably, hiring and tenure committees at R1's aren't going to assign much (or any?) weight to these pieces, but I know second-hand that people at teaching-oriented colleges and universities--including tenure committees and (especially) administrators--love stuff like this. Remember, at teaching-oriented places, the primary focus is on students. More down-to-earth, popular-facing pieces like these can not only interest students in our disciplines, but also be featured in college magazines for parents, alumni, and donors--particularly if and when the pieces are featured various places online, increasing the university's visibility. In terms of how they should be listed on a CV, I'm not sure there is a clear-cut answer. On the one hand, my experience is that they are peer-reviewed, and often 'do real philosophy.' On the other hand, they are pitched toward a popular audience and presumably not reviewed with the same kind of rigor as more professional-facing work does. 

What do you all think? How do you view these pieces, and how do you think they should be listed on a CV?

 

How are R&Rs handled?

(Update: comments now open!)

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

When I re-submit a revised manuscript to a journal after an R-and-R decision, will they go to the editor first, or will they be sent out directly to the reviewers? I ask because I think I should clear something I've done in the revisions with the editor (a slight compromise of anonymity) before the reviewers see it.

Good question. My sense is that all submissions (both initial submissions and R&Rs) go to editors first, and then the editor decides whether to send it out to review, and if so, to whom. Sometimes (e.g. for an R&R with 'minor revisions'), editors may not send out an R&R to reviewers at all, deciding for themselves that you have adequately addressed the reviewers' concerns. Other times, the editor may send out the R&R to some of the reviewers but not others (my sense is that this can happen if one referee initially submitted an incompetent or unfair review: an editor might not be interested in hearing that referee's opinion again). Finally, sometimes editors may send out the R&R to all of the previous reviewers, or even (sigh) a new reviewer, if one of the original reviewers is unavailable. I guess my only concern about the OP is their note that they are interested in "clearing something" with the editor that might involve a "slight compromise of anonymity." If the journal is triple-anonymized (so that editors do not know the author's identity), this seems to me to be problematic. Although I can understand situations where this might be tempting (such as a reviewer misinterpreting some of the author's previously published work cited in the paper!), authors should still respect anonymous review in submissions and resubmissions, I think. But perhaps the OP can chime in and provide further context in the comments section.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. What are yours? 

Listing job talks on a CV?

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

May/should I list (research) job talks under the 'presentations' section on my CV? Or is that cheating?

Good question, and I'm curious to hear from readers, especially those who have served on search committees. Here are my thoughts...

My guess is that it will be pretty obvious which talks are job talks, and that listing them could make one look particularly desirable. At the same time, there is one equally obvious way that this could backfire: namely, by scaring search committees away at 'less desirable' institutions, making them think "we'll never get this candidate to work here. Interviewing them or flying them out for an on-campus visit may be a waste of time." These are not, I think, idle concerns. My experience is that search committees can worry a lot not only about perceived "flight risks", but also about doing a failed search. For example, at some institutions, the administration will only fund 2 or 3 on campus interviews. If all of the candidates who are flown out turn down the job, it's a failed search, and no one may be hired. Which is really bad for the hiring department, not only because of wasted time and energy, but also because there is no guarantee the search will be renewed the next year. 

Long story short, it seems to me that listing job talks on a CV are a double-edged sword. Yes, they can make you look highly desired by other institutions, but that can (at least in principle) backfire in a really serious way. So, I guess I might only recommend it for candidates who are competitive for jobs at top research departments, where this sort of thing is likely to only be perceived as a positive.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?