The Philosophers' Cocoon

Job-market reporting thread (2021-22 job season)

As I noted in opening this season's job-market discussion thread, I had planned to wait until October 1st to open this year's job-market reporting thread. However, given that I have already received some requests to open up the reporting thread, I hereby open this thread for job-market reporting. 

The current thread (below) is only for reporting news on the market (i.e. reporting interviews, flyouts, offers, hires, and so on), so please, report away! If you would like to discuss the job-market, please comment on the other thread. Permalinks to both job threads will remain on the right side-bar of the blog through the end 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, although it should go without saying, commenters are asked to please remember the Cocoon's supportive mission while reporting. Thanks, and best of luck to all on the market!

Publishing without advanced training?

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

I have a question that I've seen asked quite a few times on Reddit's /askphilosophy page and elsewhere, and it resonates with me quite a bit. Usually it's something along the lines of "I only have x amount of education in philosophy (or a related field), can I still get published?" The answers are in a near universal agreement that the publication system is so rigorous that it precludes most contributions from people who are not trained as professional philosophers. I have to admit that I am very understanding of the people who post these queries, because having left my previous master's program after only a few weeks due to health concerns, I hold out hope that I can publish something, even if this desire to publish is a result of the fact that I am still grieving over the fact that I'll never teach or get a graduate degree. I enjoy writing mostly because it helps with learning and remembering what I read, and it gives structure and purpose to reading and studying. The problem is that the things I've written are so arcane that they would be of no interest to people outside of the narrow confines of academia, and while my work has been accepted to professional conferences, I recognize that it isn't of such outstanding quality that it would merit inclusion in academic journals.

My question is the following: are there venues for independent scholars who lack a Ph.D., but nonetheless have a desire for some kind of creative output? Is it possible to publish on, say, Husserlian time-consciousness, if one masters the literature and manuscripts, given that it is a hyper-focused topic with a smaller literature than traditional philosophical problems? I've considered blogging, but people generally wouldn't want to read anything I have to write on this topic, since it's so beyond the pale of the ordinary concerns of most people. Thank you.

These are very good questions! In response, David submitted the following response:

[W]hy do you care about publishing in an academic journal if you're not going into an academic career? Publish it elsewhere or start a blog. You don't know who's interested in reading your writing until you try it.

I like David's suggestions, though I'm curious to hear about suggestions for alternative venues (beyond blogs) for publishing philosophy. In any case, perhaps in addition to starting a blog, someone like Matt might consider putting together a podcast. Together, those might be good ways to cultivate a base of people interested in hearing (and reading) what Matt has to say. And, although Matt might not think there are many people who would be interested in (say) reading his work on Husserlian time-consciousness, I don't know: judging by the kinds of social media groups I've come across (some of which have large numbers of laypeople interested in philosophy), there may well be a fairly sizable audience interested in a blog or podcast on this stuff, provided Matt can convey his ideas in an engaging manner. Who knows, right? You never know one way or the other until you try.

At the same time, I can't help but wonder whether--given how he describes his case--Matt might be able to publish in academic journals, if that's something he's interested in. As one of our recent entries on non-traditional paths into philosophy illustrates, it is certainly possible to publish academic philosophy in peer-reviewed journals without a higher degree in philosophy. It is of course very difficult (though not impossible) to publish in the most highly-ranked journals in the field, but regardless, there is also a variety of less-selective journals to consider.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

What do (and should) grad applicants prioritize?

On Twitter, our own Helen De Cruz (St. Louis University) asks several interesting questions, beginning with the following:

What considerations do philosophy grad students have where to apply/which offer to accept? How important are (relatively speaking) the following factors...Stipend/package, training (e.g., teacher training) placement rate, relative prestige of the dept, professors they really want to work with, specialization, geography (is it a city they'd want to live in), "climate" (welcoming to e.g., women, minorities), research culture.

I think it might be good to hear from readers on two things:

1. Which considerations they did prioritize (or are currently prioritizing) in deciding which programs to apply to and accept admissions offers from.
2. Which considerations people think grad applicants should prioritize, and why.

After all, I expect that some people might have chosen programs for particular reasons, but then in retrospect with they had prioritized other factors instead. What do you all think?

Grad school writing sample tips?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a prospective grad student writes:

I'm a prospective graduate student preparing for the application cycle this fall. I'm hoping to pursue analytic philosophy, but the courses offered at my undergraduate institution were mostly in ancient, medieval, and continental philosophy. My quandary is in choosing a writing sample from the papers I wrote for these courses. In the paper I think might be my strongest, I analyze and interpret a continental thinker through tools drawn from an analytic thinker. My own writing style is very analytic, but I'm concerned that submitting a writing sample on a continental thinker might be a turn off to the analytically-minded programs I'm applying to. Is this a valid concern?

This is a good question, but unfortunately, having not served on grad admissions committees, I'm not very well-placed to know the answer! What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on grad program admissions committees? Also, given that the OP and other similar readers may benefit from other tips about grad program writing samples, please do share any other insights you might have about writing samples that you think prospective students should know!

Reading strategy tips?

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

I work at a teaching-oriented state school, and I usually do not have much time for research. People shared a lot of strategies for writing, such as starting your day with an hour of writing, blocking some time everyday for writing, finding writing peers, etc. I find them very helpful. However, there seems not to be many tips for reading, which is the part of research I am struggling with. For example, I tried to reserve one hour each day for my own research, but it is usually not enough for me even to finish reading one paper, especially when I need to stop and think about some interesting points or arguments. Can people share some tips or suggestions on the "reading" part of research?

This is an excellent query, and I am curious to hear whether readers have any helpful tips. Here are two that immediately occurred to me:

1. Skim first, noting things that need greater attention: For me, one aim of reading is to get a broad picture of what is in the literature. While the details may matter if I need to dig into a piece more carefully, in the first instance I just skim. Along the way, if there are particular parts of a paper that are especially difficult or that I need to think about carefully, I'll usually highlight and make a margin note. I think if you skim an article, it's easy to read an entire article in one hour. Perhaps if you're in the OP's situation, you spend one hour of one day skimming, and then one hour the next day reading and thinking more carefully about a difficult part that you noted on day 1.
2. Write to read: I've heard a lot of really productive people say this, but in general it seems right to me. The most effective way to read for the sake of one's own research (as the OP says) is to actually have an idea that you're writing up. Why? Well, for a couple of reasons. First, spending all of your time reading before you begin writing can turn, in effect, into a procrastination method--as you might continually read and think about new things, but never actually put pen to paper. Second, setting this aside, what you are writing can, in effect, tell you what you need to read (and read particularly carefully). That is, writing can help you winnow down your choices of what to read, and what to focus carefully upon when you do read. 

But these are just two quick tips that I've found helpful. What about you all? Do you have any reading strategies or tips that you think the OP might find helpful?

Non-standard types of reference letters?

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

I am in the dissertation phase of my Ph.D. and will be going on the job market soon. My question is about references, specifically teaching references. Before leaving to pursue my Ph.D., I taught high school for just over a decade. I had a very good relationship with my principal and she was able to see my growth as an educator, directly observe my classroom, and receive feedback from students and parents about my teaching. Moreover, she also knows the positive nature of the relationships I had with my colleagues. My question is this: Would it be prudent to ask for her to write a reference letter for jobs in higher education? I have professors in my current program who would write me a positive teaching recommendation, but they would not be able to write as strong a letter as my former principal. Would a letter from a high school administrator be looked down upon?

To be clear, I have professors who are willing to write recommendations. If I included a reference letter from my former principal, it would be in addition to these.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I would not recommend this. You are expected to have a recent letter on teaching from a peer (a university faculty member). Your former principal is not a university educator, and the fact that they will speak of something some time in the past will raise concerns. For example, people will wonder whether you have alienated everyone at your programme, and cannot get a teaching letter. Or they may think that you will teach undergrads as one might teach students in a US high school.

Unfortunately, I think this is exactly right. One of the main things one needs to do in a job application is demonstrate that one understands the norms of the profession. In this case, the norm is pretty clear: letters of recommendation should as a rule be from members of the higher-education academy (i.e. professors). This in part because people on the hiring side of things may believe that teaching at a university level is vastly different than teaching at a high school level, but also because--when it comes to evaluating university-level teaching--part of what one is evaluating is the instructor's ability to present a particular subject matter (in our case, philosophy!) with accuracy and expertise. This, in general, just isn't the sort of thing that someone without an MA or PhD in philosophy (such as a principal) is presumably in a position to evaluate. On a similar note, I've heard people ask before whether it is a good idea to get a teaching letter from a student. Here again, I think this is the wrong call. It would come across as strange to see letters like that in a teaching portfolio, in part because students aren't experts at philosophy or pedagogy.

More generally, when it comes to job-markets (both academic and non-academic), there exist a variety of standing norms--for better or for worse--and violating the relevant norms is risky for that reason alone. In a more ideal world, perhaps, this wouldn't be an issue. But I think it is an issue in our world, and so, in cases like these, to do what the standing norm is: get teaching letters from (and only from) professors in the academy. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

What is the perceived value of invited pieces?

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

[W]hat is the perceived value of invited contributions to peer-reviewed volumes? My thoughts on this are that, on the one hand, such papers should be greatly valued since they show that the author is good enough/ respected enough to be invited to contribute to the volume. On the other hand, my impression is that the peer-review standards are not that high when it comes to edited volumes compared to regular journals. I have the impression that it is very hard to get rejected once invited to contribute. What are your thoughts on this topic?

I think we may have discussed this before, but these are very good questions that it's probably important for graduate students and job-candidates to get good answers to. What do you all think? For obvious reasons, it might be good to hear from people who have served on search committees or tenure and promotion committees. Having served on both kinds of committees myself, here are a few quick thoughts.

How can we help you? (September 2021)

Now that it's been about month and a half 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!

PhilPapers publication metrics?

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

I am wondering what - if anything - is the use of one's "Publication metrics" on PhilPeople. For those who aren't aware of this feature, PhilPeople provides users with their percentile rankings (Q1, Q2, Q3, top 5%, top 1%, etc.) for their publications, paper downloads, and citations, both overall and in specific subject areas. The rankings are relative to "pro" users, which are users with either a PhD in Philosophy or at least one publication in one of the "Most Popular" journals according to PhilPapers. Using this feature, you might learn that you are in the top 1% of downloads in say, Social Epistemology in the past five years, or that you are in the 90% percentile for publication volume in Value Theory.

I find this feature kind of neat. However, I can't imagine a situation where I would actually tell anyone about my publication metrics - if I did, I am sure it would be seen as being in bad taste. But at the same time, it seems like these metrics would be be useful information for search committees or for tenure and promotion cases: it's a decent way of showing whether or not people are actually engaging with your work, and how engagement with your research compares with others working in a similar area. Publication Metrics on PhilPeople is a bit like one's h-index and citations on Google Scholar, which I have heard of people mentioning for T&P, but PhilPeople has the advantage of being specific to the discipline, or even the sub-discipline. One issue might be that - unlike Google scholar citations and h-index - these metrics aren't public: as far as I can tell, one can only see one's own metrics, not those of others. I'm not sure why PhilPeople doesn't make them public, but doing so would mean that they're worth more than simple navel-gazing.

This is an interesting query. It does seem like these kinds of statistics might be useful in some regards when it comes to hiring or tenure and promotion. After all, the statistics do in essence 'compare you' to other specialists, indicating how much you publish in your field and how interested other people are in reading your work. On the other hand, I wonder how useful hiring or T&P committees might find this kind of information.

In any case, because I'm about as unsure as the OP on all of this, I'll open discussion to all of you: what do you think? Is this kind of PhilPapers information useful in any way above and beyond 'navel-gazing'? If so, how? Do you know of cases where it has been used (e.g. in hiring, etc.)? Should PhilPapers make the information public?

Principles for a globally inclusive philosophy?

Filippo Contesi (University of Barcelona) writes in drawing my attention to this nice endeavor he has launched:

BARCELONA PRINCIPLES FOR A GLOBALLY INCLUSIVE PHILOSOPHY

We acknowledge that English is the common vehicular language of much contemporary philosophy, especially in the tradition of so-called “analytic” or “Anglo-American” philosophy. This tradition is in large part based on the idea that philosophy should adopt, as far as is appropriate, the shared and universalistic standards of science. Accordingly, the analytic tradition has now spread worldwide, far beyond the countries where English is the majority native language^* (which constitute only about 6% of the world’s population). However, this poses a problem since non-native English speakers, who have not had the chance to perfect their knowledge of the language, are at a structural disadvantage. This disadvantage has not yet been sufficiently addressed. For instance, the most prestigious journals in the analytic tradition still have very few non-native English speakers on their editorial boards, have no explicit special policies for submissions from non-native English speakers, and continue to place a high emphasis on linguistic appearances in submitted papers (e.g. requiring near-perfect English, involving skim-based assessment etc.). (See Contesi & Terrone (eds), “Linguistic Justice and Analytic Philosophy”, Philosophical Papers, 2018.)

Getting permission to reuse material?

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

I've published a few related papers and some are still under review. I want to write a book where I want to reuse some textual material from these papers. I presume I have to ask for permission to do it. Whom to ask? The journal editor, the publisher? What is the extent of the material that can be reused? One sentence, one paragraph, several pages...? How to deal with papers that are under review? I know that authors address this in the acknowledgement section of their books. But exact rules are not clear to me. Can anyone help?

These are excellent questions, especially given that one could get oneself into a difficult position by going about things the wrong way. One reader submitted the following response to the OP:

Read the publication agreements you signed. For many of the big publishers (Springer, for example), you have the right to include the material in a monograph (a single author book). All you have to do is acknowledge where it was published, says, Phil Studies, and thank the publisher for the right to include material (in whole or in part) in your acknowledgement in the book. Done!

However, in my experience things aren't quite as simple as this. Let me explain.

Saturday sounds

How many papers do you/should you write?

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

I am starting a TT job in a research heavy institution and have not done my PhD in an elite US program so I have what are likely silly/self-evident questions: how many papers do people work on at the same time? Or, how many papers do people typically write in a year? I am sure it varies tremendously but I wonder if people start one new paper a year and keep working on the ones who are going through review or if they start more projects than that, esp. while being on the TT. Thank you for your help!

These are great questions, especially given that some people are starting new jobs right now. I think there are two important sets of questions here:

1. How many papers do people write in a year, and work on at the same time?
2. How many papers should one write a year at an R1?

Here's my own quick answer to (1). I looked in my paper draft folders last night, and found that I now write, on average, something like 4-5 new papers per year. Because I often end up revising those papers over several years, this means that I often find myself with 10 paper projects at a time. I'll often bounce around between them, revising papers that are already written while beginning new ones. It wasn't always like this, though. Earlier in my career, when I got my first job, I worked much more slowly--on maybe like one or two new papers per year. Why the change? I think there are two explanations: it gets easier to write papers over time, but also, I wasn't publishing enough early in my career, so I had to increase my output.

Questions on teaching letters

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

How bad is it to not have a teaching letter, in R1 positions? While I do teach, and haven't heard any complaints yet, I have almost exclusively done so as sole instructor, and the only senior person at my institution who has actually seen me teach is affiliated in the same research project as me. I worry that if I told her I'm applying elsewhere, she wouldn't take it well.

Connected question: how are letters from non-philosophers received? Are they useless? Say, a letter from a psychology professor who really likes your work on perception?

Good questions! I don't know about the first one, as I don't work at an R1. But, in response to the other questions, I'm inclined to think that a letter from a non-philosopher may be fine. A non-philosopher might not be well-positioned to discuss your understanding of philosophy per se (though if they work on the same research project as you, they might!). However, they can probably speak to a lot other, more general aspects of teaching that hiring committees are likely to care about, which is how you engage with students, run in-class discussions, how clear and well-organized your lectures are, the kinds of assignments you give, and so on.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It could be especially helpful to hear from people who have served on hiring committees. What do you think?

Job-market discussion thread (2021-22 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.

Because someone always asks, "Why two threads?", there are a couple of reasons for it. 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 on October 1st.
• 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!