The Philosophers' Cocoon

Conference info beyond PhilEvents?

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

What's the best way to find out about conferences/workshops in one's areas? Does philevents basically cover all bases here, or are there are other resources that I should be availing myself of?

I basically rely on PhilEvents and the Philos-L listserve ([email protected]). 

What about other readers?

Working in solitude during sabbatical?

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

I have seen many questions on sabbatical here, and many suggestions. In particular, I have seen many testimonies of how nice and useful visiting another university is. But I wonder if there is anyone who can testify on the effects of a different way of spending the sabbatical, namely deep working/reading in solitude for the entirety of sabbatical.

This is my plan, because for some idiosyncratic reasons I can't visit anywhere. Also, my experience in the past of giving random talks in nearby universities and have zoom discussions did not prove to be a productive way to spend a sabbatical.

Success and failure stories are both welcome!

Good query. I've only had one sabbatical, and I had to turn down an invitation to visit another institution for family reasons. But I've always done most of my philosophical work in solitude and (mostly) enjoy it that way.  So, what I did during my sabbatical was basically what I ordinarily do during the summer: read/write maybe 4-5 hours per day each weekday (which is the most that I can really do on consistent basis). I found it to be great, but if you're not accustomed to working that way, I imagine it may take some adjusting.

I was going to suggest that maybe the OP consider arranging an informal reading group to discuss some of their work in progress and keep up with the work of others, but it sounds like they've done something similar in the past (albeit with more formal talks and zoom discussions), but they didn't find that terribly helpful.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips and/or experiences to share?

Senior faculty's assumptions about job candidates?

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

One of the more frustrating aspects of academia is how often senior faculty, including those tasked with supporting job candidates, assume that people on the market are young, naive, and not quite fully adult.

Why is this the default assumption?

I'm a 36-year-old married scholar with two young children, and yet I'm frequently treated—especially by North American colleagues—as if I were a grad student in need of unsolicited life advice or professional guidance. The tone often implies that I’m too inexperienced to know my own mind, and seems to show tacit commitment to the assumption that postdocs are somehow too young to know themselves, or something. In my case, I have been offered tenure-track positions, but I have turned them down for very good personal and professional reasons.

Can we stop equating job market status with youth, naivety, or incompleteness? Why is this even an assumption? Can any senior or mid-career scholars weigh in on how they have critically reflected on their treatment of those who are professionally junior, and changed their treatment of those who are professionally junior as a result?

One analogue here, I think, is how I was treated before and after having children. Before children, I was sometimes treated as though there was some sort of incompleteness as an adult stemming from the lack of children, which is rubbish.

I'd be interested to hear from others who’ve experienced this, and from senior or mid-career scholars who have advice on how to speak to junior colleagues without condescension.

Another reader reported similar experiences:

I do not have a solution. I just want to say that my experience is pretty similar: I find the North American attitude towards researchers in precarious jobs very disrespectful. Although I have to say that there are some people who are very supportive and treat me like an intellectual peer (usually those are people with an international profile, though...).

Have other readers had similar experiences? Any concrete suggestions for how senior faculty should do better?

Research guidance after grad school / online communities for philosophical research?

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

I am curious how people get suggestions and guidance regarding one’s research after graduate school, especially for those who work in small departments where there are minimal overlaps between people’s research interests. I am not talking about conference papers or substantive drafts, but some early-stage, premature ideas, or some relatively basic questions.

More specifically, I have seen really great discussions and suggestions both here (thank you, Marcus!) and the “Teaching Philosophy” facebook group. I guess I am looking for a counterpart of such online communities for research. Somewhere I can ask questions anonymously, such as “I become interested in topic X. What are some recent works on it?”, “I had a really hard time understanding the concept Y. Can anyone help me or suggest some readings?”

Do any readers who have been in a similar situation have any helpful tips?

When to pull a book manuscript from an unresponsive publisher?

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

When should one pull a book project from an unresponsive press? My editor at a major press has screwed up at almost every step of the process. For example, she failed to deanonymize peer review comments, which has hurt one of my professional relationships. After passing peer review in September, I have still not received a contract. Now she hasn't responded to my emails for months, since January (she is certainly still at the press). I asked to switch editors with no luck. I feel like I'm falling into the gambler fallacy at this point.

I'm really sorry to hear that the OP is dealing with this, as I know just how much work a book is and how invested in it one can be--and it seems unprofessional for an editor not to respond for so long. But if the editor hasn't been responding for months on end, I'm apt to think that the thing to do is to inform them that if you don't hear from them by some date X, you plan to move on.

What do readers think?

AI Won’t Replace You - But Academics Who Use AI Will?

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

What do we make of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I3KQjHfZjY

The creator does not direct their concerns towards Academic Philosophy (or any other part of the Humanities), but as someone pursuing their postgraduate/doctorate/postdoc, how seriously should one take the rather strongly made suggestions in the video?

I haven't watched the entire video yet, but basically the guy's angle seems to be that academics who use AI to do research (write rough drafts, etc.) and other tasks (teaching prep?)--and academic institutions that let and/or encourage them to do it--are likely to benefit and outcompete those that don't. Importantly, though, his catchphrase seems to be: "We're not losing skills, we're shifting the skill focus because now certain things are just done for us."

While I suspect he may be right that the tech may receive rapid uptake for "competitive advantage" reasons, I don't think that is likely to benefit people on balance. For, my understanding is that emerging research suggests the above catchphrase is just false: generative AI does a terrible job doing things like summarizing research, and moreover, using it does atrophy skills.

This is why I basically don't use it. I tried using it a couple of times to see how well it could help me do background research--instead of manually searching through Google, Google Scholar, PhilPapers, etc.--and guess what? It was basically useless: I spent more time trying to figure out whether the information and sources it was giving me were accurate than I would have spend just searching for stuff the old-fashioned way. And yes, I also don't want to lose my own ability to think, write, and have an authorial voice of my own. I haven't even bothered to try to use it for anything teaching-related, as that just seems to me like a cheat. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Grappling with an abuser in the profession?

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

Does anyone have any advice re: interacting with someone in the profession who's treated you very badly? E.g., sexual harassment, verbal abuse, etc.

Particularly in the context of, this person is going to keep being in the profession, adjacent to your area, will keep being invited to contribute to things/speak at conferences, and so forth. The question is not so much how to interact with that person specifically (avoidance whenever possible seems ideal), but how to emotionally/mentally handle the positive comments of others and generally having to continue to share professional space with them (unlike in a non-academic field where you could presumably change jobs or companies).

I'm so sorry to hear that the OP has been treated these ways and faces this situation. It seems like the OP doesn't see themselves as well-placed or able to intervene to address this person's behavior, though it's distressing to hear that the latter has evidently simply been able to continue on without apparent consequence.

Do any readers have any helpful advice to share?

How faculty distribute their time?

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

I'm interested in how faculty distribute their time across different research activities (reading, drafting, writing, and revising) during three periods: the teaching term, academic breaks, and sabbatical.

As a grad student without service responsibilities and limited teaching responsibilities, I'm trying to understand how research productivity is managed alongside other obligations.

This is a good query, and I'm curious to hear from others. Here how I'd estimate my breakdown:

• Teaching terms --> Teaching = 60-70%, Service = 20-30%, Research = 10%
• Summer & winter breaks --> Research = 95%, service 5% (and vacation)
• Sabbatical --> Research = 95-99%, Miscellaneous = 1-5%

What about other readers?

Tips for TT faculty applying for non-TT jobs?

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

Could members of search committees for non-tt positions weigh-in on their reactions when they see an application from someone in a tt position come across their desktop? How much rationale do you care to see in the cover letter as to why such a candidate might be applying too your job? I ask because as someone in a precarious tt position in a red state who has already made cuts (maybe you can guess which one), I am interested in applying to attractive, stable non-tt teaching positions when they pop up; in fact, I've applied to such positions, but have had no luck. So I am looking for tips.

Good questions. My sense is that some kind of explanation like the above in a cover letter may help.

What do other readers think?

Helen De Cruz (1978-2025) - Support Helen's Children After Her Passing

Many readers may have heard by now the devastating news of Helen De Cruz’s passing.

Words cannot express the magnitude of this loss. Helen was an incredible philosopher, a truly wonderful person, and a good friend. I spoke to Helen several months ago after learning the seriousness of her prognosis. Her primary concern was for their children’s future, particularly their education, as she and Johan had been depending on their discounted tuition as a faculty member at St. Louis University.

 

With her blessing, Helen, Johan and I agreed to circulate a GoFundMe on her children’s behalf. Please feel free to share and circulate widely. Eric Schliesser has also posted a beautiful tribute to Helen over at his Substack.

 

Rest in peace, Helen—you will be missed and remembered by so many. In honor of Helen's life, friendship, and many years of support and contributions to this blog, her books will be featured on the Cocoon's sidebar. Helen's most recent book, Wonderstruck, is a personal favorite of mine - Taylor Carman published a great review of it here.

 

Journal word limits: "notes and references"

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

This seems like it should be an easy question to answer, but I've had a surprisingly hard time figuring it out. If a journal says submissions should be no longer than 10,000 words, including notes and references, do the "references" here mean in-text references, or the actual reference/bibliography list at the end of the article? It would seem that including the full reference list in the word count would encourage under-citing, which is a problem. The particular journal I have in mind is Mind & Language, which makes this even weirder, since empirical-adjacent journals tend to have papers with more citations.

It means everything, bibliography included--and yes, it may encourage under-citing. Should journals rethink this kind of requirement, so as to omit bibliographies from word limits?

What do readers think?

Presenting a paper: how many times is too many?

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

How many times is it normal to present the same paper at conferences/workshops? There are several talks that I have presented twice--both in order to get additional feedback and to network at conferences--and I'm now at the point in my career at which I'm being invited to give lectures at other departments, so I'll likely continue to do so. But I'm wondering at what point, if any, it looks bad/weird on one's CV to keep "milking" the same talk.

Personally, I don't think people pay too much attention to that part of a CV, but in any case I'm inclined to think that the more salient question is whether continuing to present the paper improves it. That's sort of the point of giving a talk (to get feedback), right?

What do readers think?

Publishing short and long versions of an argument?

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

Question about publication 'ethics': Say a philosopher is working on a project and is drafting a long, journal article length paper on the subject. While working on that project, the opportunity arises to publish a much shorter commentary style paper version of the longer paper, which would leave out a lot of details but highlight one specific part of the longer project. Is it weird to have a 'short' and 'long' version of an argument be published, if there are things highlighted or discussed differently between the two?

Interesting question. I remember being in a similar position earlier in my career, and though my memory is hazy, I think that to play it safe, I just published one version of the argument (the short version). My understanding is that something sort of similar to what the OP describes ("salami-slicing") is considered unethical in the sciences, but it's not entirely clear from what the OP describes whether this is like that ("highlighting one specific part" of a larger argument may be quite different than the long-version presenting the rest of a much more involved argument). Then again, the OP also describes the short version as a "commentary ... version of the longer paper" as well as a "short" and "long" version of a single argument, so I'm not sure.

What do readers think?

Zoom chat next Tuesday to celebrate Helen De Cruz's philosophical artwork

For those of you who may not be aware, long-time Cocoon contributor (and friend) Helen De Cruz is sadly in hospice care with a terminal illness.

Next Tuesday, Georgi Gardiner (Tulane) is organizing a Zoom meeting to celebrate Helen's philosophical artworks. Details are below. I hope many of you choose to both spread the word and attend.

On Zoom: https://tulane.zoom.us/j/6185944474

Tuesday, June 24th, 2025

11am - 12.20pm Central US Time

(i.e. 5pm BST)

All welcome! No background knowledge required.

You need not know Helen or her work, or have a background in philosophy.

Please help spread the word!

Sharing this post, flyer, facebook event, or website is extremely helpful.

Website: georgigardiner.com/helen

Facebook: www.facebook.com/share/16WNQuVvTv/

Organiser: Georgi Gardiner

Contact: [email protected]

Single- vs. double- & triple-anonymized journals?

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

Do you know philosophy journals reviewed in single-anonymized or identities-visible models? Recently I saw an established philosophy journal published by Springer say in its submission guidelines that its peer review process is single anonymized.

According to the accompanying taxonomy file available at https://osf.io/we82n
Single anonymized means Reviewer masked to author, author visible to reviewer, reviewer and author visible to (decision-making) editor;
Double anonymized: Reviewer masked to author, author masked to reviewer, reviewer and author visible to (decision-making) editor;
Triple anonymized: Reviewer masked to author, author masked to reviewer, reviewer & author masked to (decision-making) editor;
All identities visible: Reviewer visible to author, author visible to reviewer, reviewer
and author visible to (decision-making) editor.

Since most philosophy journals seem to be Double or Triple anonymized, I am curious about philosophy journals reviewed in single-anonymized or identities-visible models. Do you know good philosophy journals adopt these models? What are the differences between the four models? Identities-visible model seems interesting because reviewers know that authors will know their identities, and so they tend to write the reports in much more responsible ways. But what about single-anonymized review? Reviewers know the identities of authors, but authors does not know the identities of reviewers, shall this model produce more responsible reports?

I've received many 100 to 200 word reports with very biased, or deeply disrespectful and irrelevant, or even shameless and wrong comments from philosophy journals that adopt Double or Triple anonymized review models.

Interesting questions. I was surprised to learn a number of years ago that in some scientific fields, single-anonymized review (authors' identities being visible to reviewers) is pretty much the norm. I didn't ever learn why that is exactly, but from what I gathered the results of the process did seem to be pretty biased in favor of well-placed researchers ("name" researchers at prestigious institutions/programs). Obviously, triple-anonymized review is supposed to be the best process for preventing biases like these--and I suspect most readers of the Cocoon are likely to favor triple-anonymity over the others--but as the OP notes there may be other tradeoffs.

What do readers think?