The Philosophers' Cocoon

Interviewing tips for religious university jobs

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

Could you address some potential strategies for interviewing at religiously affiliated--specifically Catholic--liberal arts colleges? My general sense is that the school is less interested in the applicant's particular beliefs or religious affiliations and more in hearing how the candidate is able to incorporate the university's religious values into teaching, research, and service. This may be right but I can's escape the nagging feeling that there will be some left field question about religion or theology that will throw me off?

Is this a well founded worry?

Another reader submitted the following response:

My experience with Catholic schools was not great. I was long-listed for a number of jobs at such schools, because of my profile. Inevitably they ask a question or questions that are the litmus test. They ask what you know about Catholic philosophy ... I was educated at a place where I knew who Jacques Maritain was ... and other greats in 20th C Catholic philosophy. I think I was too honest. I am not saying these places only hire Catholics, but they generally are looking for one of their own.

This coheres with my own experience applying for jobs at Catholic schools. I recall, even at the application stage, a number of Catholic universities that I applied to requiring materials (e.g. statements speaking to the Catholic mission of the university) that suggested they were probably looking for someone in the faith. However, I also remember applying to a number of other religiously-affiliated universities (particularly non-Catholic schools) that seemed entirely open to candidates irrespective of these kinds of things. What are other people's experiences here? It would be great to hear from job candidates about their experiences, as well as people at religious institutions who can comment on their hiring priorities and practices.

How to list talks on a CV

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

How should talks appear on a CV? I'm late-junior stage (about to be tenured) so I've given more than a few. Do I just list the most recent? Going back how far? Do I list the most prestigious and somehow indicate that it's a selected list? Do I not list any? For context, the 'talks' section of my CV is currently taking up a little over a page, about the same as my publications. How do other people navigate this?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

A common practice is to have a list of invited talks, and then a list of refereed conference talks. Each list is labelled - clearly! I assume, if you have some publications (a page worth), that that is what will really determine whether you get tenure or not. Talks are much more important for early career people with few pubs. I am far along, and generally just list recent talks.

I'm curious what other people think. What do you all do, and why?

 

APA webinar: supporting non-academic careers

This is just a quick note that the APA’s Committee on Non-Academic Careers has organized a webinar for APA members, Supporting Non-Academic Careers: What Can Faculty Do?, for next Monday (October 26th) at 4pm EST. I think this is a great endeavor, and hope it receives strong participation, in part to incentivize more endeavors and events like this in the future. Here's a quick description of the event and scheduled speakers:

The webinar will include recommendations about steps departments and faculty can take to support and facilitate careers outside of academia, as well as experiences from faculty working to promote career diversity. The webinar may be especially useful for faculty in leadership positions in graduate programs, such as chairs, directors of graduate studies, and placement/career services officers.

The panelists for the webinar are the following:

• • Mark Barber, PhD, associate chair of the APA Committee on Non-Academic Careers
  • Carolyn Dicey Jennings, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science, University of California, Merced
  • Shane Wilkins, PhD, member of the APA Committee on Non-Academic Careers
  • Kevin J.S. Zollman, Professor of Philosophy and Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University

To participate, register on the APA website. Registration will be available until 10 a.m. Eastern time / 7 a.m. Pacific time on the day of the webinar, and access information will be provided to registrants at least one hour prior to the start of the webinar. Registration is limited to current APA members.

Interested readers can register for the event here. However, if you can't make it, a live recording of the event will be made available to APA members afterward. 

Grappling with burnout (or worse)?

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

I haven't been able to get much work done in the last nine months on my research because of a problem that is new for me, and I wonder how typical it is for others in academics - emotional pain.

I'm an upper year PhD student who has their dissertation mostly complete. If I needed to, I (and my advisor) feel like I can wrap things up in a month. That has been the case for almost a year now. Also, I've been on the job 'market' since last year.

Every word I type about the thoughts I have on my area of research feels like a scab ripped from my mind. I feel relatively fine writing about anything else. Besides what I imagine are the typical anxiety about rejection and imposter syndrome, I'm feeling a lot of grief and sense of loss among other complicated stuff I cant put really well to words. I'm already not great at taking the time to dwell on writing material to polish things up. Now it's more than just an executive functioning/attention problem. Working on my research and material related to it in my job applications has become a sort of feeling management problem. It makes me wonder if I have a toxic relationship with academia, that this is something that will keep getting worse for me and I'm better off cutting ties with the profession, or whether its because of the context I'm in (covid and job searching despair), that I'm failing to see things objectively.

I've dealt with depression before and this feels different. It feels like grief and loss, less of an autonomous mood and more of a reaction to my world. Does this resonate with anyone here? Is this a sign I should take, that I'm 'burnt out' on philosophy? How does one successfully manage the emotional (instead of motivation) side of getting work done?

This post actually resonates with me a great deal, and I hope we can have a helpful and supportive discussion about the important issues it raises. Allow me to say a few brief things, and then invite readers to share their own experiences and any tips or advice they have for someone grappling with these kinds of issues.

Publishing dissertation work before defending?

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

1. Is it advisable to publish dissertation chapters before the final defence?
2. Can one incorporate published articles in one's thesis (say, if you published an article early on in your PhD but it is directly relevant to your thesis)?

The answer to question (1) seems to me to be 'obviously yes', though it may make sense to check with your committee first. After all, suppose they're not entirely happy with the work yet, and think it should be improved prior to publishing it anywhere. In that case, I suppose that publishing something they're not terribly happy with could rub them the wrong way. I'm a bit less sure about (2), but I guess here too my suggestion is: ask your committee! What do readers think?

On reading & engaging with others' work

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

I'm a grad student who is wishing that there was not so much pressure to publish in order to get jobs. I naively thought that grad school might be a time to just read things because they are interesting, and even (gasp!) take time off from writing altogether to focus on deepening one's understanding.

I acknowledge that sometimes reading widely and deeply does benefit one's own writing. At the same time, in my experience, many philosophers do quite well without being particularly well-read. Slightly more cynically, it seems that many philosophers can thrive as long as they read just enough to not look completely ignorant of what's come before.

My question is this: to some extent, is engaging with others' work best thought of as a duty to the profession? Even if there are not particular professional rewards, it seems like we might just owe it to each other and those who've come before to dedicate time to others' work.

I am very sympathetic with this reader's concerns. Back when I was in graduate school (2001-2008), publishing while in a graduate program seemed to be relatively rare. I only knew a few graduate students who published things, and I even recall it being something of a norm (at least in highly ranked programs) to encourage grad students not to publish. The general thought here was that it would be a mistake to 'publish before you're ready', and the point of graduate school--and the dissertation in particular--was to make you ready to publish. In other words, back then graduate school was fairly close to what this readers describes they 'naively thought' graduate school would be like. When did things change, and why?

The ethics of Supreme Court nomination and confirmation

It is almost certainly a foregone conclusion that Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed to sit on the US Supreme Court. However, how should we think about the ethics of her nomination and the confirmation process? Was it ethical for President Trump to nominate her to the Court? Is it ethical for the Senate to confirm her? Should Barrett take herself to be under an ethical duty to step down or issue a public statement calling for a halt to her nomination process, as called for in an open letter by many of her faculty colleagues at Notre Dame?

I published an article, 'The Rationality of Voting and Duties of Elected Officials', addressing these kinds of questions several years ago, and figured I'd briefly share some of the main line of argument here. It won't make a difference, of course, and the argument itself is almost certainly open to question, as virtually all philosophical arguments are. But, be that as it may, it's worth reflecting in times like this on what ethics requires. How, then, do I think we should think about this case?

In a 2010 article in Philosophy & Public Affairs, 'The Paradox of Voting and the Ethics of Political Representation', Alex Guerrero argues that it is rational vote in order to contribute (if only in a small way) to the manifest normative mandate (MNM).  for elected officials. In rough outline, an elected official's normative mandate is the extent to the official (and by extension their political platform and policy decisions) is supported by their constituents. In democratic theory, there are grounds for taking such levels of support (or lack thereof) to have normative ethical implications: namely, that elected officials have a standing ethical duty to represent the will of the constituents they govern. Guerrero then argues that election results represent this mandate, as vote totals indicate how many constituents support a given official (and their political platform). That is, election results are the manifest normative mandate indicating how much support an official has if elected to office. The more votes they win by, the stronger claim they have to represent the will of the govern. Conversely, if they win only by a little bit (or lose the popular vote), then they have a weaker claim to represent the will of the governed. Finally, Guerrero argues that this has important normative ethical implications. The greater an elected official's MNM, the more moral justification they have for functioning as a trustee of the people entitled to make their own decisions while in office (in pursuit of their political platform). Conversely, the smaller an official's MNM, the more they have a moral duty to function as a delegate, acting in deference to what their constituents prefer while they are in office.

Grappling with (academic) acedia?

A few weeks ago, I came across this article on social media, 'Acedia: the lost name for the emotion we’re all feeling right now'. Given that the article seemed to be 'making the rounds', I assume some of you probably came across it too, and I'm wondering whether it spoke to others the way it did to me. During the first several months of the pandemic, I would describe myself as more stressed than normal (worrying about my health, the health of loved ones, etc.), but on the whole, I didn't have too much trouble adapting to social distancing. Because I'm an introvert, it actually initially came fairly naturally. However, now that the pandemic is stretching on, I'm finding it progressively more difficult. For example, although I'm doing my best, I'm finding teaching to be a struggle--in part because it's hard to get to know my students, but also because it's difficult to get good in-class conversations going when half of my students are in the classroom and other half are at home. And so on.  Similarly, while I've had some time to get some research done, I've found it more difficult than usual to motivate and find anything like my normal levels of enthusiasm and focus. And, while I've tried to focus on hobbies (particularly music) and Zoom meetups to keep my spirits up, I've found that only goes so far. I miss seeing people in person, and most days seem akin to copies of the last (fewer unexpected things happen when you stay at home everyday!). Anyway, everything just seems difficult. 

Anyway, I'm curious whether readers are having similar struggles, and if so, what kinds of things you've found to be helpful. I realize there's only so much that we can do under pandemic conditions (particularly as a second wave seems to be emerging), but still, I thought it might be good to discuss and crowdsource tips, as it were. Anyone able and willing to share?

Good non-anonymized journals?

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

Are there any refereed, non-invite-only journals, where it is possible to submit article-length, non-anonymous pieces written in the first-person, that are respectable ("high-ranking", or whatever)? In other words, are there any open-submission equivalents to Philosophical Perspectives or Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume? I'd like to expand on some previously published work but not expand so much as to write a book. And I don't want to dance around the fact I'm the author of the previously published work.

I'm not aware of any journals like this, and I'm curious as to whether there are any. Does anyone know of any journals like this? In any case, I'm also curious what this reader's interest is here in not dancing around the fact that they are the author of the previous work that they're looking to develop. As someone who also writes articles further developing previous things I've published, I don't find it terribly difficult to write articles in the third person, so as to conform to anonymized review. While I expect that sometimes (perhaps even more often than not) reviewers may suspect I'm the author, this doesn't seem to me much worse than the situation I'd be in if there were a non-anonymized journal to submit to--and I take it one can always change the language to the first-person prior to publication, right? So again, what's the author's interest here? It might be good to hear from them about it if they're willing to share!

Networking and 'Leaving Academia'

I just came across this really interesting interview of Christopher Caterine, author of the new book, Leaving Academia: A Practical Guide (Princeton University Press). Here are a few choice bits of the interview focusing on networking:

Q: Networking is a subject in your book. How is networking different for nonacademic careers than for academic careers?

A: I was such a firm believer in meritocracy that it never crossed my mind to network while I was in academe! At best, I saw it as an imposition on other people's time; at worst, I viewed it as a type of cheating -- trying to convince someone to hire you because of a relationship instead of for the quality of your scholarship. I think part of that block was that I assumed networking was solely about helping yourself get a job. That's one of the reasons why you do it, of course, but if it's your only goal, you won't get very far. To be good at networking, you need to make it about learning from others and positioning yourself to help them. Enter every meeting aiming to learn as much as you can about your contact’s professional history, goals and current challenges. That knowledge allows you to connect them to people who can help them solve their problems faster than they could in a vacuum. At that point, you’re returning value to them on the time they invested in your meeting. The benefit to you is information about their line of work, the skills required to do it and an improved perception of what it would be like to do that job on a daily basis.

To my mind, scholars could be much more effective and efficient in their work if they applied these skills inside the academy. But the culture of grad school seems to condition most people not to behave this way. When I first started networking, I was terrified that I would annoy people by asking for their time. Most -- maybe 80 percent -- quickly volunteered an hour to tell me about their career path when I emailed my request. That's probably what's most different about networking between academia and the rest of the professional world: nonacademics prioritize networking and relationship building even though their calendars are far more constrained and far less flexible...

Q: Can you describe your job outside academe and how you came to get it?

A: I'm a communications strategist and proposal writer for a global consulting company. On a fun day, I work with senior members of the firm to craft a compelling sales message or collaborate with the rest of our creative team to convey that message as memorably as possible. On a boring day, you might find me applying a style guide to a massive technical document or checking to make sure that everyone's name and title are correct in an organizational chart. Essentially, I apply a wide array of skills I learned earning my doctorate: synthesizing information, weighing ambiguous evidence, writing clearly and framing what is usually quite boring information in an exciting way that can hold an audience’s attention. I used to travel almost weekly to work with teams on site -- and will be first in line for a COVID-19 vaccine if it means I can do so again!

I found the job through networking. Someone I had cold contacted for an informational interview put me in touch with someone he knew at the company, and a good chat with that individual led to a call with a superior of his who had also been an academic. The focus of that call -- and this is important general advice -- was that people with advanced degrees look overqualified when applying for entry-level jobs: to his mind it was far better for people like me to seek midcareer positions. At the end of our discussion, he hesitated slightly before asking me for a writing sample. He was apparently happy with what he saw: shortly after receiving it, he referred me for a position that was about to become available. I didn't even know I was being considered for a job until I was asked to schedule the first interview! At the time that seemed crazy, but I now know that most midcareer positions are filled by referral rather than application. That fact makes it essential for academics to step outside their comfort zone and learn how to network. It really is how you create your own luck -- especially in a job market as competitive as today's.

I hope some of the Cocoon's readers find this helpful. Feel free to share tips and anecdotes of your own in the comments section below!

Tips for handling teaching/tutoring nerves?

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

I'm currently tutoring for the second time (I tutored last semester, though it was cut very short for obvious reasons). It's a pretty simple introductory ethics course and I'm familiar with the material. However, I still find that I get really nervous before tutoring, both on the day and also, usually, the night before. This is really draining, and I also think the nerves impact my teaching ability. Whilst I know that this is not uncommon, I feel like the topic doesn't get discussed often. Do others feel similarly to me? And should I just expect the nerves to disappear over time - or are there useful strategies for dealing with them?

These are great questions. I've been teaching or TA-ing for close to twenty years now, and I still get nerves prior to every class (and indeed, the night before every day of teaching). It is draining, but I've never quite been able to come up with very good strategies for handling it. I sort of just power through the semester. Are people like me and this reader outliers, or do many other people have similar experiences? And in any case, have any of you discovered useful strategies for handling this well? I'd love to hear some tips myself!

Tips for first-time journal (guest) editors?

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

I am a first-time journal guest editor. I'm wondering if anyone has recommendations for sources on the practices and ethics of editing philosophy journals. In particular, I'm wondering what to do about a paper that has received both 'accept' and 'reject' recommendations. It seems to me be worthy of an 'accept asking changes,' but I don't want to seem disrespectful to the reader that suggested rejection.

One reader submitted the following response:

I guest edited a journal issue. My perspective is this: It is your job, not the referee's, to decide which papers to publish. You alone have that authority, and that responsibility. The referees are there to advise you in your task. But you do not owe them anything other than gratitude for their important, unpaid work. If you have read both reports carefully, plus the paper, and your judgment is that conditional acceptance is appropriate, that is what you should do. I've refereed papers that I thought were great, recommended "acceptance", and the editor rejected them. I've refereed papers that I thought were disasters, recommended "reject", and the editor accepted them. I think the editors made mistakes in these cases, but I don't feel "disrespected" by them.

Although I haven't served as a journal editor, this response seems right to me. But let me add a couple of thoughts.

Philosophy club tips during COVID?

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

I am the faculty advisor for our undergraduate philosophy club this year. Can people share some ideas about events and activities (online or in-person with social distance) during the time of COVID-19?

This is a great question, and I think it could be cool to crowdsource ideas. Any readers have ideas or things they've tried this semester that have worked well (or not so well)? Please do share below!

In Limbo Conversations (blog series)

Alan Isaac and Sahana V Rajan (University of Delhi) have been developing In Limbo Conversations, a blog series of conversations with philosophers about the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The most recent conversation was with Simon Critchley (The New School for Social Research) on love, children and suicide during the pandemic. They have also had conversations with Tue Sovso (Humboldt University of Berlin), Christopher Tindale, Dr. Jana Mohr Lone (UW Center for Philosophy for Children), Nick Byrd (Stevens Institute of Technology), Benjamin Smart and Alexander Broadbent (University of Johannesburg), Wim Vandekerchkove (University of Greenwich), Kevin McCain (University of Alabama, Birmingham), Stephan Guttinger (LSE). 

All of the interviews are in both text and video format. Looks like a great series!

Why referees can spot what's wrong in your paper, but often can't tell you how to fix it

Today, I was watching Neil Gaiman's fiction writing master class, where Gaiman offers advice for how to edit your fiction. A lot of this could just as well apply to non-fiction writing. For example, Gaiman says that your first draft is for your eyes only. If you didn't leave it too late, let the first draft sit for a week and then go back to it. Try to read it like you are reading someone else's work, not too harsh but nevertheless, a disinterested person who might advise you to cut where you might be reluctant to cut. 

Once you've done the second draft, the piece might be ready for some other readers to provide comments. I find it useful to find someone to read my work before it goes out for review. By this, I don't just mean to present the work at a conference or a colloquium, but someone who actually reads the piece as it is written. I've had so many talks that worked beautifully as talks, but their energy and persuasiveness just didn't translate on the page and they got rejected over and over. One useful way to solicit a review is to do a swap.

But it's not always possible to find an external reader, and that's when you'll have to rely on referee reports from the journal you submit to.

Some people tell me they find referee reports completely useless and they don't consider at all what the reports say and just send the paper on to the next journal. I find that discomforting, as someone who does a fair (but not enormous) share of refereeing I put a lot of care in my reports. Maybe I am just more lucky with referee reports than many people are. Even referee reports accompanying a reject decision are often useful for me to further improve the paper. For other papers, the reports are indeed useless. Those are typically the reports where the reviewer wants to see the paper go into a direction I just don't see it going. 

Anyway, Neil Gaiman helped me realize that even in a seemingly not-useful referee report, there is some valuable knowledge you gain (unless the reviewer was just inept, or inattentive, this sometimes happens, but don't assume it too soon!). Namely, if the reviewer says "this didn't work for me" or "I didn't get it", they are always right. They are always right, because indeed, the assertion depends on the reviewer's reception of the work. If they didn't get it, or it didn't work for them, that's valuable information. A lot of redrafting, or excessive familiarity with the topic, or being neglectful to spell out a line of thought can lead a referee to be puzzled. Thus, a referee who says "I'm puzzled here," is giving you valuable information. That referee is saying that there is something puzzling there (to at least one person). It's something you need to fix.