The Philosophers' Cocoon

Potential roles for conference commentators (Guest thread by Jonathan Ichikawa)

Jonathan Ichikawa (University of British Columbia) posted the following thread on Twitter this weekend on roles that commentators can play at conferences. Because it seemed to me to be a really helpful thread, I asked Jonathan if he would allow me to re-post it for discussion here:

This is a thread about potential roles for commentators at conference talks. I would like to remind/emphasize to philosophers that offering objections is only one of the many interesting and valuable things commentators can do.

I think there's some tacit social knowledge of this already. Certainly I've seen some commentators do some useful things besides give objections. But they sometimes act apologetic about it, like they think they're "supposed" to object. Not so! (imo)

And while some of the things I'll list below are sometimes done, there are also some that I never or almost never see people doing in their comments. I'd like to!

(I am agnostic on the applicability of/need for this advice in fields other than philosophy. I don't know those cultures well enough to write a thread about them. Others knowledgable about those fields should feel free to weigh in!)

OK so here's a list of things you can do in your commentary! Some of these are obvious but maybe some of them will be helpful to notice as options.

OBJECTION. "A argues that P; here's why that argument is uncompelling, and/or, here's my argument against P." Everyone knows this one's an option. But it's only one option.

OBJECTION WITH ALTERNATIVE. "A argues that P; but the argument is consistent with Q or P, and I think Q better captures A's motivations here." Better, but still quite negative.

OBJECTION AND REPLY. "One might argue thus against A, but that argument won't work for this reason."

EXIGETICAL CHALLENGE. "A argued against B, saying that P. But here's why I don't think B is really committed against P, I think you may be agreeing after all."

CLARIFICATION. "A said that 'S'. This is actually ambiguous between P and Q; here's what each option would look like, and some advantages and disadvantages for each. Which did A mean?" These are all still pretty standard but I'm just getting going!

STRENGTHEN. "A gave three arguments for P. Here is a fourth. Notice that it is nonredundant, since some ways of resisting As arguments would make resisting this one harder."

HIDDEN VIRTUE. "A's argument for P has unusual virtue V. This is a really good feature for arguments to have! Let me show you how useful V can be for other kinds of arguments, perhaps including arguments in other areas."

ANALOGY (IMPORT). "A's move is in topic X. Topic X is interestingly similar to unrelated topic Y, with parallel ideas and moves happening in each. The analogue of A's move in Y has such-and-such advantages and disadvantages, which may carry over to A's move here."

ANALOGY (EXPORT). "A's move is in topic X, which is parallel to Y. The analogue of A's move in Y would be totally novel there! Here's what that would look like. This would be a good contribution to that literature!"

GO FURTHER. "A argues that P. I think the arguments are good, but actually push much further. We shouldn't just accept P, we should accept stronger claim Q! Or: we should also accept P in these other domains!"

LITERATURE SUGGESTIONS. "Here are some related papers that would interact in interesting ways with A's project."

CONTEXT IMPLICATIONS. "A answers question Q. A didn't discuss this, but here's why Q has been an important question, and how it connects to bigger issues. Let's work out the implications of A's answer for those broader matters."

OK I'll stop listing for now but I might add some more if I think of them. Others should feel free to add your own suggestions too! I have nothing against objections, I just think commentators should be more creative about what the most interesting contribution they can make is!

One thing to say about all of these — one might worry about going off-topic and being self-indulgent. That is a reasonably worry, but the answer to is is to make sure that you're still engaging with the details of the talk itself a lot. This is possible for all of these forms.

What do readers think of Ichikawa's suggestions? Are there any of them you like (or don't like) more than others? Are there any alternatives that you like (or don't like) that he left out? I'll just say briefly that my own preference is that when commentators give objections, they suggest a possible reply or two that might help the author grapple with it: call this Objection with Positive Suggestion(s). This approach generally seems to me more helpful than just raising objections, which (depending on how serious or numerous they are) can seem needlessly hostile. But this is just my perspective. What do you all think?

Teaching portfolio syllabi: full or abridged?

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

I have a really small question about the sample syllabi one includes in a teaching portfoli. How full should these syllabi be? My full syllabi include all sorts of info about grading, course expectations, description, info about plagiarism and writing help resources, etc. Am I right to assume potential employers don't want to wade through all of this, and so I should strip down the versions in my teaching portfolio to the essentials (maybe reading list, course description...what else)? If so, what should I include and not? 

Good questions! I'm not sure on all of them, but I would think that info on grading and course expectations are good to include, as I've known search committee members who care a lot about how things are graded, how grading is distributed in the course (across different kinds of assignments), and so on. I'm not sure about other things, though, such as plagiarism policies, etc. What do you all think?

 

 

 

Submitting R&Rs late?

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

Is there a penalty for returning an R&R a few days late? It is due imminently. I've already asked for a (brief, roughly 3 week) extension once and don't want to ask again. But I haven't been able to work much on it and at this point I feel like few extra days will make a real difference to the quality of the revised manuscript I submit. Thanks everyone.

Another reader responded, "I would just ask again. But there's probably no penalty." I don't have any experience submitting things late, so unfortunately I can't offer advice or share any experiences here. But I'm curious: do any readers out there have experiences worth sharing? Emailing the editor seems like the best thing to do if one can't get an R&R on time. But I'm curious, in particular, whether people have submitted R&Rs late with no problems, or whether people have run into serious issues with this.

Why Low-Income Students Leave Academic Philosophy (Guest post by Rosa Vince & Anna V. Klieber)

By Rosa Vince & Anna V. Klieber (Phd Candidates - University of Sheffield)

In this piece we explain some of the barriers to succeeding in academia for people with less money. This is not a theoretical work; we explain some things that students with more money may overlook, and problems that simply may not occur to staff members and institutions. That said, if you are currently, or have recently been, a postgraduate student with limited financial resources, then much of this will already be familiar.

When speaking of ‘low-income’ students in the following, we mean those who do not have a financial ‘safety net’, and who do not have well-off family members to lend/give them money if they do not independently have enough money to pay their fees, rent, or other bills that might come up. This is in contrast to students who do not need to worry if their rent and bills will be met throughout and immediately after their degree - although talking to most academic philosophers, you might get the impression that students who do need to worry about these things don't exist.

This essay does not cover the advantages of private, public, and grammar schools or the advantages of having parents with a university education, though these issues are all important and intertwined. Further, while here we will first and foremost discuss material financial barriers to access, safety, and success in academia, it is important to note that a person's financial and class positions are not independent of other social categories like race, disability, gender or age. This means that the financial barriers described in the following can be worsened, reinforced, or caused, by existing structures of racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia or ageism in, and outside, academia.

In what follows, we will discuss the following aspects: Time, Activities, Health, Teaching Work and Volunteering, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committees, and summarize with some notes on Emotional Energy. This list isn’t exhaustive, but rather provides a discussion of a few very common financial barriers that block access, safety, and success in academia. 

Does the APA cost too much?

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

I've just signed up for a completely virtual meeting of the APA, to the tune of $190. I am completely regretting the fact that I agreed to be involved in one of the meetings, and have promised myself to always say 'no' to any future requests to be involved in the APA meeting in any respect.

Why do organizations and people continue to submit and go to this expensive meeting? Hasn't it outlived its usefulness? There are so many organizations and meetings without exorbitant fees going on throughout the year. $190 for a completely virtual meeting is highway robbery.

So this is more a plea then a question. With all this talk of justice in the profession, we've allowed this organization to prey upon philosophers even while itself offering less and less of value. However much people like seeing their grad school buddies, it's not worth the ridiculous fees. And even if someone has a great expense account (I'm not one of those people) is this the best way to spend it? Can't we, as a profession, move away from this hotel-conference model? This model has outgrown its usefulness, and has always been a burden on those without large expense accounts or disposable income. Can we adopt more collaborative, diffuse, and equitable methods of networking and meeting? Any thoughts/ideas?

Another reader submitted the following response:

On the one hand I agree with you. I spent a lot of money to attend the APA, and present at one of the group meetings, and we did not even have equipment in the room (this was probably the last REAL meeting). It was very disappointing. It cost me a lot, as I was coming from far away. On the other hand, in principle, the APA serves a very important function. It represents the profession. And this is essential in the USA, where other disciplines have organizations representing them. Now, unfortunately, the organization is dominated by people from elite schools, so it does not represent the profession as it really is. That is another issue. But, as someone later in their career, you do want such an organization, whether you go to their conferences or not.

Here are some of my own quick thoughts.

My Interview on Personal Finance with PhDs

Readers of this blog may be interested in my recent interview with Dr. Emily Roberts as part of her ongoing podcast Personal Finance for PhDs. The financial dimensions of graduate school are rarely discussed here or elsewhere in the philosophy blogosphere, but that doesn't make them unimportant. Quite the opposite in fact!

Anyway, in this interview, I give the raw numbers and gritty details of what it was like to live on a base stipend of $15,000 per year as a graduate student living in Knoxville, TN. Among other topics, we discuss the mindset required to save money on such a meager salary, some fundamental tips for minimizing expenses, and what financial habits persist post-PhD. On the whole, I'm very please with how the interview turned out, and I'd encourage anyone looking for some pointers of the financial aspects of graduate school to give it a watch or listen. It may also be of use to people who want to demonstrate to others that graduate student living does not have to be a case of narrowly surviving from one paycheck to the next.

How to prevent peer-review problems?

A while back at Daily Nous, there was a thread on 'journal horror stories', one of which involved a single journal 'misplacing' a large number of manuscripts, claiming the papers were sent out to referees when this never occurred. Although this is an extreme and isolated case, the DN horror stories thread suggests that authors often run into less serious problems. This coheres with my experience on social media, where I often run into posts where people say things like, 'My paper has been under review at journal X for Y months. Should I email the editor to find out what's going on?'. Oftentimes, people express some trepidation about emailing editors, as they don't want to negatively influence the outcome. They just want to know what's going on with the paper.

Given that these kinds of situations give rise to stress for authors and extra work for editors (reading and responding to emails), I wonder whether something could be done to make things better. So here's an idea that I had: why not just improve journal submission portals (e.g. Editorial Manager) to give more information? Here's what I have in mind. When I log in as a reviewer at many journals, the software typically tells me when my review is due, as well as how many other referees there are. Why couldn't the journal submission software give similar information to authors, as in something like this:

Referee 1: review competed on 4/5/2021.

Referee 2: review due on 4/10/2021.

Referee 3: review 1 month overdue.

This could, obviously, give authors precisely the kind of information they want about where their paper is in the review process. Also, sometimes when a journal is taking a long time (say, 8 months or longer), authors want to know whether they should keep the paper under review or withdraw it. Given that this decision could turn on the likelihood that the paper will be rejected, why couldn't the submission software give the author information on what the referee recommended, as in:

Referee 1: review competed on 4/5/2021 (recommendation reject).

Given that journals typically require two 'accept' verdict to accept a paper, knowing that one reviewer recommended rejecting the paper could be important information for authors to have (and it's worth noting, again, that when reviewers log in they often have access to this kind of information - so why shouldn't authors?). Finally, it seems to me that this kind of system might help improve review times at slow journals. Given that it would inform authors when reviews are well overdue, authors could contact journal editors specifically when there is an overdue review holding up the process (which, or so I understand, is one of the main reasons for delays in the review process). This could then lead editors to address tardy reviewers more promptly, etc.

Finally, it seems to me that other forms of information could also be included in submission portals, such as information about securing reviewers in the first place, as in:

Referee 1: review requested 4/5/2021, awaiting reply.

What do you all think? Do you think it would be better for authors and editors for journal submission software to include more information like this?

Tips regarding academic jobs in Italy?

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

Folks have asked about jobs in various European places before and the discussions are usually interesting. But on a quick search of the site I don’t see much about working in Italy. If anyone knows anything I’d love to hear it. Specific questions to get the ball rolling: how does the hiring process work? Are there job ads or do you just gotta have your ear to the ground? What’s pay like? What’s work like? Are professors respected in Italy? Stuff like that.

Great questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

I'm Italian, working in another European country. All jobs are listed here: https://bandi.miur.it/ You have to search per area of specialisation, which are quite strict (Moral philosophy, Logic and Phil SC, etc). The majority of jobs will require proficiency in Italian and, I'd say, many jobs have internal candidates. For jobs that don't need Italian proficiency, you'll hear from the usual channels such as Philos, philjobs, etc. To be eligible to apply for Associate professorship, you need a national habilitation (called Abilitazione Nazionale). You need to meet some requirements in terms of publishing (most of the major philosophical journals are included in a list that a committee will consider) and service. For publishing, it's either a book or 10 articles/chapters in the past 5 years; a book and 3 articles from prestigious journals; or 10 articles/chapters and 3 articles from prestigious journals. Requirements of service are not really clear. There are also a few tenure track jobs: they are called 'ricercatore a tempo determinato b' (rtd b). When you get one of these jobs, you are promised a tenured position after 3 years, pending the achievement of the Abilitazione Nazionale. Pay is not very good, if compared to nearby countries such as Austria or Switzerland. Just anecdotally: when I was a VAP in the US, I made more money than an associate professor. However, unless you live in Rome or Milan, life is cheap and the quality of life is just great. Overall, I think that philosophers in Italy, if they are tenured, live a pleasant and intellectually stimulating life (at least the ones I know). They have tons of time for research and, in general, very few people cares about teaching (but that's something characterizing Europe overall). Moreover, I'd like to add that in my field (philosophy of science), there are great and competitive scholars.

This comment is really helpful, and enlightening to boot (as an outsider, it is always interesting to hear how things work in different countries!). Any other readers with experience in philosophy in Italy have any other helpful information to share?

Journal submission embargoes?

In one of our recent "how can we help you?" threads, a reader writes:

Can someone explain to me why, for the past two years at least, Nous and PPR have not accepted submissions for about 8 months out of 12? I'm a bit new to things, and this seems like, well, a rare practice. Also, if I'm honest, I guess I find it a bit frustrating as a junior person. I totally understand that reviewers are people and all of that; but I honestly just don't see why those two journals, out of all of them, have implemented this seemingly eccentric policy.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

[Y]es there is a reason. These journals get so many submissions that at one point they close down so that an even larger backlog does not accumulate.´ It is one way to deal with the problem. I published in Nous, around the time these embargoes were first introduced. How does it feel to publish in Nous? Fine. But I work in a sub-field where the main general philosophy journals are not the key place to publish. If you work in M&E it is probably more important to try to publish in such journals.

For a bit more context, the OP and other interested readers might want to peruse David Velleman's 2017 guest post at Daily Nous, 'The Publication Emergency.' It is, I think, an unfortunate situation that two of the highest-ranked generalist philosophy journals have submission embargoes - and I can't help but wonder whether the embargoes might be a bit self-defeating, in that there are presumably legions of people who wait each year until October 1st to submit papers the moment the embargoes are lifted (thus deluging those journals with submissions). But presumably those journals would have vastly more submissions were it not for the embargoes, so I don't know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Online conference ideas for spending spare $ on?

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

I have a question that is likely to be relevant to quite a few current postdocs, but not only to them.

I find myself in a position where I have a reasonably short-term postdoctoral research position which, while it lasts, has a decent amount of money allocated specifically for research event expenses. I had intended to put on a fairly big conference on the topic of my research project which would have cost a fair amount, but since this has been moved online due to the pandemic the funds are going unused (and the participants are no longer getting treated to a nice meal or two and a stay in an interesting place).

I wonder if anyone has any recommendations for fun and/or interesting supplements to online conferences that it would be worth spending some money on, and that participants would be likely to appreciate?

Good question - any ideas from readers?

Can one remain competitive while teaching K-12?

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

I have a question about "staleness" and the job market.

I just defended my dissertation. Last year I got a position as the Logic/Philosophy (and Latin) teacher at a middle/high school. My PhD was a major factor in my being hired, outweighing my lack of an Ed degree or significant K-12 experience. So I'm employed as a philosopher in a FT academic position, but not in a traditional way.

I love my job and at this point I feel like I could stay here forever. But I don't want to assume that's what's going to happen, and I could see myself wanting more time for research someday, so I continue to watch the market.

So suppose for the next several years I teach middle/high school philosophy, publish 1-2 articles a year (given I'm teaching 6-8 classes at a time and have a family), adjunct here and there, and then apply for TT positions. Would I be seen by committees as an early/mid-career philosopher making a lateral or upward move, or a "stale" PhD grad who never "made it"? Or how do I prepare and present myself so as to appear (as I actually would be) the former rather than the latter?

(FWIW The program here is pretty rigorous. Students take a year of informal logic and two years of formal logic in middle school, so once they reach high school they're better prepared for a philosophy class than the vast majority of college students I've taught.)

Great questions! I'm curious to hear what readers think. I'm inclined to think that if a person in this situation really does publish one or two articles per year while teaching K-12 and adjuncting at a university, then sure, they could remain competitive--at least for jobs at teaching focused universities and community colleges. Further, I can't help but wonder whether, if they found a way to publish in top-ranked journals, they might remain competitive for postdocs or research jobs. But I'm inclined to think that (A) a lot turns on whether they do in fact continue to publish (which might be difficult while teaching K-12), and (B) whether they keep adjuncting (as I expect universities will favor candidates who have more university-level teaching experience over candidates with less). 

But these are just my reactions. What are yours?

Criteria for hiring a VAP?

A reader writes in:

Maybe you've talked about this before, but I'm wanting to hear from those who have served on search committees who were hiring a one or two year VAP, and what particular dynamics are in play in this kind of search as opposed to a TT search. For instance, what are some of the criteria used to make a first big cut in this kind of search? Do they differ from other searches? Do those hiring for such positions, especially when they're just a sabbatical replacement, or where there's very little chance of extension, still look at one's publication record and weigh it heavier than teaching experience and performance? I'd assume teaching fit matters a lot here, but then again I'm not sure. I also wonder whether these kinds of positions often receive the same high number of apps as TT positions. 

Given that these positions look to be more prevalent (in fact, a decent amount or starting to trickle in now), I figured this might help more people than just me? 

Good questions! My own experience hiring VAP positions at a liberal arts university is that teaching is our #1 priority. But I wonder if the same is true at other universities, particularly R1s. Any readers with experience hiring for VAPs care to weigh in?

Joining editorial boards while non-TT?

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

I have a general question about joining editorial boards/working as a journal editor while one is in a postdoc or a non-TT position. In short, is it worth it? Does having something like that on your CV look pretty good, enough to offset the responsibilities that come with it? Or is it generally better to wait until one is securely employed (and maybe tenured) before taking on that level of service to the profession?

And here's another more narrow question: if you - a non-TT philosopher - do interdisciplinary work, and you get invited to join an editorial board for a (reputable) journal in another field, should you do it?

Interesting questions! I'm inclined to think that it depends a lot on the journal. If it's a prestigious journal, then I'm inclined to think it may look impressive - as it indicates that well-recognized people in the discipline think highly of you and consider you an expert in the area. However, how likely is it that you'll be approached to join an editorial board at a journal like that while you're in a non-TT job? It seems unlikely to me, and that the more likely case is that you may be approached to be on an editorial board of a less-prestigious journal. And in that case, I'm not sure it's worth it, in terms of 'looking good' for the job market and later tenure decisions if/when you get a TT job. By a similar token, I'm not sure joining the editorial board of a reputable (but not particularly prestigious) interdisciplinary journal is likely to help much on the philosophy job-market.

So, since editorial responsibilities can be time-consuming, and the primary things you'll be judged on while you're on the market or a tenure decision will be research and teaching, I'm inclined to think that in most cases, it's probably not worth joining an editorial board while non-TT. Indeed, I've known junior people who have worked for journals, and I've heard it can be a lot of work (without, again, a lot of 'upside'). For these reasons, I'm inclined to think that it's generally better to wait until tenure to join editorial boards - unless, of course again you're invited to join a particularly prestigious journal (in which case that is, I think, a different story).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Putting recommended verdicts in referee reports?

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

I have a question about referring. What are people’s thoughts about putting your verdict into your report for the author? E.g. putting “I am recommending revise & resubmit …” or “I am recommending rejection because …” somewhere near the beginning. Do you think it is best practice to always do this, or perhaps to refrain from it? The editor of course already knows the referee’s verdict, but I’m asking about a referee communicating that verdict directly to the author. As an author I sometimes have to read the tea leaves about whether a referee thought a paper should be revised or just rejected. I’d be interested to hear what authors and referees think, but also editors as well. Maybe there's a reason that info shouldn't always be included?

Chivers Butler responded:

I suspect this would result in authors arguing with editors over their decisions, or at least attempting to get them to justify their decisions when they differ from that of (one of) the referees.

I'm actually a bit surprised by this response. As a referee, I always either put some kind of recommendation or other in my review for the author, or in a few rare cases have explained why I had trouble arriving at a firm recommendation. I've just always assumed this to be good practice, and I've always been thankful as an author when referees are clear about their recommendations.

Online philosophy discussion groups?

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

Are there online communities of professional philosophers participating in reading groups or workshopping their papers? Most of my colleagues from graduate school have left the profession, and so philosophy has become a rather lonely undertaking for me.

This is a great question, and I hope we can help this reader out. The short answer to their question is yes. I'm actually a member of a couple of online groups like this, and I've enjoyed participating in them very much. The issue, unfortunately, is that some of these groups are invite-only, as the people who run them can want to keep them relatively small and personal. One reader, Tom, submitted the following reply:

I've got a small group like that that I run with some friends. We work on loosely-connected stuff, but mostly I chose who to invite to such a thing by thinking about who I'd most like to hang out with. My guess is that if you know such people, this kind of thing will be super easy to start right now. We're all desperate for friendship. Also, I started out with just a couple friends, and now we're slightly larger because my friend invited some of their friends.

Of course, the worry about groups like this is that they can be exclusive, rather than inclusive to those (such as the OP) who might be in the greatest need of opportunities like this. But I'm not sure what can be done about this, aside from perhaps creating more groups, or perhaps some groups like these that aren't invite-only but rather open to anyone who is interested.

Fortunately, it occurred to me that perhaps the Cocoon can help in this! I'd like to open the discussion board below both for discussion of these issues, but also for readers to share information about publicly-accessible groups, as well as commenters' own contact information if they'd be interested in setting up a new group or joining an existing group (note: I'd like to ask readers not to share information about private groups organized by someone else, as the people who run those groups might not want information about their group to be made public - which I think is important to respect).