Being-a-Good-Member-of-the-Profession Strategies

I thought I might follow my earlier posts on research and teaching strategies with a post on the question of how to be a good member of the profession. I don't claim to know all of the answers here, or even to assiduously adhere to the ones I think I do know (though I do try). In any case, I think it's a very important issue, one not discussed nearly enough. I expect most of us have witnessed and/or heard stories of abominable behavior by members of the profession, and I, for one, think we all share a duty to do our part to make our profession a better place.

So, without further ado, I'd like to share what I take to be a few tips for being a good member of the profession, and ask you all to share and discuss your own thoughts/tips in the comments section.

1.  Don't be a hostile philosophical interlocutor/treat philosophy like a blood-sport

I expect we've all been there -- at a talk or conversation where someone makes it very clear that their main tasks are to humiliate the speaker/coversant and prove their own philosophical superiority. My experience has been that some very "famous" people behave this way, and that (too) many younger people in the profession -- including grad students -- copy the behavior. But the fact that a famous person does X doesn't make it right. It's not. It's painful to watch, it's abhorrent, and the only person who looks bad is the person doing it.

2.  When you raise a serious question or objection, try to preface it with a positive comment and offer some kind of friendly proposal to deal with it

It's all well and good to present serious questions or objections to someone giving a talk. But try to say something complimentary first like, "I really enjoyed your paper", and, if you can, present a friendly suggestion for how the person might deal with the issue(s) you raise. After all, I assume we've all been on the receiving end of difficult questioning. Yes, it's important to learn how to deal with difficult questions and objections, but I think it's also important to present questions and objections in a supportive, helping spirit. As a questioner, try to regard yourself in a helping role. Your job is to help the person giving the paper see what's worrisome about their paper, and what they might do to deal with those worries. Of course, if a paper is sometimes very bad, this can be very hard to do -- and in these cases I'd like to refer back to tip (1). I've been in talks before where an audience "bandwagon" begins to form (many people raise what seems to be a fatal objection). In some such cases I've felt that I could really weigh in with some other devastating objection, but I've refrained. I expect some will object to this on philosophical grounds (viz. "the person would be better off knowing the objection"), but here too I think there's a better way to go. Discuss the issue with the person after the talk -- say, when everyone's out at the pub, where the person will be under less pressure. 

3. Go to your friends' talks, even if you're not really interested in the subject-matter

They almost always appreciate it, especially at the APA. Talks are stressful. It's nice to have friendly faces in the audience. It shows you care.

4. Don't publicly advertise your interviews/offers at the Eastern APA, or on social media.

It's really awesome that you have X APA interviews and a job offer from Amazing School. But other people aren't so lucky, and many of them are suffering over it. Enjoy your good fortune with your family and friends. The good feeling you get from everyone knowing of your good news isn't worth the pain it causes to others.

5. Definitely don't ask people at the Eastern "whether they're on the market" or if they have any interviews.

I'm always flabbergasted that people do these things. The first question almost always leads to the latter. And the person who has no interviews is humiliated.  

6. Don't regard conferences as sexual opportunities.

Again, flabbergasted about how many people do. I've seen it, I've heard stories. No one should have to attend a conference expecting to be continuously hit on, propositioned, etc.

7. Don't be one of "those" journal reviewers.

You know, the kind who gives everything the least charitable interpretation possible, advocates rejecting a paper because they don't like its conclusions, and writes mean-spirited things the intention of which are to show the paper's author just how stupid they are.

Anyway, I guess these are all I can think of right now. I may add more as they come to me. Any thoughts/additions/subtractions?

Comments

[Andrew]

I'm unsure about #5. Among friends, at least, questions like this are a chance to either celebrate or commiserate. That's just what friends do; we take joy in each others' successes and comfort those in need of solace. With mere acquaintances, this can be a little more delicate, but even then, I appreciate the gesture. At its best, it communicates care and a sense that we're all in this together.

That said, I'm sure I've asked questions like this before (intended to be in a spirit of camaraderie) and communicated something quite different, and I will try to be more careful about that.

And in this employment climate, there's absolutely no shame in having few or no interviews.

[Dan Dennis]

Thanks for another interesting post, Marcus.

I would add to 2 ‘If you think you have an objection, try to put it in the form of a question – and be aware that you may be mistaken in thinking the objection successful’. Thus instead of saying, ‘You account fails because X’ you say ‘Is X a problem for your account?’ or 'Couldn't someone claim that X?' or some such. In asking a question you are less hostile, recognising your falibility and giving the person the chance to think of a solution – and you look less dumb if it turns out X is not such a problem for the speaker's account. In asking a quesiton you are entering into dialogue, rather than trying to close someone down...

[Roman]

I'd like to express some reservations about #2. I don't think it's a good idea to preface comments with "I really enjoyed your paper" unless you genuinely mean them. Nor do I think "if you can't think of anything nice or helpful to say, don't say anything" is a good adage for philosophy.

Part of the reason I present papers at conferences is that I want to know (1) whether people like what I'm doing, and (2) whether there are serious, devastating objections to it. I want these things, in part, because when I'm presenting a paper I am usually thinking about my future anonymous reviewers whose job, after all, is not to make me feel good, but to decide whether or not to publish my paper--and why.

If everyone tells me that they enjoyed my paper only to be nice, that doesn't make me feel good--because I don't know if they were *just* being nice or actually meant it--and it doesn't help me figure out how publishable my paper is. And if people with devastating objections were to stop raising them because they couldn't, spur of the moment, also think of a way I could fix those ideas, or offer something honest and positive to say, then I'd miss out on knowing what the devastating objections are. And sure, you can talk to the person after their talk. But with conference schedules, that isn't always easy or possible. If you're not certain you can hang out afterwards, and the only thing you can think of to say is a criticism--if you're at one of my talks, at least, please raise it!

In other words: please don't be nice at the expense of being genuinely helpful. I think Dan's suggestion is good--I agree that it's important to be nice, very important not to try to humiliate people, and great to pose objections as questions rather than straightforward assaults. Still, I want the devastating objections on my papers, and if people sit through my paper and think it was a waste of time, I want to know their reasons.

[Alex]

I like 7, and wish more referees would heed this advice. My adviser taught me to write careful, charitable referee reports, and I always make an effort to follow her advice, even when I think the paper I'm reading is utter crap.

And it's really disheartening, especially as a grad student, to get careless, poorly argued or written (sometimes to the point of unintelligibility), and often useless referee reports from (likely) more senior members of the profession.

[elisa freschi]

Re. 2, I tend to agree with Roman (I WANT to know whether my argument is sound) but I see your point. Thus, my usual strategy is: I only criticise a paper in a way that makes its author learn something (e.g., instead of saying "it is crap", I suggest reading X or Z or considering the counterevidence Y).

Re. 3, I try to tell my friends at conferences that they do not have to come to my talk. I know too many people who literally run from one hall to the other to listen to their friends and in this way miss many papers they would be much more interested in. This being said, I would go to the talk of a shy friend if I think she might need some support.

[Julia]

I agree with Roman about #2. I find it generally unhelpful when every person asking a question starts with "I really enjoyed your paper." It just seems like an empty phrase at this point. It's nice to get a more specific positive comment, though, such as "I think part X of your argument is really convincing..."
Generally, I would like my interlocutors to simply state what they have in mind. Q&A situations are generally difficult, because the speaker has to try to immediately figure out what is being asked, and what to answer. Masking objections as questions is just unhelpful to the speaker and to the other listeners. It is very common for people to say things like "I have a question, I think I am confused here, because [insert something that can easily be stated as a serious objection.]"
It just makes the discussion harder to follow, and I don't think it's nicer than just saying: "I have an objection that I think might be pretty serious, here it is..."
However, if a speaker seems like they wouldn't be able to handle a serious blow to their view (for whatever reason), it's also great to send an email with the objection later.
One of the most polite things people can do in Q&A is to ask their questions in a concise way, so that the speaker can hear lots of feedback from different people.

[Marcus Arvan]

Thanks for the comments everyone! Looks like I should strike (or at least substantially revise) #2, since there seems to be so much agreement against it.

Does anyone have any tips not on the list for being a good member of the profession?