The Philosophers' Cocoon

Philosophical discussions - new series

Ever since the Cocoon's inception, its mission has been to provide a safe and supportive forum not only for discussing early-career professional issues, but also a place to discuss our work--a place to engage in philosophical discussion! In recent months, just about all of the blog's content has focused on professional issues. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and I very much plan to continue blogging about those kinds of subjects. Still, as someone who works in a very small department--and who rarely gets the chance to talk philosophy other than with undergraduate students--I thought it might be fun to talk philosophy for a change. But, what to discuss?

Because I don't like to compromise anonymized review, talking about stuff I'm currently working on is out as far as I am concerned. I also don't want to focus on stuff I'm not working on, as the best conversations typically result from discussing things one knows pretty well. Finally, I don't want to bore readers by simply presenting stuff I've published, because...well, that would be boring and self-indulgent! :) So, then, here's what I came up with instead. I thought it might be fun to begin a new series where Cocoon contributors discuss some broad philosophical issues they've been thinking about lately, whether in their published or unpublished work, sharing their thoughts on the issue at hand and inviting readers to share theirs. 

On Dennett and metaphilosophy

A lot of discussion has occurred on social media the past few days (including Daily Nous) regarding some extremely dismissive comments Dan Dennett recently made about philosophy in a recent interview. From the interview:

“A great deal of philosophy doesn’t really deserve much of a place of the world,” he says. “Philosophy in some quarters has become self-indulgent, clever play in a vacuum that’s not dealing of problems of any intrinsic interest.” Much if not all philosophical work in analytic metaphysics, for example, is “willfully cut off from any serious issues”

…much of philosophy is little more than a “luxury decoration on society,” and he complains many of the questions studied in both analytic and continental philosophy are “idle—just games.”

I don't blame people for getting upset about these (and other of Dennett's) remarks. Most of us, I expect, believe in the value what we do as philosophers. I don't think I'm engaging in self-indulgent, idle games--and I tend to think there is a quite a lot of good philosophy out there that isn't self-indulgent, idle talk either.

But whatever one makes of Dennett's remarks (and, judging from online discussion, different people had very different reactions), I want to suggest that--as with recent dismissals of philosophy by scientists like Steven Hawking and Neil DeGrasse-Tyson--moments like these time present us with an important opportunity to reflect on what we are doing and how we do it. For although, as I mention below, "metaphilosophy"--the discussion of what philosophy is, and critical examination of its methods--appears to be ascendance these days (which I think is a good thing), there also appear (to me at least) to a wide variety of essential but unresolved metaphilosophical issues. Consequently, instead of dismissing vast swaths of philosophy (as Dennett does), or alternatively maintaining that all is well, I want to suggest a middle path: a common commitment to focus on the metaphilosophical worries that Dennett and others raise, so that we can make a better case for philosophy and, if need be, improve our methods.

Making conferences more enjoyable

In the comments section of my post on conferences and Skype sessions the other day, a couple of commenters expressed some reseverations about conferences. One commenter noted that they tend not to find APA meetings very inviting or enjoyable due to the overall atmosphere, which they describe experiencing as kind of exclusive and focused more on "politicking" and a place to "see and be seen" than a place where an early-career person can feel included and make good connections. Another commenter said something similar about "almost all" conferences--that "unless you are actual friends with enough people there, they're fairly miserable. Perhaps this is different for people who are more extroverted than I am. But generally, if I'm in a strange place and I don't know anyone, I'm uncomfortable."

Although the further along in my career I get, the more I find myself enjoying conferences, including APAs (probably, I think, because over time I have gotten to know more people), my own experiences--especially earlier in my career, but still somewhat today--have been remarkably similar. At some larger conferences, I've felt "left out" at times and in some cases dismissed--in some subtle ways, but also not-so-subtle ways--as "unimportant." Similarly, like one of the above commenters, I am not extroverted, and can have trouble approaching people I don't know (though this is something I've worked very hard on overcoming!). Especially early in my career--as a grad student and non-TT instructor--I often felt uncomfortable and alone at conferences, especially the big ones.

I want to mostly set aside the question of whether these kinds of experiences are accurate--that is, whether there is actually something about the atmosphere or some or all philosophy conferences that makes them uninviting or unenjoyable. This is not because I do not think it is worth discussing, but instead because I don't know of any unbiased way to evaluate such claims, and also because, at least here at the Cocoon, given its safe and supportive mission, I generally try to focus on positive things we can do to improve people's experiences in the profession. Accordingly, I would just like to take these commenters' experiences (and my experiences) for what they are--as experiences of not finding some/many conferences inviting or enjoyable--and ask what we and others can do to help people like us experience conferences as more enjoyable, inviting places. Specifically, I want to focus on three things: (1) what one can do to make conferences more inviting and enjoyable for oneself, (2) what one can do to make conferences more inviting and enjoyable for others, and finally (3) what conference organizers (including the APA) can do to make them more inviting and enjoyable for all, particularly early-career people (who are, all things being equal, probably the most likely to feel uncomfortable and/or excluded).

Conferences, Skype sessions, and working in a small department

I came across this post at Daily Nous today on the value of academic conferences, and had some thoughts that I thought might be worth sharing. Justin's focus in the post was on the overall costs and benefits of conferences themselves, focusing in part on matters of fairness, which I return to below.

One interesting issue that came up in the comments section concerned those who work in small departments. I myself very much identified with Robert Noggle's comment:

Conferences can also rekindle one’s enthusiasm for the field. This is especially important for people in smaller departments and at schools where most of the teaching consists of introductory and service courses. Many people work in departments where they don’t routinely interact with people working in their own specialization, and where they seldom get to teach anything beyond the rudiments of their specialties. For people in such positions, conferences can play a valuable role in keeping them connected with–and enthusiastic about–their fields. And greater enthusiasm carries over into both research and teaching.

Also, going to conferences can also expose you to work that you might not hear about otherwise. I’ve often had the experience of going to a session to hear a paper I probably never would have gotten around to reading simply because it’s on the program and I don’t feel right about skipping sessions, only to find the topic and paper so fascinating and thought-provoking that I want to know more, and perhaps even try to write something about it myself someday.

Should the APA rethink its paper-submission requirements?

One of my philosopher-friends raised a question the other day on social media that has sort of been at the back of my mind for a while--namely, why do APA meeting paper-submission requirements restrict colloquium submissions to 3,000 words (and symposium papers to 5,000)? This might seem like a small issue, and in one sense it clearly is. But, for all that, I think it might be worth discussing. Are the APA's requirements preventing philosophical research from being considered and presented at its three annual meetings? Might APA programs be better with a change in policy? I don't know of any rigorous way to answer these questions, but I thought I might share a few thoughts to see what you all think.

Time for a conversation about unpublished-work-sharing norms?

Justin's post yesterday on anonymizing for peer-review brought me to reflect today on some uncertainties we currently face regarding anonymization and work-sharing online--uncertainties that especially impact early-career people.

As I will explain below, I want to suggest that our discipline could probably use clearer professional norms in these areas--not just to ensure fairness in the journal review process, but also to better address some dilemmas I recently discussed here (viz. there being potential benefits to authors in sharing unpublished work publicly, but also costs). At the very least, I want to suggest that now might be a good time for a broader, more serious discussion of these issues. My experience has been that early-career philosophers in particular can both (A) feel unsure about what they should be doing (share unpublished work online?, not share it?), as well as (B) feel vulnerable about different choices (viz. "If I share unpublished work online, will I compromise anonymized review? If I don't share it, am I missing out on opportunities for feedback, etc.?"). I also want to tentatively suggest--yet again (sorry!)--that some other fields (math and physics) may have arrived at good answers to these issues (i.e. relatively clear and beneficial norms) that our discipline might want to model.

Advice On Anonomyzing For Peer Review

By Justin Caouette

When submitting a paper for blind review we are asked to remove all identifying information like our name, acknowledgements to places we have given the paper, and references to our own work when possible. This all makes sense to accomplish the goal of a solid blind review. But how far should we go to ensure the reviewer cannot find out about our work? I'd like to share a story but I will leave out all identifying information as one of the person's involved would rather not share their identity. I'd be curious to hear what you all think about the request and some of the concerns the person receiving the request has raised, here it goes.

Let me start by saying that the two people involved are junior people and both are on the job market. Person A recently gave comments at a recent well established conference in the discipline. "A" was proud to give these comments and spent money and time to get to the venue to deliver them. "A" put the commentary on their CV and called it a day. Nothing fancy, something like "Comments on X's paper blah, blah, blah, at the really cool conference 2016". "A" thought the comments went well and found the exchange and ensuing discussion to be fruitful. After making some changes to the paper the author of the paper, I will call them "X", planned to submit the paper for publication. "X" contacted "A" and asked "A" to take down the paper title so it cannot be found by possible reviewers, "X"  asked that the title of the paper and their name be removed from their CV so that the paper could be submitted for blind review. In other words, X thinks this request is reasonable and would help to ensure blind review. However, "A" brought up some good points as to why they should be able to keep the author's name and paper title on their CV. 

First, it seems to do a disservice to "A" because to take down the paper title and the name of the author is to remove some of the only activity from their CV that they added this year. Second, they spent money and time to present and now they would not be able to be credited for this at a time when CV's are looked at closely because they are applying for jobs. Third, commenting in a specific area shows that "A" is knowledgeable in that area, however without a paper title it's tough to tell what "A" presented at the conference. Lastly, pulling it from their CV doesn't remove the title from the conference program which is available online so it seems pointless to remove it from "A"'s CV unless it is also removed entirely from the internet.

Now, I must say that all of these points seem valid to me, but at the same time the request also seems legitimate. After all, "X" is simply prepping their paper for blind review and is doing some extra work to ensure that the reviewer cannot connect them to the paper. So, I am unsure what the person should do (which is why I am asking the Cocoon community for their input). I am sure the conference has a list of papers given (and author names connected to them) so if someone REALLY wants to find out I am sure they can. But, I am new to this so maybe this sort of thing is the norm. I'm leaning toward advising "A" to keep it up and explain to "X" why, but I wanted to discuss it here first as I don't want to offend "X". Ahhhh! Well, what do you say Cocooners (and others reading this)? 

Job Market Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy

I just received a notice from Jennifer Frey (South Carolina) that the Job Candidate Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy has begin accepting signups.

The Job Candidate Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy is recruiting both mentors and mentees for the 2016-2017 job market season.

Women who are interested in serving as mentors should fill out this form before September 1, 2016. Mentors should currently hold a permanent academic post and have had job market experience at the junior level in the past seven years.

Women who are interested in being mentored should fill out this form before September 1, 2016. Preference will be given to job candidates who have not participated in this mentoring program before.

Looks like a great program! (Also, just a quick reminder: job-candidates in need of mentorship who are not eligible for the Women's Program are encouraged to sign up for the Cocoon's mentoring program by Sept. 30th).

Making Some Headway on your First Day

By JG

Marcus has touched on some ideas for having a good first day of class before: see here in particular, with links to previous posts. Since the beginning of the semester is fast approaching, I thought it would make sense to revisit the topic and throw in my two cents. I’ll make a few concrete suggestions below, plus some big-picture goals that I think help make for a good first day, and finally some things I think don’t work very well…

Potential risks & benefits of publishing in lower-ranked journals

We've all heard the saying, "Publish or perish." By all accounts, when it comes to getting a tenure-track job, and then keeping it (i.e. getting tenure), publishing successfully is a very big deal. But, what exactly should one's publishing strategy be as an early-career person? This is something that we have discussed on a number of occasions here at the Cocoon. However, because it is so important--and because, as I will explain, some common advice seems to me myopic--I would like to return to the issue again.

When I was in graduate school, I was advised to only publish in "top" generalist or specialist journals (i.e. these types). I've also heard through the proverbial grapevine that a lot of students are given similar advice. At first glance, the rationale for this advice is straightforward and plausible: venue matters, and publishing in poor venues can not only hurt one on the job-market, but also, in the longer run, in achieving tenure. Although as I will explain below I do not think this advice is entirely inaccurate, in my experience it is arguably very incomplete. The risks and benefits of publishing in lower-ranked journals, in my experience, appear to much more subtle. So, what I would like to do is to try to briefly catalog the risks and benefits involved. Instead of giving advice to readers on where to publish, my aim is merely to give readers food for thought to make a more informed decision about whatever publishing strategies they pursue.

Before proceeding, I want to clarify what I mean by "highly-ranked" and "lower-ranked" journals. Basically, by high-ranked journals, I mean the kinds of journals featured in top-20 lists like these. By lower-ranked journals, I mean those falling outside these lists. However, I do not mean to include "vanity journals." By lower-ranked journals, I mean well-known journals with legitimate peer-review practices. 

Mentoring program extension

Helen De Cruz and I are happy to announce that, in conjunction with the Job Candidate Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy (which we are told will begin accepting signups soon!), we have decided to extend the signup deadline for the Cocoon's Job-market Mentoring Program to September 30th. So, if you are a candidate who lacks adequate access to mentorship or otherwise faces special challenges on the market, or are a tenure-stream faculty member who is willing and able to help out a candidate in need, please do sign up. Our aim is to help as many people as we reasonably can!

On that note, I would like to conclude with a brief update and request. So far this year things appear to be going well in our program. We have already matched some twenty-odd mentees and mentors, and are happy to report that one of our mentees this season has already received a tenure-track job! That being said, we always have more mentees in need than available mentors to match them with. Accordingly, I would like to ask you all to spread this call for new mentors as widely as you can, and to suggest our program to anyone you know who might be willing to serve as a mentor. As someone who has mentored several job-candidates myself, my experience has been that it does not require a ton of time or work, and that there are candidates out there very much in need who are incredibly thankful for whatever help you can provide. So, if you are a tenure-stream philosopher, please do consider signing up as a mentor in our program--and if you know anyone else who is tenure-stream, please consider drawing their attention to our program!

Job market well-wishes

Now that the first jobs of this year's academic job season have been posted to philjobs, I just wanted to wish all of the job-candidates out there the best of luck on the market. Having spent seven years on the market myself, I know very well just how grueling the market can be. Although, as we all unfortunately know, there are not nearly enough jobs for all of the talented and qualified candidates out there, my wishes and hopes are with all of you.

Also, if there is anything at all we here at the Cocoon can do--if you have any questions you would like to (anonymously) pose to the Cocoon community (about applying, interviewing, contract negotiations, whatever)--please do feel free to send them to me at [email protected]. The Cocoon community is always here to help!

Finally, for anyone who might have missed them, here are the posts from the Cocoon's Job-Market Boot Camp:

• Building a strong, competitive CV
• Organizing/composing the CV itself
• Securing good letters of recommendation
• The European job-market
• Using job-market consultants
• Developing a coherent research program
• Cover letters
• Teaching statements
• Teaching portfolios
• Research statements
• Diversity statements
• Cultivating an online presence
• Where and when to apply (addendum)
• Writing samples
• Skype and phone interviews
• APA interviews
• Campus visits
• British interviews
• Contract negotiations
• Emotional maintenance
• Mentoring
• Non-academic jobs

Additionally, here are a few posts from my Notes from Both Sides of the Market series:

• Building a strong CV
• Organizing the CV
• Teaching portfolio dilemmas
• Making teaching statements precise

Good luck, everyone!

What you can do with a philosophy degree - request for collaboration

A while back, I have done a series of interviews with philosophers who work outside of academia. I am currently building a website about careers for philosophers, specifically tailored to philosophy students. My institution will host and build the site, and we hope it will help our students, but we also hope it will be of use for philosophy students worldwide. 

The website will feature, among others, testimonials by holders of a BA, MA or PhD in philosophy about their careers.  To give you a sense of people who have signed up to provide a testimonial: hedge fund manager, novelist, barrister, television writer, the CEO of academia.edu, an architect, refugee officer, someone who does advocacy for GLBT elders. I have a template that prospective contributors can follow (although they can also write a testimonial independently of that), which addresses questions such as what your current career is, what excites you about philosophy, and how your philosophical training is useful in your current work (even in an indirect way). 

Given that philosophy does not translate itself straight into a job, the idea is not so much to give students ready formulas for careers they can pursue but to give them a sense of the career options they may have. 

If you are a philosopher with an interesting career please contact me at helenldecruz at gmail dot com. For now, I am focusing on people in the private and public sector outside of academia, but I will also add some academics later on. The focus will be primarily non-academic to show that there are many options for those who don't want to be in academia. If you know any philosophers who fit this bill, please let them know. 

I will announce when the website goes live, which should normally be next spring. 

 

Syllabus design: an occasional series. Part 3: Learning Outcomes

By JG

In my last post, I talked about the different options you have for the kind of course you design: survey courses, deep dives, etc. The decisions you make here have important consequences for another big set of choices you have, about learning outcomes (sometimes called ‘learning goals’ or ‘learning objectives’). There are lots of great things already written about what learning outcomes are in general, and how to pick which ones to build your class around, so I won’t belabor the point. In an earlier post, I collected a bunch of teaching links that you can check out, supplemented by reader suggestions, here; the material here, here, here and here are, I think, particularly helpful, and you can also find a useful quiz to help you figure out what outcomes you gravitate towards here. 

I’ll focus instead on some philosophy-specific considerations regarding learning outcomes, and talk a bit about how learning outcomes connect to other issues.

Restrictions on replies: a barrier to philosophical discussion?

A while back, I noted some disturbing facts about citation rates in the humanities. For instance, according to this study:

• More than 90% of published humanities papers have received no citations two years after publication.
• About 82% have never been cited five years after publication.
• Citation rates in the humanities have been consistently this low across the past several decades.

Kieran Healy's recent research on citation rates in philosophy broadly indicates similar trends. As he put it, "on the average hardly anyone is getting cited, be they man or woman." These trends are in marked contrast to the sciences, where (according to the first study linked to above):

• Over 50% of natural science and social science papers receive at least one citation within two years.
• About 70% receive at least one citation after five years.
• Citation-rates in both areas have climbed dramatically and steadily over the past several decades.

Why are citation rates so low in the humanities, and in philosophy specifically? And is this a problem? If so, what should be done about it? Obviously, these are very big questions, and we cannot hope adequately address them here. Instead what I would like to do is focus on a particular issue I have some concerns about: restrictions on "replies" to articles in other journals.