The Philosophers' Cocoon

Pop culture and philosophy bleg

I'm scheduled to teach a lower-level special-topics course next fall entitled "Pop-culture and philosophy." I'm really excited about it. I'm hopeful that it will be a ton of fun as well as pedagogically worthwhile, as I believe the ability to think philosophically about everyday culture (e.g. art, film, music, television, short stories, public essays, etc.) is a worthwhile thing for a liberal arts education to cultivate. Anyway, my tentative plan is to assign some accessible texts (e.g. something from Blackwell's Philosophy and Pop Culture series), some more traditional philosophical material, and some television episodes, films, public essays, and short stories--but here's where I could really use your help!

Do you have any suggestions for supplementary pop-culture material for a course like this? That is, are there any particular films, television episodes, short-stories, public philosophy essays, songs, etc., that you think raise good philosophical issues? If so, which ones and why? If you have any suggestions, please feel free to list them in the comments section along with a very brief description of the philosophical issues you think they raise (though please do try to avoid any "spoilers" for people who might not have seen the thing suggested yet). I would be very appreciative, and look forward to your suggestions!

How can we help you? (Feb 2018)

I just realized it's been quite a while since our last "how can we help you?" thread. Given that it's now late in the job-season (viz. fly-outs, etc.), I thought now might be a good time for a new thread.

For those of you unfamiliar with the series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section on anything you could use help with as an early-career philosopher. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss (and hopefully help you with!) your query.

Please do feel free to post a query on anything we can help you with:

• The academic job-market
• Non-academic jobs
• Graduate school (e.g. writing a disseration, etc.)
• Research & publishing
• Teaching
• Etc.

Fire away: we're here to help! (Quick side-note to other commenters: please don't weigh in preemptively on people's queries in the thread below. Just wait for the new thread I post on the person's query so that everyone can join the discussion!).

Fire away: we're here to help! (Quick side-note to other commenters: please don't weigh in preemptively on people's queries in the thread below. Just wait for the new thread I post on the person's query so that everyone can join the discussion!).

Impact and Engagement for Early Career Philosophers: Part III

"History of Philosophy: Podcasting the B Team"

by Peter Adamson

Almost exactly five years ago I launched a podcast entitled “The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps,” mostly because I listen to podcasts myself and wished that such a thing existed. I was listening to a lot of history podcasts, which have the advantage of being able to move slowly and linger over detailed accounts of people, events and cultures. I thought it would be great if someone were to cover philosophy like that, rather than leaping from one famous author to the next, as we usually do when teaching at university level, and without leaving out whole cultures (so far, in part with the help of co-authors for the scripts, I have covered Islam and India in addition to European thought, and will soon be tackling Africana philosophy). Arguably, this was a case of moving too quickly from “someone should really do that,” to “I should do that”; though I realized the podcast would be a lot of work, I underestimated how much of my time and energy it would take up. Still I certainly do not regret having embarked on it, and would encourage any academic to think about what sort of public outreach they might be in a position to do – if nothing else, the feedback you get from a audience beyond the academy makes it worthwhile.

Ways of reaching students

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" post, Amanda writes:

You've mentioned a few times you show a Karate kid clip to show your students the importance of making them work hard. Would you be willing to share a link to that clip? Thanks.

I'm glad Amanda asked! I'm not only happy to share (see below), but think it's a good opportunity to discuss a part of teaching that I've rarely seen discussed: reaching students.

Before I share the clips, a little backstory. In my first or second year at my current institution (nearly a decade ago), I found myself struggling a bit getting through to students. Sure, some of my students were really into philosophy--but others were disengaged, including a good number of students who seemed to "give up" due to receiving low assignment grades. Because my student reviews weren't great and I wanted to improve (in my own eyes, I wasn't succeeding as a teacher), I looked for opportunities to learn and rethink my approach.

Where the jobs were(n't) in 2017: by AOS

Updated 2/21 (11:30am EST): Due to feedback, I reclassified 'cultural' and 'non-Western' philosophy under History/Traditions. I also moved social epistemology from 'social identity' to 'epistemology.'

Last June, I gave an informal tally of how academic philosophy jobs were distributed by AOS in 2016. Because I am always curious what the job-market looks like, I've put together another tally this year (see below).

A few quick notes. First, I tallied tenure-track jobs by doing a general search on Philjobs from August 1st, 2017 through February 16th, 2018 (some 'open contract' jobs turned out to be TT); then I tallied non-TT jobs by doing a search for 'fixed term' and 'open contract' (as some non-TT jobs were open contract as well). Second, because some job-listings had multiple openings (the single listing for NEH fellowships listed 35 jobs, whereas some other postdocs had 2 or 3 openings), I included the number of openings in my tallies. Third, like last year, whenever I encountered jobs with multiple AOSs, I assigned each AOS a fraction of a job. For instance, if a job listed two AOS, I assigned each AOS '.5' of a job; if there were three, I assigned each AOS .33 of a job; if there were four, .25; and so on. While again I recognize this might seem a bit odd, I think it is a well-motivated, as it helps distinguish how many jobs were dedicated to a specific AOS as opposed to jobs split between many. Fourth, I only counted junior, entry-level academic jobs (postdocs, Assistant Profs, Lecturers, etc.), not senior jobs (Associate) or non-academic jobs. Finally, while I've tried to be accurate (I went through everything twice), this is just an informal tally. If there are any errors, please do let me know and I will correct them ASAP. Also, because I'm reporting these numbers a bit earlier this year than last, I'll plan on updating them in June.

Anyway, here are my (rounded) tallies by AOS, along with some brief commentary:

TOTAL JOBS = 423 (228 TT, 195 Non-TT)

Breakdown by AOS (TT + Non-TT combined)

• Aesthetics: 1.5 jobs (.03%)
• Continental: 9.2 jobs (2.2%)
• Core: 39.3 jobs (9.3%)
• History/Traditions: 49.4 jobs (11.7%)
• Open AOS: 135.5 jobs (32%)
• Religion: 8.8 jobs (2.1%)
• Social identity (race, gender, etc.): 15.4 jobs (3.6%)
• Science: 22.8 jobs (5.4%)
• Value theory (ethics, political): 141.4 jobs (33.4%)

I find this pretty astonishing: 65.4% of all junior-level academic jobs this job season have been either Open AOS or in Value Theory, and 1/3 of all jobs were in value theory.

Impact and Engagement for Early Career Philosophers: Part II

“Youtube videos and Metaphysics Consultancy”

by Jonathan Tallant

 For Part 1 in this series, featuring series creator Emily Thomas (Durham University) and Thom Brooks (Durham), see here.

Reader query on returning to academia

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Number Three writes:

Could we have a thread where people discuss whether they have any knowledge of someone who left academia and returned, and how they would look upon such candidates? I am considering taking a non-academic job. I have good teaching experience and excellent publications. I would be open to applying selectively to academic jobs in the future, while working a non-academic job. I am just curious whether that is realistic.

Great question! I have no idea how others think about this, and agree it would be great to hear from people on the issue. For my part, I personally know one fellow who recently left academia but has published some pretty great papers (in really well-ranked journals) after leaving. I have a hard time believing this person wouldn't be seriously considered for academic jobs. But this is just my feeling.

What do readers think?

Impact and Engagement for Early Career Philosophers: Part I

Introducing the Problem of Impact

by Emily Thomas (Durham University)

Impact and societal engagement are becoming increasingly important for early career philosophers. We are encouraged to apply for conference grants, research grants, even large project grants. Many of these funding bodies are not merely interested in funding research, they are interested in funding research that can positively impact society.

What’s more, many European countries have introduced university monitoring systems, including the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, Italy, Norway, and Sweden. Some of these systems financially reward high performance, which may not just mean producing excellent research. It may also mean research that impacts society. In other words, research impact can lead to money.

If you’re developing new cancer treatments, or renewable sources of energy, the potential societal impact of your research is easy to see. It’s a lot harder to imagine how your work could positively impact society if you’re working on medieval theology, or the philosophy of art, or the metaphysics of time. With the support of an award from the British Academy, I’ve pulled together a short series of posts on ways that philosophers can achieve societal impact. Each of these philosophers have achieved impact in very different ways, which will - I hope - help us to think outside the box.

The first post considers blogging. Enjoy!

Emily

“On Blogging and Policy”

Podcast by Thom Brooks

Impact 1 - Thom Brooks FINAL

Reader query: how are you doing on the market?

In the comments section of our last "how can we help you?" post, a reader writes in:

Could we have a thread where people anonymously post the accomplishments that they think should have landed them a job? At the very least, I think this would provide valuable commiseration for those of us on the job market who feel completely helpless about improving our job prospects. At the most, perhaps it could help call attention to the horrible market inefficiency in philosophy, and spur a conversation about how more efficient hiring practices could benefit both junior philosophers *and* academic institutions.

For me, a post would look like this:

5 publications
14 citations
14 classes taught as instructor of record

0 job offers

Having followed this blog for a few years, I know that there are several readers whose accomplishments far outshine my own but who *still* haven’t been able to find permanent employment. I find it particularly upsetting that your readers with 6-10 publications can’t find a job, while a quick browse of PhilJobs reveals that peoiple [sic] with 0 or 1 publication get tenure lines at Ivy League institutions.

I think this is a really good query, but that it might be even better if we had a reporting thread on an even more general question: what is your candidate profile (professional experience, accomplishments, etc.), and how are you doing on this year's market?

I think it might be good to hear from people on this--not only hear from people who think they are faring worse on the market than they think their accomplishments warrant, but also from people who are faring well on the market--for a number of reasons. First, it might provide us all a clearer picture of what the market is actually like, what types of candidates are doing well or not so well, and so on. Second, it might shed more anecdotal light on 'the hypothesis' I recently ventured, and whether certain types of candidates have more trouble on the market than others. Third, it might provide candidates a clearer picture of where they stand, and what they might do in order to do better on the market. 

So, then, what is your "candidate profile" and how have you done on this year's market? Feel free to mention things like your:

• PhD program's general Leiter-rank (viz. 'Leiterific/top 10', mid-ranked, low-ranked, unranked, etc.)
• Publication numbers (multiple "top-10 pubs", "no pubs", "only lower-ranked pubs").
• Teaching experience & evaluations (lots of experience, high student scores, etc.)
• Year on the market (still ABD, new PhD, 1 year post-PhD, 3 or more years post PhD, etc.)

Candidates should feel free to be as specific or vague as possible. You may of course feel free to report exact numbers of publications, etc., as the above reader did. However, bearing in mind that this is a public venue, if you would like to report your profile in a way that does not make you identifiable, I would suggest being deliberately vague (i.e. instead of reporting your program's exact Leiter rank, maybe give a range; instead of your exact number of pubs, a general picture; etc.). For what it is worth, I think it is unlikely that people will go sleuthing around to figure out who you are (this would, I think, be very difficult). However, I just wanted to make a quick note of it for anyone who might have those concerns.

In any case, I am very curious--as I expect many of you are as well--how candidates are faring, and so I hope a good number of you choose to share in whichever way you feel comfortable.  

What to do if the hypothesis is true? - part 1: job candidates

Last week, I floated a hypothesis that might partly explain why a certain type of philosophy job-candidate seems to struggle inordinately on the market, relative to their level of accomplishments. Very roughly, the hypothesis is that individuals from lower Leiter-ranked PhD programs may be utilizing a counterproductive job-market strategy: the strategy of trying to publish their way into a job through publications in highly-ranked journals. On the one hand, I hypothesized that even if candidates like this publish in top-journals, they may still be non-competitive for research jobs, given prestige bias (for candidates from 'Leiterific programs'). On the other hand, I hypothesized that if candidates like this have publications in highly-ranked journals, they may be non-competitive for teaching jobs, by appearing like a flight risk (or perhaps, as Amanda added, by appearing like someone who wouldn't be happy in a teaching job). Either way, the hypothesis goes, the above job-market strategy may be a bad bet for candidates coming out of lower-ranked programs.

This hypothesis (which I have Amanda to thank for getting me to think about) has gained uptake the past several days, both in the comments section and on social media, where I encountered quite a few people (faculty and job-candidates) who noted the hypothesis seems to cohere with their experience. I also received emails from job-candidates who fit the profile saying the same thing. Still, for all that, it is just a hypothesis. It may be accurate, it may not be. It would be good to find out more definitively, such as through a study similar to Helen's forthcoming study in Ergo. 

In the meantime, there is the question about what people should do if the hypothesis is true. Because we don't know for sure whether it is true, we should probably exercise caution here. Still, I think it may be worth discussing, particularly for job-candidates like Tim who are having trouble getting any interviews as things are. I also think discussing the hypothesis further may help people--both faculty and students--in grad programs that struggle to place people in permanent jobs. So, let us consider two questions:

1. What should job-candidates like Tim do if the hypothesis is true?
2. What should grad students and grad programs do if the hypothesis is true?

I would like to dedicate the current post to the first question, and then return to the second question in a follow-up post.

Grad-program rank, publications, and job-market: a hypothesis

In the comments section of our job-market discussion thread, one of our readers ('Tim') speculated on why he hasn't gotten any interviews on the academic job-market this year:

One of the things that keeps shocking me over and over is the number of interviews Amanda and TT Lady announce having. NINE first round interviews? Jesus. I've had fewer than that in three years on the market...

I've had zero this year so far. None. Not a single first-round interview.

The response I expect is 'Well, Tim (no, not my real name), you really need to reexamine your materials then, or publish more or..' Here's the thing: I hired Kelsky to help with my materials. And I did some of the job-mentoring stuff offered elsewhere. And I (literally) have published almost twice the amount that is required for tenure at the institution where I currently have a temporary position. And no, not all of them are epicycle pubs. And there are several areas where I'm one of the `go to' people to ask.

Yet I've had zero first-round interviews. My application is not being taken seriously, it seems. I would love to explain this (this fact, the general one) by anything other than my being a white male. But it's hard to come up with anything nearly as plausible. 

While the ADPA Report indicates gender-effects in hiring, Tim's explanation for why he hasn't received any interviews seems to me to run up against some facts--among them, the fact that there appear to be people who share Tim's demographic identity who have gotten plenty of interviews and jobs (as I noted, my last two years on the market, I received a fairly large number of interviews, and I've had some friends with similar experiences). This suggests to me that whatever role gender does or doesn't play on the market, there is probably something else going on in Tim's case. What could it be?

Following some things that Amanda has said in the past, and some of my experiences mentoring candidates, I've toyed with a hypothesis on what might be going on in these types of cases. I want to be clear: it is just a hypothesis. It may be totally wrong. But let me say why I think it is worth thinking about.