The Philosophers' Cocoon

Article(s) or book manuscript: how to choose?

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

I am wondering when one should start considering changing a long paper manuscript into a book project.

I am a junior faculty member working in a traditional area of analytic philosophy. Publishing a book is something that had never occurred to me. Recently, I am working on two interrelated papers, each of which becomes longer than what most journals recommend. While I know that the recommended length is not a requirement, I started considering whether it would be a good idea to develop a book project that includes these two papers (and more, of course). I know that some people's books were developed from paper manuscripts, so I am curious to hear others' suggestions, especially things that I should consider in order to make the decision.

This is an excellent question, and I am curious what readers think. My general experience is that many people advocate 'thinking strategically' here. For example, I have heard many people say things like, 'As a junior person, you should try to publish some of the papers on the project in well-ranked journals, so as to test the waters and develop a reputation as a researcher. Then, if all goes well, try to publish a book.' I certainly understand this kind of strategic thinking, but I also think that there are limitations to it. Allow me to explain.

Good grants for junior philosophers?

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

I've recently moved to the UK for a postdoc. They have lots of grants here, and I gather that it's a good idea for me to start building a track record of getting them (is that right?). If so: what sorts of things do younger folks usually do with a grant, and what sorts of grants are we competitive for?

This is a great question! I suspect quite a few readers, both in the UK and elsewhere, might benefit from hearing some answers. Do any of you with grant experience have any tips or other advice?

Spring sounds

Latin American Philosophy for the Non-Specialist: A Word of Encouragement

This is a guest post by Robert Eli Sanchez, Jr., Occidental College

Over the years, colleagues have expressed interest in teaching Latin American philosophy (LAP). And they’ve expressed hesitation. Often when I tell them what I’m working on, or what I’m teaching, they’ll respond with some version of, “Oh, I would love to teach LAP, but…”. Today, I’d like to raise and respond to a few of those “buts”. For those of you who are interested but hesitant, my aim is to encourage you to take the leap (or dip the toes). And for those of you who aren’t yet interested, perhaps I can entice you with a reading or two.

One of the biggest worries I hear from colleagues is that, even if they wanted to introduce LAP into their syllabus or research, they wouldn’t know where to begin. Without a familiarity with the history of LAP, it’s not clear how to choose a text or represent the tradition in a non-haphazard way. And the idea of familiarizing oneself with entire tradition just sounds like too much work.

I can sympathize with this reservation. As an undergraduate I remember having the wacky notion that there must be philosophers in Mexico, but not knowing how to find them. As a graduate student working on a dissertation on Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard, I remember trying to piece together some story based on the names I had come across (e.g. Las Casas, Sor Juana, Ortega y Gasset, Vasconcelos, Ramos), but feeling like I was reading every fifth page of a Garcia Marquez novel, not knowing who was related to whom. But what I remember most was the feeling I had as a new professor, knowing that the first iterations of teaching LAP were haphazard and largely unsuccessful.

Thankfully, a lot has changed in the last 15 years and now one doesn’t have to reconstruct a narrative on one’s own. In fact, this was precisely the main challenge – among others – I had in mind when editing Latin American and Latinx Philosophy: A Collaborative Introduction. What I thought LAP in the US needed most was a guide that would enable the non-specialist to teach an entire course on LAP, with confidence, and without having to drop everything else. I wanted the text I wish I had when I started out, a text I could have built a syllabus around, and one that would equally serve the undergraduate, graduate student, and instructor alike.

To achieve this, I gave contributors a template based on the chapter I had written, and I asked them to include the following elements, which I believed would make learning a new tradition less daunting:

1. A close analysis of several canonical texts.
2. Large excerpts of the primary text.
3. The historical and philosophical background needed to situate the texts.
4. A discussion of their contemporary philosophical relevance.

I also organized the text more or less chronologically so that, collectively, the chapters serve as an introduction to the history of LAP. Again, part of the aim was to reconstruct a non-arbitrary narrative that gives reader a sense of how these texts, authors, and themes constitute a tradition. (See the TOC below.)

Types of referee reports?

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

Maybe we could have a thread on 'types of referee reports'. I am working on a particularly frustrating R&R right now, and could use the entertainment. It maybe could also be instructive (?) on what not to do when writing a referee report?

Here, I'll start:

“You have not cited my book. No one else will tell you to cite my book, but I wrote it, someone published it, it’s on a glancingly related topic, so this lack of engagement with my work is a severe deficiency of your paper. Reject.”

“You have cited my book, but apparently you disagree with me. This means that you have not read my book carefully enough. Read it again. Reject.”

“You have talked about how X is related to Y, but have you considered that perhaps Z is related to Y? I do not know if it is, but neither do you, apparently, since you do not write about it, so … reject.”

“You are here writing about X. But have you considered mildly related issues Y and Z? Apparently you are ignorant of them. I would not consider publishing any paper on X that does not address Y and Z. Revise and resubmit […] This paper is too disjointed. What you write about Y and Z is nuanced and insightful, I am not sure why you discuss Y and Z in a paper on X. Reject.”

“I am just not convinced by this. Reject.”

“This is a great paper, unfortunately it’s on a topic I’m not super interested in. Have you considered rewriting the paper on a different topic, that is more related to my specific areas of interest and expertise? Thanks in advance. Revise and resubmit.”

This could be a rather fun and potentially illuminating exercise to end the week with, as it might help us all to reflect a bit on how we and others around us approach the practice of peer-review. I'll probably share an example or two in the comments section below, but I think I'd just like to open things up for comments first!

What to do with rejected 'reply' papers?

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

I'll begin with some context: Recently I submitted a paper to a journal. This paper was a response to another paper published in that journal; the paper being responded to, in turn, was itself a response to an earlier paper of mine (also published in that same journal). Earlier today, unfortunately, I received an email from the editor letting me know that my new paper had been rejected. In explanation, the editor left the following comment: "I can't publish this, because it cites our own articles too much. Hopefully, another venue might be interested."

I now have a few questions:

(1) What might be the prospects for publishing the paper elsewhere? If I remember correctly, I've heard that most journals won't be willing to consider publishing a response to a paper that was not itself published in their own journal. If that's right, then there'd appear to be little hope of publishing the paper elsewhere. But I was wondering if anyone had any relevant thoughts or experiences here.

(2) To the extent that publishing the paper elsewhere does appear hopeless, what's left? Perhaps simply putting a copy of the paper on my PhilPeople profile? Though it'd of course be disappointing not to have the paper published in an actual journal, this is a paper that means a great deal to me personally, and I suppose I'd rather have it be available in some form than not at all. Has anyone else here had experiences of being deeply invested in a paper, yet not being able to find a publisher for it? If so, what "last resort" options have you found?

These are excellent questions. My general sense is that, with respect to (1), the best general path forward may be to try to convert the reply piece into something more like a standalone journal article. I've done this with several pieces, and sometimes it has worked, sometimes not. The other obvious path forward is to look for other places to publish it, such as other journals that accept replies to articles in other journals, or in an edited volume (which has worked for me before). But I can never remember which journals accept replies to articles in other journals, so if readers want to suggest such journals in the comments section below, by all means, please do!

What haven't you read, and why?

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

Lots of my philosophriends report that they're embarrassed about having not read X. Sometimes X is something that philosophers generally are supposed to have read. Sometimes it's just something that philosophers of one sort or another are supposed to have read.

I also feel this way. But rationally, I think we should all get over these feelings. So here's my proposal: let's have a confessional thread. It should be used exclusively for confession (no shaming!). Anyone who wants to can write in with philosophical work(s) they think they're supposed to have read but haven't. Hopefully this helps us all realize that we're ok.

This could be fun. I think it could be interesting to hear both what people haven't read, but also why. Is it simply that you haven't had enough time? Or is it some other reason, such as that you're just not interested in the topic or the literature surrounding it for some reason? Remember, no shaming other commenters! (Also, if you do share a reason why you haven't read something, please be sure to respect the Cocoon's supportive mission).

Freelance work for philosophers?

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

What are the best options for freelancing as a professional philosopher? For example, say someone is a FT philosophy instructor looking to pick up summer work or earn extra money during breaks or the school year. What are the best types of freelance work, and where are the places to find them?

I’m thinking there may be options for tutoring, editing, etc., but I’m not sure where to start or if this is a fruitful path...

This is a great question, in part because good answers to it might help graduate students and academic job-candidates to explore and develop "plan B's" outside of academia. Any of you have tips or other suggestions?

Grappling with tenure-track blues?

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

This might not seem like a philosophy question. But I am a philosopher that needs help, and philosophers might understand my situation better than others.

So the short story: I am broken hearted for the very first time. I have a TT position, but I can't focus on anything. It has been some time, and it has not gotten better.

Any advice? How do you move on from this and care about philosophy again? To make matters much worse, I have no living family, and philosophy has my friends both very busy and randomly placed across the country - or the world even.

Although I have put 150% into this my work the last 10 years, and have secured what many of you dream of, it all seems so unimportant - professional philosophy is not anything like what I hoped. Most of it seems a game. This is where I feel the need to qualify things with, "Oh, but I have a nice career and published a lot in such and such fancy places, blah blah," as philosophers always seem to do. It makes me sad and tired -the never-ending game. I just want my person back. But it seems I can't have that. Besides therapy, what can I do?

To all of you suffering on the market but sleeping next to someone who loves you - trust me, you are the lucky one. Please don't forget it.

I empathize, and think this is a great query. As someone who spent a long time on the job market (8 years, 7 of which were post-PhD), I was one of those who thought that getting a TT would 'make everything better.' But, as with the OP, it didn't--well, at least not very quickly (things have gotten better over time). In brief, I think it is entirely natural to struggle with what we might call the tenure-track blues (see e.g. here and here). As the OP notes, academia in general can be very isolating: even if you get a TT job, you generally have to move away from friends and family to a new area where you know no one. Worse, you have to work your tail off, both in order to feel like you deserve the job you got but also (obviously) in order to get tenure. This too can be an isolating grind, as it can leave you without much time to enjoy life, make new friends, and so on. And of course you can feel, as the OP does, that academia is just a game that doesn't really much matter.

I'm curious what readers think. Have you grappled with the TT blues? If so, do you have any tips for the OP? Here are a few suggestions based upon my experience...

Editorial services for book manuscripts?

A reader writes in:

Do Cocoon readers have recommendations of people who provide editorial services for book-length philosophy manuscripts? I’m looking for someone to help polish up a manuscript over the summer. As a native English speaker, the ideal editor would be a really strong writer (and substantive knowledge in moral philosophy is a plus). Perhaps there is someone with a Ph.D. in philosophy who decided to pursue editing as a primary career or side gig. Self-recommendations are welcome too!

I don't have any experience with outside editing help, so unfortunately there's not much that I can say to be helpful here. But what about you? Do you know of any good people or services for editing book manuscripts in philosophy? Feel free to give recommendations, or even (as the OP suggests) recommend yourself!

Publishing in 'Oxford Studies in...'?

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

What’s the deal with the “Oxford Studies in X”? How does one publish in these volumes and what is the perception within the field generally, or of various Xs?

My sense is that these publications are viewed as quite prestigious. However, I'm not entirely sure how to publish in them. I do know that most papers presented at the annual Arizona Workshop in Normative Ethics appear in the Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. But, beyond this I don't know much about the Oxford series. Any of you out there have the inside scoop?

ADPA data on job-market competitiveness of candidates over time

Last week, I linked to a post by Charles Lassiter (Gonzaga) on when a PhD degree goes 'stale.' In my post, I noted that it is hard to know whether and to what extent the PhD goes stale without knowing how long academic job applicants stick it out on the market. Interestingly, a handful of readers chimed in noting that, like me, they actually seemed to become more competitive of the academic job-market over time. However, because these are just anecdata and real hard data is important data to know, I reached out to Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced) of the Academic Placement Data and Analysis (ADPA) project and found out that this kind of data has already been collected and reported upon.

Specifically, I learned that back in 2017, the ADPA's comprehensive report (p. 23) indicated the following:

One’s chances of obtaining a permanent academic job in a particular year past graduation are as follows: 

• • 1 in 5 in the first year after graduation
  • 1 in 8 in the second year after graduation
  • 1 in 8 in the third year after graduation
  • 1 in 12 in the fourth year after graduation
  • 1 in 17 in the fifth year after graduation
  • 1 in 22 in the sixth year after graduation
  • 1 in 23 in the seventh year after graduation

Although the chances of finding permanent academic employment after one’s 7th year are very low, 22% of all 2009 and earlier graduates in the APDA database are now in temporary academic employment

Philosophy and Writing, Specifically Television Writing (guest post by Eric Kaplan)

This is a guest post by Eric Kaplan on television fiction, for a series of blogposts we are hosting on philosophers who write fiction or poetry (see here and here for earlier installments).

Eric Kaplan has a PhD. in philosophy from UC Berkeley and has written for Futurama, Flight of the Conchords, and The Big Bang Theory among other shows. His book "Does Santa Exist: A Philosophical Investigation" was published by Dutton. 

When I first made the switch, from being enrolled in the UC Berkeley PhD. program where I had just finished my oral exam with Donald Davidson, John Searle, and Hubert Dreyfus about “being true to the facts”, to working as a staff writer for David Letterman, I felt guilty. It felt like I was abandoning a holy calling for something tawdry. If I was writing jokes for the top 10, who would learn and spread the good news about what it meant, or didn’t mean, to be true to the facts?

I’ve since realized that this was an error. Now I have reached the correct view, which is that writing and philosophy are both integrative practices. In philosophy we bring together parts of ourselves (possibly self- or family of origin- generated, possibly inherited from the tradition), and get them talking.

How can truth be what works, but also what is true whether or not it works? How can the good be what is good for us, but also what we ought to do even if it’s bad for us? If we’re some sort of neo-Platonist (and I think I might be, a few days of the week at any rate) we think that unifying these opposing opinions is bringing pieces of life back to a whole. Each philosophical position we are trying to reconcile is a fragment of that whole, wandering orphaned in the world (or in our our minds) seeking union.

Telling a story does that too, but sometimes it can do things a philosophical essay can’t. I can write a philosophical essay about the role of risk and emotion and passion in a well-lived life, but the tone of the essay already takes a stand on that issue. The essay is judicious. It doesn’t take that many risks with the audience. A television show about a woman who loses her family because of her love of gambling will not just talk about risk in a risk-free way, or talk about emotions in a non-emotional way. It will make you feel emotions. It will run a risk.

I think stories can reach places essays don't because the only duty of the story is to hold our interest. A story does not have to be consistent. It does not have to be true. It does not have to make sense. It does not have to be responsible. I can tell a story “Bob was a unicorn. He was not a unicorn. He was not named Bob.” A story can reach out and challenge itself “Sally was a woman with the following odd quirk: everything you think about her from reading this story was false.” At least two, or maybe three members of my oral committee would say: so much the worse for stories. They are nonsense. But, in the spirit of unifying those orphan fragments, I feel a need, or a yen, or perhaps a calling, to unify sense and nonsense. Whether that need itself makes any sense, I couldn’t tell you -- at least not in an essay. Maybe I could in a story. The Yoga Vasistha is awfully good!

Finally, the sort of television writing I do is of the particular sub-genus of writing that aims to be popular. That means it must be something millions of people will “get”. Care about. If it’s a comedy, find funny. It’s customary in certain groups to sneer at popular writing and the obvious compromises it requires. I don’t want to sneer at the sneering. Staying loyal to what you think is good -- even if nobody else agrees -- is a good thing. But I also feel a hankering to unify this split between the elite and the popular. I think it is a bit like being an engineer. If you are building a bridge that only a few very skilled hikers will ever cross, you can make it out of a slender web of rope. If you expect thousands to drive across it, it had better be well-designed steel.

Both bridges -- the diaphanous rope bridge (in this analogy, if you have drifted off: elite philosophy) and the steel suspension bridge (popular writing) have their virtues. If people on either side of the bridge feel ambivalent about those on the other side -- what Kierkegaard would call an “antipathetic sympathy” -- that fact itself is also worth feeling and thinking about. I think!

Spring sounds

Philosophy of disability reading list (by AH Rheaume)

On Twitter, A.H. Rheaume shared the following reading list in philosophy of disability and Crip theory, and kindly offered to allow me to share it here:

• Feminist, Queer, Crip by Allison Kafer
• Brilliant Imperfection by Eli Clare
• Foucault and the Feminist Philosophy of Disability by Shelley Tremain
• Foucault and the Government of Disability by Shelley Tremain
• Ableist Rhetoric: How We Know, Value, and See Disability by James L. Cherney
• Fantasies of Identification by Ellen Samuels

A Black Studies Reading List for Philosophers (by Nicholas Whittaker)

Nicholas Whittaker (PhD candidate, CUNY Graduate Center) put together a cool and informative Black Studies Reading List (For Philosophers), and kindly offered to share here on the Cocoon. I hope readers find it helpful, and check out works on the list if you haven't already. Also, seeing as Whittaker (understandably!) describes the list as "non-exhaustive", I think it would be great if readers share additional works to check out in the comment section below!

Tips for an unusual grad applicant?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Unusual Applicant writes:

I finished my undergraduate degree in philosophy and a related field four years ago. At that time, I was not interested in pursuing professional philosophy, having been advised to wait and see if a safer, non-academic career might work.

Since then, I have continued to do philosophical research on my own time and have published one paper in a top specialist journal, and am working on an R&R for a top-20 generalist journal (assume for the sake of this post that the R&R makes it to publication as well). In both cases the referees have been enthusiastic and positive about the papers' arguments and contributions. So I assume that if I apply for graduate school, I will have a strong writing sample.

My undergraduate transcripts, however, are generally inconsistent and would be a major concern to an admissions committee. Despite a general upward trend (culminating in all A+'s in my final semester), my grades fall all the way across the spectrum (A+'s, F's, B's, etc), including philosophy and non-philosophy classes. Much of that was due to an untreated mental health condition. I did have good relationships with certain professors and can reliably assume that my letters will be strong but not exceptional.

I think my situation is unique because you would not generally expect someone with poor undergraduate transcripts and no graduate training to publish good papers. I am not saying my papers are outstanding (they aren't), I am just saying that they were deemed publishable and potentially publishable by referees and editors at good journals.

So here is my question: Based on what I've described, would my application be the kind that gets tossed by an R1 because my transcripts are much worse than those of top applicants, or would I be given a fair shot and actual, close consideration given the research I've done? Note that I'll only apply to programs whose faculty strengths match my research interests.

I understand that these 'what if' application questions come off as insecure and validation-seeking. But as you all know, applying is a substantial time and energy commitment, and I would really appreciate any thoughts and advice you might have. Thank you!

Interesting question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I would think that it’s a toss-up. Some committees might not look twice at you. Others will be intrigued. You should explain your upward trajectory, both to your letter writers and in your application. Ask your letter writers if they are comfortable writing a strong letter for you, ask them to be honest. I don’t think there are many applicants with publications, so I would anticipate success *somewhere*. I would apply somewhat widely and also to funded MAs. It’s a fairly unpredictable process. It’s frequently the case that people are rejected from lower ranked programs than they are accepted to. There is no clear hierarchy of candidates based on shared criteria. So ... good luck!

I agree with the general advice here, though I guess I'm a bit more optimistic than thinking it is likely to be just a 'toss-up.' After all, Unusual Applicant reports having published in a top specialist journal and having an R&R at a top-20 generalist journal, all with only an undergraduate degree. Although I've never been on a grad school admissions committee, it seems to me from the outside that these features of their application alone seem likely to me to get their application noticed--and assuming (as seems likely) that the publications are actually good work, the writing sample they submit is good, and their recommendation letters are strong, it seems to me that they should look like a really intriguing applicant. I, at any rate, would be intrigued. I do think they should address their spotty undergraduate record in some way, though I'm not sure about the best way to do it. For example, should they say that they had "now-resolved health issues" as an undergraduate that interfered with their studied? Should they disclose this to their letter-writers, if they don't already know the context behind the Unusual's spotty performance? Or, should they not disclose anything about health struggles, and just say in their application (and to their letter writers?) that they recognize their undergraduate record was spotty (due to early 'personal issues'?) but emphasize their upward trajectory, saying perhaps that as a young person it took them a little bit to mature and get their act together? I have to confess that I have no idea what the best way to address these things may be. 

What do you all think? Will Unusual Applicant be competitive in getting into grad programs? Given their spotty (though upward-trending) undergrad record, would they be best-served pursuing a Masters at the top MA program first? And how might they best address their record and trajectory, both in their applications and in communication with their letter-writers?

Tips for reviewing book manuscripts?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Kian Mintz-Woo writes:

I have been asked for the first time to evaluate a manuscript. The editor mentioned a 'small fee' or the equivalent in books. I am interested in the topic of the manuscript, know and like the (similarly junior) author, and believe I would be well-placed to comment on it. However, I know it is a massive time commitment and I am sure the 'small fee' is nowhere close to the value of that time.

What is a normal timeline for reviewing a manuscript (this is not very long--the author expects <100k words)? It is worth noting that the editor has mentioned that they can be very flexible abut the reviewing time. Are there other things I should keep in mind? (Should I basically just say no to manuscript reviews until I'm a mid-career academic?) Is there a reasonable range to expect the 'small fee' to be? (I am sure it's not worth haggling or anything like that, but even if I wanted to I don't know enough to do it.)

Is it relevant that I like the press and might pursue them in the future, as I think it is with journals (although, because of subject area, not this particular editor)?

Do I basically review the book like I would articles, just on a larger scale--i.e., track the argument as it unfolds over chapters? Or should I also be thinking about things like audience and sales (!) I would also add some copy-editing in, because I like to do that as well.

I searched through Phil Cocoon for advice on this and--while you have lots of discussions about preparing proposals--you don't (appear!) to have anything about evaluating them. Thanks for any thoughts or advice!

These are good questions that I suspect many early-career people might benefit from hearing good answers to. Here are some quick thoughts...

When does a PhD 'go stale'?

Charles Lassiter (Gonzaga) has an interesting post up at his blog examining some data and the question of when a PhD degree 'goes stale', in terms of competitiveness for academic jobs. Here are the two charts of data he discusses:

How to develop new research projects?

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

I'm an early career academic (in my first job post PhD). I've recently finished a couple of drafts based on PhD chapters and sent them to journals, and now I don't really know what to do next! This is the first time since my PhD began where I have had to effectively start from scratch. I'd love to know how academics navigate this - when faced with a blank page, how do you decide what to start working on next? What criteria do you use? My job is only temporary, so there is also the pressure of producing enough publications to make me a good candidate for jobs in a few years time.

These are great questions that, in my experience, many early-career people have. Indeed, I struggled with them earlier in my career myself! One reader submitted the following reply:

I have been a relatively successful researcher - for whatever that is worth. I would recommend that you extend your research into a neighboring topic, that is, investigate something near to what your thesis was on. Alternatively, go deeper into a topic that you have written on in your dissertation. You need to build on your strengths, and get some publications under your belt. And the best way to place them in good journals is to develop depth and build on your strengths. 

This seems like good advice, but I think there are other options too. In the past, I've shared some of the ways that I've found work for me in terms of developing new projects. For example, in this post, I shared the following three suggestions:

What is it like to be a philosopher in Japan?

This is the twenty-third installment of The Cocoon Goes Global, a series that gives a sense of what the philosophy profession looks like outside of the Anglophone West. 

This guest post is written by Katsunori Miyahara (lecturer at the Center for Human Nature, AI, and Neuroscience at Hokkaido University) and Kengo Miyazono (associate professor of philosophy at Hokkaido University). 

1. General information

Japan is an island country in East Asia with a total population of about 126 million. The country long retained a feudal system before undergoing a rapid modernization process at the end of the 19th century, when a historic event known as Meiji Restoration took place and the Tokugawa Shogunate––the last military government which dictated the country for almost 400 years––was replaced by the new Meiji Government.  A modern education system, heavily influenced by European (especially French) and American systems, was introduced to the country in the same period. This involved the foundation of the oldest modern national university in Japan, The University of Tokyo, in 1877.

Currently, higher education in Japan is provided primarily––though not exclusively––by universities and junior colleges. Unlike many other countries, the Japanese school calendar starts in April and ends in March. Typically, the first semester runs from April to July (or early August), which is followed by the summer holiday, and the second semester resumes in October and ends in February.

There is a winter break between the end of December and the second week of January, which many regard as the New Year’s holiday rather than the Christmas break. In a standard undergraduate program, students have 4 years to graduate from a university and 2 years to graduate from a junior college. For postgraduate education, standard Master programs are designed to be completed in 2 years and Doctoral programs in 3 years. In philosophy, however, it is not uncommon for students to extend their period and spend much longer than this in graduate school (or at least, it was common for students to remain in graduate school for long periods until about 5-10 years ago).

2. Philosophy in Japan

Western philosophy was properly introduced to Japan in the latter half of the 19th century when the country was forced to open its border to foreign countries after adopting the isolationist “closed country” policy for over two centuries.

Although philosophical thinking was not entirely foreign to the Japanese intellectuals before this, the modern term for philosophy, tetsugaku (哲学), which roughly translates as “the learning of the sages” in letter, was a neologism coined during this period by the progressive Enlightenment scholar Nishi Amane (西周, 1829–1877) (Maraldo 2019). Nishi and other scholars of this period also coined new terminologies for a variety of Western philosophical terms, such as kansei (感性, “sensibility”), kinou (帰納, “induction”), en-eki (演繹, “deduction”), kan-nen (観念, “idea”), and gainen (概念, “concept”).

Many of the terms coined during this period are still in use in contemporary philosophical discourse and some have even made their way into the common lexicon. Outgoing from this introductory phase, Japanese philosophy reached its first peak in the beginning of the 20th century as it produced original thinkers such as Nishida Kitaro (西田幾多郎, 1870-1945), Watsuji Tetsuro (和辻哲郎, 1889-1960), and Kuki Shuzo (九鬼周造, 1888-1941). But, instead of presenting the historical development of 20th-century Japanese philosophy––readers interested should look into the SEP entry on Japanese Philosophy (Kasulis 2019) and The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Philosophy (Davis 2019)––let us skip a century or so of development and describe the contemporary situation of philosophy in Japan. 

 

Should referees ever intervene with editors?

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

I refereed a journal submission a few months ago. I thought it was ok, but could use some revisions. I just looked at the submission and saw the other reviewer's comments. Basically, the reviewer is complaining that one paper, which was cited, wasn't engaged with enough, and that another paper that wasn't cited, which is somewhat relevant, should have been cited. That's it. On the basis of that they deem this submission as not sufficiently engaged with the literature. Since this is a niche topic I write about, I can confidently say that this is false. The submission does a decent job of engaging with the literature. My question is this: should I write to the editor to voice my disagreement with the other reviewer?

This is an interesting question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

No ... do not write to the editor to complain about the other referee. The two reports are supposed to be independent assessments. I do not like the practice of sharing referee reports like this anyway. But let the editor do her job now.

I have to confess to being more uncertain. If a referee seems like they are being unreasonable, I can see why another referee might want to intervene. But I also see the point that peer-review reports are supposed to be independent assessments. What do you all think?

Social & academic initiatives for conversations regarding mental health?

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

There have been many posts about isolation, anxiety and mental health issues, and professional instability, all due to covid or not, and mostly between graduate students. Does anyone know of online social initiatives that are created to bring people together and have a conversation on this issues? Or of initiatives for people in academia who wish to just have a conversation with each other and might not have peers to do so at their uni?

This is an excellent and important query. In response to last week's thread on the question of whether it is a good idea or too risky to be open about one's mental health (particularly as an early-career scholar), Alex Bryant (PhD student, McMaster) posted a related thread on Twitter:

Thinking a lot this morning about a conversation I had with @biopoliticalph yesterday: It may be that there are many working philosophers who are in fact disabled are "in the closet," so to speak. But what changes will be made to make it viable for disabled philosophers to come out of the closet about disability (including those like bipolar)?

Final CFA: Prudence & Politics (May 15 deadline)

Call for Abstracts – MANCEPT 2021

Prudence and Politics

(Deadline tomorrow!)

Convenor: Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Considerations of prudence plausibly underlie a number of important political debates. Consider, for example, debates between moderates, progressives, and conservatives about social and political change. Moderates often allege that radical approaches to change are likely to backfire by alienating swing voters in the political center. Conversely, progressives often allege that moderates imprudently set back the cause of justice by playing into the status quo. Finally, Burkean conservatives contend that radical change is unwise because it can have—and has a history of having—catastrophic unintended consequences.

Considerations of prudence also appear to be latent within certain forms of liberal political theory. For example, although John Rawls does not explicitly couch his project in prudential terms, Rawls’ primary concern in Political Liberalism is to provide a theory of justice that can explain how a deeply pluralistic society can remain stable and non-oppressive over time. Similarly, in The Law of Peoples, Rawls provides a theory of international law and practice for how diverse peoples can live peacefully with each other in a reasonably just world.  An idea arguably implicit in both works is that it would be imprudent to pursue any conception of domestic or international justice that cannot be expected to realize reasonably stable and peaceful conditions in a diverse and pluralistic world—or what Rawls telling terms a ‘realistic utopia.’ Finally, prudence looms large in many applied political debates, such as how to deal best with climate change, terrorism, pandemics, and the development of artificial intelligence. For example, is it prudent to wage a ‘war on terror’, or is such a war only likely to produce more terrorists and bloodshed? Would experimenting with technological forms of climate engineering be an imprudent risk? Were COVID lockdowns prudent, or an imprudent form of short-term political thinking?

Experiences w/Springer transfer desk?

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

I just want to know of people have tried transfer services for rejected papers at Wiley/Springer. There was a post on this a couple of months ago and no one replied. Just checking if people have tried it since then and can tell us what happens when you choose this option.

If you used a transfer service:
- Were the referee reports sent to the new journal?
- Did the editors start the process from scratch, or did they consider the reports you previously got?
- etc.

I'm curious about this too. I've gotten these emails from Springer several times recently after a paper of mine was rejected, and I've always ignored them, as I prefer to decide on my own where to send papers (and I usually like to revise papers at least a little bit post-rejection). But I'm curious to hear from readers who have tried it: how did the transfer desk service work, and how was your experience with it?

How have you kept working during the pandemic?

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

I'm a 3rd year PhD student (I've passed my comps. and started my proposal) and here's my query: How are y'all working, publishing, editing, applying, defending during covid pandemic? Though I see philosophy might be even more present those times, I only feel useless, and on top, not having in-person seminars, presentations etc completely blurred the exciting part of pursuing this path. I've definetly not adapted to online courses, even though I've TAed and runned tutorials in both fall and winter. Something I used to be excited doing it is now just too painfull. I've been thinking and feeling more and more that it is senseless to try to be "out-there-soon-to-be-employabe" (i.e., publishing, networking or whatever), and that I should rather have a plan B at this point (I'm 30yo). Am I done with philosophy after 12 years stringing along with it? (p.s.: I know I'm the one who might be able to answer this question, but since there are eventually people here who gave up the career etc, I'd like to hear if someone could relate and/or see this as the first indices of my leaving the field; p.s.2.: I do not consider not defending, just not being "out-there-soon-to-be-employabe"). Thanks a lot.

I empathize with this reader. As a hard-core introvert, I expect that I may have been able to handle the isolation of the pandemic more than most. But still, the changes during this time have deprived me of many professional things that I enjoy, sapping those parts of my life in academia of a lot of joy. Here, I particularly have in mind hybrid classes, where I would often only have 1-3 students in the classroom with everyone else on Zoom (which was really frustrating), as well as the lack of in-person conferences (I presented at two APA's this year, and had been really excited to travel to them, catch up with friends in the profession, browse the book exhibits, etc.). Still, I've been able to keep going pretty well with things like research because I mostly work alone and enjoy working that way.

Being open about mental health issues?

(Updated with links to additional discussions of related issues).

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

I am a PhD candidate who is about one year away from defending and entering the job market. I wanted to know how open I should be about belonging to a protected mental health and disability category (both in my application materials, and on my social media which is under a pseudonym, but could be linked to me with some effort). I have bipolar disorder one, and I know that there is a lot of stigma surrounding mental health in general (and even more acute stigma surrounding mental illness that can involve psychosis). In my personal life I am quite open about this - I think that telling stories about what it is like to live with this disorder is important for destigmatizing it. It is also important to me to be open about it because I think I stand as a good example of how it is possible to live a very happy and productive life despite having this kind of disorder. However, I do not want my condition to count against me when I go on the market! This question was raised for me most focally this month because I wanted to tell a few stories of my experience on a social media platform for Mental Health Awareness Month, but I am quite nervous about the kind of impact that might have on my job prospects down the line. Any thoughts you all have would be very much appreciated.

This is an extremely important query. Unfortunately, my experience is that there is real stigma against mental illness in the profession. As a case in point, another reader submitted the following reply:

First, the chief concern many hiring committees will have is that you might have a psychotic episode during the semester, and need to be hospitalized. Then they, your new colleagues, will have to scramble to cover your teaching - and they will often get no resources from the administration to do it. So imagine a five person department - now everyone's load is increased by 25 % because one person is on a medical leave. And there is no time to prepare lectures. And you might already being doing a 4-4 load ... and your own child is going through a teenage crisis, etc. No one wants that. Second, from my experience, it pays to indicate on the HR forms that you belong to a protected group. I have seen cases where HR intervened and insisted that files be considered.

I've known academic philosophers who have been very open about their mental illness, and at least anecdotally (from what they have reported), it may have very much worked against them on the job-market, impeding their ability to secure a permanent academic position. I've also known many academic philosophers (including tenured ones) who keep their mental illnesses a secret out of fear of discrimination. To be clear, I think this is awful. Mental illness is a veritable epidemic in academia, yet social norms in the profession incentivize people to keep their illnesses a secret. So unfortunately, my sense is that one has to make a very difficult choice: one can either be open about one's health and be an advocate against stigmatization--but at a potentially serious risk to one's career--or one can keep it a secret. I'm not sure there is any 'right choice' here. One must, I think, simply make a choice one can live with. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Update: Justin Weinberg (South Carolina) kindly drew my attention to these two Daily Nous discussions of mental health in academic philosophy.

Schwitzgebel on trends in the tenured job-market

Over the The Splintered Mind, Eric Scwitzgebel (UC Riverside) has a great new post up on trends in the academic market for tenured positions in philosophy. In the post, Schwitzgebel compares trends for senior philosophy positions to trends in the reports on junior tenure-track jobs that I have given here at the Cocoon over a similar period of years (see here). Here are two graphs summarizing his findings (note: there was one year that I did not collect or report on the junior TT market, so that's the gap in the orange line on the second graph):

Long story short: there are a lot more junior tenure-track jobs each year than senior tenured ones--but the overall trends seem similar. There were a lot more senior jobs in the early 2000's. However, since 2015 both job markets have been relatively 'flat', with a steep drop off in both types of jobs (but especially junior TT jobs) this past year due to the COVID pandemic. Anyway, kudos to Schwitzgebel for collecting and reporting this data!

Moving pre-tenure: getting research to count?

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

The recent discussions here about mid-career moves are very helpful. It is obvious that pre-tenure moves are way easier than after-tenure moves. I am wondering for those who moved before tenure, how much research at the previous institution was counted toward tenure at the new institution? I am especially curious about the kind of case in which one has already met the tenure standard at the new institution, and wondering how much more one is expected to do. But knowing about other cases, such as moving from R2 or SLAC to R1, would definitely be helpful too! Thank you!

Good question. Mike Titelbaum submitted the following reply:

The details are complicated, but the general answer is if you’ve done enough research to meet the new institution’s standards, it won’t be a problem that you did it while somewhere else. As for the details, they depend a lot on the rules at the new institution. Here at UW we recently had two experienced Assistant Profs start and go up for tenure after just over a year. The tenure committee focused on their work during a “probationary period”, which was defined by our university’s tenure rules, but stretched back a number of years into their previous employment. Exactly how that works will vary from place to place, and may be a bit obscure even to administrators at a given institution. But this is a great question to ask someone at a potential employer to figure out the specific answer to during the interview process!

It would be great to hear from readers with some experience here!

Interview w/Pamela Hieronymi (UCLA)

Brad Cokelet (Kansas) has a new podcast interview with Pamela Hieronymi (UCLA) up at Ethical Theory Review on her book Freedom, Resentment, and the Metaphysics of Morals (Princeton University Press, 2020). Check it out!

Cultivating healthy romantic/social relationships in grad school and beyond?

In a Twitter thread today, an early-career philosopher, Alex Bryant, asks:

[D]o you know off hand if there are any especially good discussions of developing and maintaining healthy romantic/social relationships during graduate school and beyond? The two-body problem is related, but I've been trying to find advice about the rest!

This is a really great and important question. There have been many discussions on the Cocoon and elsewhere about 2-body problems (i.e. getting academic jobs in the same area as a romantic partner). However, I haven't seen too much discussion on the philosophy blogosphere about the more general issue the OP asks about here: simply developing and maintaining healthy romantic or social relationships while in academia. Do any readers have experiences or tips you want to share? Feel free to include discussions of long-term relationships and 2-body issues, as they are common and I suspect many readers would benefit from the discussion.

Using a non-academic offer for leverage?

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

I am a junior person on the tenure-track at a large-teaching-focused-state school. This school is an area of the US which has very high cost of living and the pay at my institution has not kept pace with inflation.

My question is: Can I use a non-academic job offer to try to get my current institution to give me a raise in salary?

Before I got into philosophy, I had a 10+ year career in a specific business or industry. So, I could get a non-academic job offer. My worry is how my department, dean or administration will receive this. On one line of thought, if they want to keep me, they will make an offer.

On another line of thinking, they may not treat this kind of job offer like they would an academic TT job offer. But I am completely unsure about this.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

[F]rom my experience if you approach the administration at a university/college in the USA with an offer of a job outside the academy they will say "God Bless, and good bye". You are conveying to them that you really are not that interested in the academy and THEIR college. There are, after all, hundreds of hungry adjuncts dying to work for peanuts. They do not need someone who is slumping around for the next 30 years thinking they are unpaid (even if they are).

My sense is that this is probably true of teaching-focused institutions like the OP mentions. However, I'm not sure whether things might be different for R1's, who might want to hold onto 'star faculty.' I realize this is probably an uncommon situation, but do any readers have tips or experience with this issue?

 

Making a mid-career leap of out academia?

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

I'd like to hear from people who left academia for personal reasons when the going was good. My partner & I have an international two-body problem that has resisted solutions for years. They are a couple of years from tenure while I am up for tenure soon. My publishing profile is excellent, theirs is good but not stellar due to a range of reasons, some beyond their control. An international relationship is not feasible in perpetuity. But leaving a promising career for unknown waters (in the midst of a pandemic, at a certain age) is terrifying--and I am the one considering leaving for personal reasons (their close-knit family is in their country, my country is not friendly to my identity & medical needs, I have had other jobs before academia).

I'd like to know how people knew when to make the leap and how they managed to survive financially. I have been exploring alt-ac for a while (coding, editing work) but I enjoy my research too much to want to just leave academia. And I have a slight worry about what might happen if my partner don't get tenure, and we are both out of work.

This is a great query, and I know of philosophers (such as Zachary Ernst) who have left TT or even tenured positions for very good post-academic careers. However, I don't have any first-hand experience with any of this or feel qualified to opine on any of it. So, are there any readers who fit the OP's description who are willing to weigh in? Any experiences, tips, or insights you think might be helpful to share?

Navigating 2-body problems in different markets?

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

What options are there for navigating the two-body problem for junior academics? Suppose the couple in question are both junior academics (less than 5 years out of PhD), both in analytic philosophy, but different areas of specialisation.

The most relevant job markets in my case are the UK and European ones. I've heard some rumours about things like joint hires, or job shares being a possibility, but I am unclear about the logistics of this. For example, would one apply for a single post, and then try to negotiate? If so, would this negotiation occur at interview or offer stage? Or would one be strictly limited to applying to job searches where there were at least two positions available? Thank you!

This is a great query, as a lot of philosophers (and academics more generally) face this kind of difficult situation. One reader submitted the following (disappointing) reply:

I work in Europe, and where I am it is almost wholly impossible to expect a second position for a partner. At best, where I am, you can get a three year contract position for your partner, and then hope a permanent position is opened in their area. But then they have to apply for it. My sense is that this sort of negotiating is easier in the US.

I'm curious to hear from other readers. What options are there for navigating two-body problems for junior academics? Obviously, it would be great to hear about the UK and European markets, since those are the ones the OP specifically asked about. But it would also be good to hear about other markets too, since this isn't just an issue that academics face in the UK and Europe. Any tips, experiences, or insights?

Salaries for TT & full time non-TT positions?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a 3rd year PhD student asks:

What are salaries like for tenure track positions? Full time non-TT positions? It occurred to me that in many cases, people might get super lucky to land a TT job and then get stuck with a mid range salary with nowhere to go. This thought makes it much easier for me to want to leave sooner than later.

These are great questions. We actually had a thread on this way back in 2013, but a lot could have changed between then and now, so I think discussing things again could be really helpful. Two readers submitted the following replies:

This is a good source for data on faculty salaries. You can also check out other higher ed pay: https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/ - Submitted by Casey

I've seen starting salaries (for assistant professors in philosophy) anywhere from in the low 40s in low cost of living areas, to 90k at relatively prestigious universities in high cost of living areas. I would guess that the average is around 65k. There is a lot of variation here—I would also guess that the standard deviation is high. - Submitted by Salaries

Given that the OP appears to not only be concerned with starting salaries, but also with the prospect for salary levels as one's career progresses (they're concerned about 'a mid range salary with nowhere to go'), I think it could be good to hear from readers at different job-levels (e.g. Lecturer, Assistant Prof, Associate Prof., Full Prof.) at different kinds of institutions (R1s, R2s, liberal arts colleges and universities, and community colleges). 

What salary did you start at, and what's your salary now? Readers should of course feel free to report anonymously, but I expect it would be helpful if, in addition to your salary and institution-type, you share some general details about location (e.g. major West-coast/East-coast city in the US, small college town in mid-America, etc.), as well as whether your institution is a private or public school. It would also be good to hear from readers about two things: your starting salary when you accepted your first position, and your salary now (at whatever academic level you are currently at). Finally, I think it would be great to hear from readers in different parts of the world (i.e. different countries and continents) so that we can get a picture of how salaries of academic philosophers compare across the world more broadly.

CFN - Distinguished Woman Philosopher (E-SWIP)

The Eastern Society for Women in Philosophy (E-SWIP) is now accepting nominations for the 2021 Distinguished Woman Philosopher Award.  The Award has historically recognized outstanding accomplishment by women philosophers in a wide range of philosophical subfields, including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, social and political philosophy, and philosophy of science.  We have also recognized the efforts of women philosophers to support other women in the field, through teaching, mentoring, or other means.

Nominations should include at least two letters of recommendation describing (a) the candidate’s contributions to the field of philosophy and (b) the candidate’s work supporting women in philosophy.  Please send all nomination materials to ESWIPGeneral@gmail.com .  Nominations are due by August 1, 2021 and the winner will be announced in October 2021.  (A list of past winners is available on our website: https://www.eswip.org/ )

Regards,

The E-SWIP Officers (Louise Antony, Alice Crary, Anna Bjurman Pautz, Haley Schilling, Esha Senchaudhuri, Charlotte Witt)

Tips for incoming grad students?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, anxious first-year writes:

I will be a first-year Ph.D. student at a mid-ranked program in the fall, and I am already beginning to worry about job placement, publishing, etc. Are there any steps folks would recommend taking now in order to start strengthening one's C.V.? Would it be too early to start publishing in one's first year, for example? Or more generally, anything one would have done differently in their early years as a PhD student? Thanks so much.

These are great questions, as I'm sure there are many newly accepted first-years with similar questions. In a follow-up comment, Peter writes:

I was in the same boat as you: got my PhD at a mid-ranked institution, was worried about job-placement from the getgo. I ended up doing very well on the job market after two tries. Here's my advice. It's certainly not *too early* to publish in your first year, but there's virtually n0 chance that you'll be able to, because, to be quite honest, your work probably won't be publishable. The first few years of grad school, I'd recommend just figuring out how *you* do philosophy best, and focus on identifying cool and interesting topics that actually catch your interest. If you focus so obsessively on publishing early, like I did, this'll probably actually stunt your ability to write and develop publishable work -- after all, even though the job market is largely a professionalization game, *interesting* papers are still the ones that are easiest to publish. Also, if your department is anything like mine, you might be starved for networking opportunities outside of your own department. Rather than trying to publish early, I would suggest making sure you're going to conferences early (no grad conferences! They don't contribute anything IMO). This way you can get more practice talking with philosophers who have a different philosophical vibe than you, and this can help greatly in developing interesting research.

I wonder what readers think. Do you have any tips or helpful resources for incoming first-year grad students? For my part, I've heard very good things about Jason Brennan's book, Good Work If You Can Get It: How to Succeed in Academia. I went to grad school with Jason at Arizona, and he basically did everything right, whereas I did most things wrong. So, I think he's probably a good resource here. I'd also suggest reading Daniel Silvermint's Daily Nous post, 'Grad Traps!', and the comments section over there. My general thoughts about succeeding in grad school (viz. success after grad school) are these:

1. Develop as a philosopher and as a teacher: some jobs are at research institutions, others at teaching institutions, and you'll probably want to be as competitive for as many jobs as you can. Also, in terms of teaching, get solo-teaching experience (such as during summers) if you can. Hiring committees at teaching schools care a lot about real teaching experience above and beyond TA-ships.
2. Publish as early as often as you reasonably can, but under the guidance of grad faculty (you want to publish good stuff, not garbage!).
3. Stay involved and develop good relationships with people: not only faculty and grad students in your program, but also people outside of your program.
4. Publish in good journals if you can, but don't fall prey to the common advice 'not to publish at all in bad journals': all of the empirical evidence that I've come across suggests that 'weak publications' help candidates, at least if combined with publications in good journals.
5. Bear in mind the kind of jobs you are the most likely to be competitive for post-graduation given the kind of PhD program that you are in: lower-ranked programs appear to tend to place candidates in teaching schools, high-ranked programs in research institutions. If you're in a lower-ranked program and you try to position yourself primarily for jobs at research institutions (by focusing on publishing rather than teaching), you may find yourself in a very difficult position after graduation: one where you'll struggle to outcompete graduates of top-ranked programs for jobs at research institutions, but also struggle to be competitive for jobs at teaching institutions.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Feel free to share any tips, experiences, or resources you think incoming philosophy grad students might find helpful!

How can we help you? (May 2021)

Now that it's been close to a couple of months since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new one.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

3 lecturer positions at Baylor

Paul Carron (Baylor) wrote in drawing my attention to the following ad for three interdisciplinary 1-year lecturer positions:

Baylor University - Interdisciplinary

• Full-Time Temporary Lectureship (1 year with the possibility of renewal) in Interdisciplinary Studies
• 3 faculty positions available in the Baylor Interdisciplinary Core, an academic program within the Honors College
• Teaching: 4/4. Interdisciplinary Studies. Teaching assignments could include courses within World Cultures, Natural World, Social World, and/or the World of Rhetoric sequences.
• The successful candidate will hold a terminal degree and have previous teaching experience in the teaching discipline of interest.
• Doctoral degrees in any field of the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities are encouraged to apply. We particularly encourage applications from the fields of Classics, History (especially non-Western), Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, and Biology.
• Strong candidates with a Ph.D in philosophy will have, for example, a background in the social or natural sciences, an AOS in a historical field with strong cultural knowledge of the historical period (non-Western fields especially encouraged), or experience teaching rhetoric, writing, and argumentation.
• Baylor is an “R2: Doctoral Universities – High research activity” University with a strong Christian commitment.
• Apply through Interfolio: https://apply.interfolio.com/84176
• Deadline: 24 May 2021