The Philosophers' Cocoon

Being a Philosophy Teacher and Researcher in Ghana

This is the twenty-fourth 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 Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani (Senior Lecturer at the University of Ghana).  

Ghana is a country of about 31 million people (although a new census is now under way that is expected to show a higher population). The country covers an area of 238,535 square kilometers, is bordered by Togo to the East, Cote d’Ivoire to the West, Burkina Faso to the North and the Atlantic Ocean to the South. It is the second most populous country in West Africa (after Nigeria) and its capital (Accra) is its largest city with a population of more than 2.5 million.

Ghana is home to a number of ethnic groups, and in precolonial times two powerful kingdoms, the Dagbon and the Ashanti, dominated the territory. The country was also prominent in the slave trade and has at least twelve slave forts to show for this. The Ashanti were noted for their military prowess and defeated the British in a number of battles before being defeated. Colonialism followed and Ghana gained independence in 1957, being the first in Africa.

Since independence, Ghana has maintained a reputation as one of the world’s moderately peaceful countries, ranking 2^nd in Africa and 38^th in the world in the Global Peace Index Report (as of June 2021). The country’s major problem is financial. Its current debt stands at 81.47% of the size of its economy, and its leaders continue to borrow. This has affected the income of public sector workers as government does not pay very much in salaries.

As at 2021, a PhD holder in a tertiary teaching job earns less than a thousand US dollars. Every year there are negotiations between university labour unions and government representatives, but the gains of such negotiations do not last long for workers due to inflation, forcing continuous negotiations. It is, however, a legacy of the country’s peaceful profile that these negotiations do not spill into aggressive confrontations, a stability also enjoyed by the country’s election disputes.

All of these mean that the work of a professional philosopher in Ghana is significantly constrained. In the country’s public universities, government maintains a tight cap on employment, preferring that those already employed do as much work as possible. As I write this essay, I carry a load of 36 teaching hours per week (9 courses/classes multiplied by 2 credit hours for each course/class and then multiplied by 2 meetings for each class per week). The financial crunch and a few other factors have led to the exit of a good number of foreign faculty members. The enjoyable part is that the students are nice, intelligent, and considerate.

The biggest casualty in all of this is research, as the teaching load leaves neither enough time nor energy for it. However, we still get some research done. My focus has been on deliberative democracy, particularly consensual democracy (an area in which I have published more than twenty articles and book chapters). This focus has attracted some bit of global interest toward me, as I generate original research on the structures, mechanisms and problems of reaching group consensus decisions.

Tips for being forward-looking on the market?

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

Over this year and the last I have had a few interviews for amazing jobs and a few great long lists where I had to choose to send in this or that writing sample. I have a really hard time not regretting my decisions—if only I'd done this instead of that in the interview, if only I'd sent in that paper...I know regretting is a pointless enterprise, not to mention a pretty draining one, but I can't seem not to fixate on things that I might have done differently. I suppose this is more a question for a psychologist, but maybe someone here has some strategies for becoming more forward-looking on the market. The stakes are so high that just hard not to think: that one thing would have really changed my life...

This is indeed a difficult question, and perhaps one that a psychologist might be best equipped to help with. Still, I'm curious whether other readers who have struggled with similar issues have any helpful tips to share. How do you deal with disappointment on the market, and in particular with being forward-looking? What have you found to be helpful for avoiding rumination and regrets about things one 'could have done differently'?

Getting students to do readings?

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

Marcus mentioned this briefly in a different thread, but how do you get your students to do the reading on a semi-regular basis? I've tried quizzes, and while they had an effect, they also made me the bad guy and often ruined rapport. In upper-level courses I require weekly reading questions/posts. But I'm more concerned with lower-level mandatory classes.

This is an excellent question, and I'm curious to hear from readers. I too haven't found quizzes to be a good strategy. Whenever possible, I've found the best strategy to be short reading response papers--even papers that are just 4-5 sentences long. But I also teach relatively small classes, and I recognize this isn't a real option for larger classes. Do any of you have good strategies for incentivizing student reading, particularly in lower-level mandatory courses?

Doing conference commentaries in grad school?

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

I am an incoming first-year PhD student (thank you everyone for all of the wonderful advice on applications last year!), and my department only offers travel funding for presenting or commenting at a professional conference (i.e., no graduate student conferences). Is investing time in trying to comment on papers worth it? If so, how does one go about doing this? Are early PhD students unlikely to receive these opportunities without publications? Any advice about how this process works is greatly appreciated (especially as some conferences appear to be planning on being in-person starting in the fall).

Good questions! I'm not entirely sure what the answers are, but here are some quick thoughts. It seems to me like it could very much be worth doing conference commentaries while in grad school, particularly if your department offers travel funding. First, you'll get practice reading, thinking about, and responding to professional level work-in-progress. Second, you'll get to attend a lot of other talks, which is an excellent learning opportunity. Finally, you'll get to meet people in the profession! It's important, however, to do a good job with your commentary, so I'd definitely suggest running your commentary by your grad advisor or another faculty member of two. In terms of how to become a conference commentator, I expect the best way may be to simply email the conference organizers and express interest. However, I'm not sure how open conference organizers are early PhD students giving commentaries. What do you all think? Do any of you have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Summer sounds

Overcoming fear of 'talking shop'?

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

I am terrified of talking about philosophy on the fly. I like reading it, writing, and presenting on what I have written and researched, and I don't even mind answering questions about what I have presented on. But talking about philosophy in a casual way makes me so anxious that I struggle to even follow what the other person is saying. This is such a foundational skill in academic philosophy, and I'm wondering if anyone with anxiety around "talking shop" has found a way to move past it.

This is an interesting query, and given that the reader asked for advice, I'm curious whether any other readers have any helpful tips to offer. At the same time, I guess I'd like to challenge the underlying assumptions here: namely that talking shop 'is such a foundational skill in academic philosophy' that one has to be comfortable doing it, and do it a lot. Allow me to explain.

Tips for tenure-track parents?

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, the OP asks whether readers have any advice for tenure-track faculty who are parents, particularly single parents. I'm not a parent, so I don't have any tips to share. But as a tenured faculty member who is considering having children, I wonder a lot about how I would balance everything and be a good parent and spouse given my workload. And, of course, I expect that the particular stresses and workload of a TT job (e.g. 'publish or perish', etc.) can pose real challenges for parents, particularly (but not only) single parents.

So, I think it would be great to hear from readers with some experience here. If you do have experience as a faculty member who is also a parent--particularly (but not only) if you had children while on the tenure-track--please feel free to share any tips or experiences that you think other readers might find helpful!

Tips for teaching one's first course?

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

Any advice for a PhD student teaching his first course? What to do, what not to do, things you wish you had known, etc. It's a 200-level course in metaphysics.

Great question! Another reader responded:

Play to your strengths. Do not try to learn a pile of new things the first time. If you know a lot about philosophy of time, or the mind/body problem, focus on those at the cost of other topics. You need to make things easy for yourself. Be humane to your students, and do not try to be the superdo bestest ever teacher. Aim to be an effective teacher. Design assignments that do not over burden you. Think of ways that get the students learning.

Here's what I'd add:

Kinds of departmental and university politics?

In our recent discussion on whether new tenure-track faculty should get involved in or steer away from departmental politics, a reader asks: What do you mean by “departmental politics”?

Although no one answered in the comments section there, this is actually a really good question. Indeed, it occurred to me that quite a few grad students and postdocs might not know much about department politics. I actually know a few people who, once they got tenure-track jobs, were unhappily surprised and unprepared for just how much departmental and university politics exists. So, it occurred to me that it might be good to have a discussion thread cataloguing the types of politics one can run into in departments and universities. 

So, in this thread, I'd like to ask readers to share general kinds of politics that can occur in academic departments and universities. As an important qualification, following the Cocoon's safe and supportive mission, I ask readers not to share any specific information, that is, information that might identify (either explicitly or indirectly) particular institutions, departments, or individuals (or indeed, lead such individuals to self-identify as likely participants in the kind of politics being discussed). If you do share in this thread, please stay away from details: just give the general kinds of issues that you've seen departmental and university politics arise regarding. The aim here is not to embarrass anyone, but rather to give grad students, postdocs, and readers like the OP a heads up on the kinds of politics they could face if and when they find themselves in a TT job. 

Online vs. in-person teaching experience?

A reader writes in by email:

I am currently adjuncting at a number of institutions (I've attached my CV). Most of the teaching I am doing is online. I wanted to ask how a hiring committee may view online teaching experience as opposed to in person teaching experience. Do you think one is--generally--better than the other? Or does it just depend upon the expectations associated with the position in question?

Good questions, and I'm curious to hear readers' answers. My sense is that while online teaching experience is definitely advantageous, hiring committees for tenure-track jobs are probably likely to weight in-person teaching experience more heavily. This is for a couple of reasons. First, COVID pandemic aside, in-person teaching is likely to be your primary mode of instruction if you're hired into a TT job. Second, in-person teaching requires distinct skills, such as being able to manage a classroom, answer questions and guide discussion on the fly, and so on. My sense is that those hiring for TT jobs are likely to care about these skills.

But these are just my reactions, and maybe they're wrong. What do you all think?

Sprezzatura in Academia: is the myth of brilliance the aesthetic of cool?

Baldasar Castiglione's Book of the Courtier (1528) is a series of dialogues between hip Italian Renaissance courtiers who stayed over at the court of Guidobaldo da Montefeltro and Elizabetta Gonzaga and who debated a range of topics over several evenings. Their discussions ranged on which sport looks good to play (apparently, tennis), which musical instrument to learn (not the trumpet, just don't...), what knowledge to acquire in the humanities, and how to behave towards peers, and social superiors and inferiors. 

The Book of the Courtier tells its reader how to be the perfect courtier. Re-reading this lively and creative work over the summer, I considered that a lot of Castiglione's advice for Renaissance noblemen and women be lifted out and go straight into handbooks for placement directors.

How (much) to read (and take notes)?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'inexperienced scholar' writes:

Standard advice for paper writing is not to let reading keep you from writing. However, I often choose to write about topics that involve extensive research, partly because I don't have any time constraints on my writing and I write out of a love of the craft. Right now, I have my outline and some of the paper written, but being still new to the process, I wonder how much reading is too much and how much is too little. Do professional philosophers take extensive notes on the literature they read? I tend to engage with lesser known scholars in the field as well as the big names, but I must admit that I have a compulsion to memorize and extensively document what I read, some of it primary lit and much of it secondary. Any advice as to how to manage reading in a way that is conducive to proper research, while not drowning oneself in papers?

This is a good query, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Allow me to share a few brief thoughts before opening things up for comments.

Spring sounds

Making time for research in a TT job?

(Temporarily moving to the front - comments open now!)

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, a reader writes:

Having been a postdoc for a long time, as a new TT faculty I'm finding it hard to find time for research whilst attending to my teaching responsibilities (which I take very seriously). Any tips on how to make time for writing with everything else going on during the semester so that it doesn't only become a 'summer hobby'?

This is a great question, and I'll do my best to provide some helpful tips--and I hope readers on the tenure-track chime in with some tips of their own. But before I make a few suggestions, I'd like to say a few things about the broader issue: namely, lack of time in tenure-track jobs for focusing on research during the academic year.

Unfortunately, many people who begin tenure-track jobs are in for something of a rude awakening. My experience is that unless you have a job with a very low teaching load at a research university--and sometimes even then--you simply won't have much time for research during academic terms. Seriously. I do probably 90% of my research during summer and winter breaks, and as this TimesHigherEd article points out, I'm not alone: a recent survey of Dutch academics found that, 'Those lucky enough to have become full professors – supposedly the light at the end of the tunnel for struggling junior scholars – spend just 17 per cent of their time on their own research.' Indeed, you can see how much time for research falls in the following figure:

Tenure-track jobs & departmental politics

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, the OP asks: how involved should you get in department politics or the direction of the department (if at all)?

This is a good question, and not an easy one to answer. On the one hand, departmental politics (and university politics, for that matter) can involve all kinds of risks--alienating people with power over your career, etc. On the other hand, I know of some cases where departments have factions of various sorts and not getting involved in departmental politics is itself risky--as members of the various factions might expect a new TT member to 'choose sides', as it were. Finally, as a tenure track faculty member you might feel like you have a right and duty of some kind to get involved: to help push the department in one direction rather than another.

In my 12 years at my current university, I have seen tenure-track faculty adopt vastly different styles here. I've seen faculty who try to stay out of the fray, as it were, and I've seen faculty get deeply involved--and speak out a lot--in both departmental and university politics. It's never been entirely clear to me what the best approach is. 

What do you all think? It might be good to hear some stories or experiences from TT faculty who have adopted one approach or the other. Was getting involved in departmental (or university) politics fruitful, or did it turn out to be more trouble than it was worth? Or, did you just keep your head down and focus on teaching and research?

Handling 'meaningless service'?

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, Timmy J writes:

The upshot of my question is this: do you care about all the weird trivial crap it seems like people expect you to care about? If so, how do you bring yourself to do so? If not, is it ever a problem?

In more detail: as a new TT faculty member I was floored by the mountains-out-of-molehills shenaninganry that was *constantly* going on. Let's talk for three hours about how to rename our courses. Please vote for the dean's select committee on rethinking the language in our requests for members of dean's select committees. What should our priorities be as we move toward thinking about beginning to talk about addressing the question of whether there's bias on campus---please give your feedback within 48 hours via an 82-question google survey.

These examples are exaggerated for effect, but I imagine many people at many institutions get the joke, and that's what my question is about: there's a presumption that you care about these things. I find myself not caring, in even a small way, about 99% of them. I anti-care. I would like to not know that my feedback is wanted or not know that we're renaming our courses; etc. I would in fact like to not live in a world where there are Dean's select committees.

Do you care? If so, how on earth do you manage to do so? If not, has it been a problem? Have you found ways to manage that problem?

David then added:

I totally agree with Timmy J about all the meaningless "service" and committee work required at these jobs and would love to see a thread about it, especially the never-ending "assessment" initiatives. It blows my mind that so many people really seem to love this stuff. They seem no longer interested in philosophy itself or any actual subject matter, but are rather now obsessed with second and third order meta-analyses of "learning outcomes", etc. Is there real evidence that these initiatives really result in improved student learning? Doubtful. And skeptics about all this busywork are not well-tolerated either.....

Good questions. As someone who worked a bit outside of academia before grad school, my sense is that 'meaningless busywork' is pretty common in the workplace in general (see this great scene from Office Space). I'm not sure what's to be done about it. As David notes, complaining about it or expressing skepticism doesn't seem to work very well. So, my general attitude is: let the people who want to do that kind of stuff do what they do, and try as far as reasonably possible to focus on things that matter to you. This isn't to say it's always easy or even possible. As David notes, 'learning outcomes assessment' is all the rage these days, in large part (it seems) because accrediting agencies increasingly demand it. So, for better or worse, one sort of has to do some of this stuff. It is, as they say, what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, these are my not-too-terribly-helpful thoughts. Do any of you have any more helpful tips to share?

How do you decide what to read?

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

I'm a second-year PhD student, and I often struggle with deciding on what to read at all, how to prioritize the reading assingments I give myself, and how thoroghly I should read a text. As my time and my ability to focus are limited resources, I often find myself doubting whether a paper or a book I began to read is really worth the time, and whether I should rather read something else instead. These doubts occur quite frequently, and I begin to jump back and forth between papers and rarely finish one. Maybe one could describe this as a kind of fear of missing out on the most important readings. I would like to know how other people approach these problems.

This is a good query. In my experience, one of the traps that graduate students can run into is reading too much. Of course, it's important to read, so that you have a good grasp of the literature. But when I was in graduate school, I knew fellow grads who spent most of their time reading and little to no time writing--and it very much stifled their progress through the program and in publishing. So, it really is crucial to find the right balance. But what is the right balance, and what are some practical tips for finding it? I'm curious to hear what readers think. Obviously, I'm not a grad student, so my own approach may not generalize to the OP's situation. But here, very roughly, is how I go about things...

Where the non-TT jobs were (2020-21 season)

A couple of months ago, I gave my annual informal report breaking down last job-season's tenure-track jobs by AOS. Because of a confluence of events--ranging from professional deadlines to family issues--I had to put a report on non-tenure-track jobs on the backburner for a while. However, I've now completed it and report my findings below.

Today's post is based upon a PhilJobs search for 'fixed term' and 'contract open' jobs for ads posted between August 1st, 2020 and April 21st (so that the data would cover roughly the same amount of time as in previous years). A few quick notes on methodology. The methodology I've always used in this series works as follows. When I encounter jobs with two AOS;s (e.g. metaphysics, moral philosophy), I counted each job as '.5' jobs in that area (or in the case of 3 AOS, '.33' jobs, etc.). Although I recognize this is a bit odd, it seems to me to make sense, as a job like that could go to someone in any of the listed AOSs, not just one particular AOS. Because I did this with all jobs, the numbers seem to me to accurately weight whether a job is in a particular AOS simpliciter, or whether it was also available to candidates in other AOS. Second, I only counted "junior-level" non-TT jobs (i.e. postdocs, lecturer, and Assistant Professor positions), not senior-level tenure-track jobs. Finally, one quick note before proceeding: although I've done my best to collect the data in this post accurately, this is just an informal report, not a formal study, so if there are any errors, I apologize in advance (though, if there are any, I'm fairly certain they would be very, very minor).

Here's a breakdown of what I found (and here is a copy of my spreadsheet):

TOTAL # of non-tenure-track jobs: 210

• • Value theory (ethics, political, etc.): 81.5 jobs (38.9% of all jobs)
    • Ethics: 57 jobs (27.1% of all jobs)
    • Legal, political, PPE: 24.5 jobs (11.7%)
  • Open AOS: 56.6 jobs (27% of all jobs)
  • Philosophy of Science: 26.3 jobs (12.5% of all jobs)
  • 'Core' areas (Language, Logic, Mind, M&E): 17.9 jobs (8.5% of all jobs)
  • Marginalized groups & non-Western philosophy: 15.5 jobs (7.4% of all jobs)
    • Marginalized groups (race, gender, etc.): 11.3 jobs (5.4%)
    • Non-Western philosophy: 4.2 jobs (2%)
  • History of philosophy: 7.6 jobs (3.6% of all jobs)
  • Aesthetics: 2.2 jobs (1%)
  • Philosophy of Religion: 1.75 jobs (.8%)
  • Continental Philosophy: 1 job (.4%)

One interesting thing here is that in comparison to tenure-track jobs, advertisements for which dropped by nearly half relative to 2019-20, ads for non-tenure-track jobs did not fall nearly as much (there were 244 non-TT jobs in 2019-20). 

Publishing on controversial topics while TT?

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, a reader writes:

Is it (un)wise to write controversial stuff on the TT even if it’s published in good journals—theism/atheism, nihilism, socialism/libertarianism, materialism/idealism, etc.?

This is a good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. On the one hand, there is evidence that some philosophers are willing to discriminate in the workplace along ideological lines. On the other hand, I know of philosophers who have written on very controversial things--including philosophers who were the subjects of serious public controversy for what they wrote--who ended up getting tenure. What I don't know here is anything regarding the probabilities. Is writing on controversial stuff while on the tenure-track more likely to help or harm a candidate for tenure? I'm just not sure. Can any readers with experience in these matters weigh in? 

Spring sounds

Graduate certificates and the job market?

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

A number of PhD programmes offer various graduate certificates (many of which involve taking additional modules in other disciplines). I'm wondering, how significant are such certificates for the job market? How do admissions committees view such certificates?

I'm not familiar with these kinds of certificates, so I'm not entirely sure how to answer. Can any readers fill us in on the kinds of certificates that are offered? Bearing my ignorance here in mind, I guess my initial reaction is that I don't think certificates per se are likely to play a significant role for most jobs, as most hiring committees seem likely to be more concerned with your overall accomplishments as a researcher and teacher, rather than a certificate. But I can imagine possible exceptions. One case here might be a job in 'clinical ethics' (i.e. ethics consulting in health care), where a certificate in the area might help, particularly it involved experience in clinical contexts. Another case might be artificial intelligence, as jobs in this area are often interdisciplinary and interdisciplinary hiring committees may very well be concerned with the kind of breadth of background understanding that a certificate might involve. In any case, if certificates are helpful, my sense is that it is probably not the piece of paper that matters so much (in most cases) as the extra education the certificate involves.

But again, these reactions are admittedly grounded in real ignorance on my part of what kinds of graduate certificates are offered and how they might be relevant to jobs. So, do any of you with more experience in these matters have any helpful tips or insights to share?

Is it important for TT faculty to 'network'?

In the OP of the thread I recently posted asking readers to share any questions they may have about how to flourish on the tenure track to discuss in this new series, a reader asks whether it is important to '[get] to know academics outside your department (is this important? why or why not?).' These are really good questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Here are a few quick thoughts.

Notice, to begin with, that the reader's query is ambiguous between two questions:

1. Whether it is important to get to know academics outside of your department at your university.
2. Whether it is important to get to know academics at other universities (in the profession more broadly).

My sense here is that the answer to (1) is 'Yes and no', and that the answer to (2) is 'It depends on what kind of job you are in and what your priorities are. Let me explain why.

Handling troubles with dissertation supervisors?

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

I am about to go on the job market, and I did not enjoy working with my supervisor. I am therefore determined to avoid having to interact with them or rely on them for the next steps in my career, however I worry that such independence from one's supervisor, if one lacks a strong academic network beyond that of the supervisor, is impossible. I also worry that maybe some of my misgivings aren't about this person and their team in particular, but about certain power structures in academia altogether, and so perhaps I should just pursue a non-academic career. It would be great to hear from people who might have thoughts on any of this!

I suspect that troubles with dissertation supervisors or other dissertation committee members are not uncommon. So it might be good to hear from readers who have been through similar situations on how they handled it. It would also, of course, be good to hear tips from readers more generally. Although I admittedly haven't been through the kind of situation that the OP describes, here are a few quick reactions.

Teaching over-confident students?

In the comments section of my recent post on whether teaching is meaningful, Joe writes:

As a new philosophy lecturer, my enthusiasm for teaching declined significantly after I met a few students who greatly overestimated themselves. These students seemed to believe that they know many things and they must be right in most, if not all, of their beliefs, and behaved impolitely in class. I am not able to convince them as a math lecturer. Now I tend to only do "the bare minimum as a teacher", to avoid been frustrated or offended by these students, especially when my position is just temporary. But I know this may not be right. I wonder what are the thoughts of more experienced philosophy teachers?

This is a great question. Early in my career, when I was still obviously pretty young, I had students like this pretty regularly: students who seemed to think they knew everything, and challenged my expertise a lot, both in class and in terms of challenging assignment grades. Fortunately, as I've progressed further in my career, it happens a lot less. But regardless, it's a good question how to best handle these kinds of situations as a teacher. What do you all think?

Handling mistakes in published work?

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

How often do you all notice small mistakes in your published work? I have recently noticed one or two mistakes that rise above the level of a typo, but don't really ruin the rest of my article. As an example, I mistranslated a word and emphasized the word that was mistranslated. Another example in another article: I mistakenly characterized a potential identity between concepts in a footnote ("Most people think X, DESCRIPTOR Y, is the same thing as Z, DESCRIPTOR W." W and Y should be switched.) Ultimately, neither matters for the broader argument of the articles, but it just makes me feel like an amateur. It's especially annoying because I feel like if I had just put a little more care and attention into my work, I could have avoided this.

Any advice for dealing with such issues? Should I just accept that this is going to happen?

Good questions! I take it that most of us have published things with minor mistakes (not to mention some non-minor ones). It doesn't help much, I think, that publishers often give authors something like 48 hours to proof articles (and in some cases, entire books). I'll never forget that this once happened to me over Thanksgiving holiday here in the US. I was on holiday with family, and my publisher emailed me in the middle of the holiday to let me know that my proofs must be completed within a couple of days. Needless to say, I wasn't very happy--and what do you know: the final published manuscript ended up having several significant editing errors. Anyway, mistakes happen. The question is how to best handle them. One reader submitted the following reply:

Projects to (not) take on prior to tenure?

As I mentioned on Friday in response to a reader's request, I'd like to begin a new series here focusing on tips for tenure-track faculty. If you're currently on the tenure-track or otherwise have questions about how to flourish in a tenure-track position, please feel free to share your query in the comments section below that post. I'd like to begin the series today by addressing the first question posed by the reader who originally suggested the Cocoon focus more on these issues. The reader asks: what projects shouldn't one take on before tenure (e.g. maybe writing a book?)?

This is a very good question, as my sense is that people on the tenure-track can get themselves into difficult positions by either over-committing to things or by committing to the wrong kinds of things. We actually discussed the other week whether it makes sense to try to publish a book prior to tenure. Although only a few people chimed in there, the general sentiment appeared to be that trying to publish a book before tenure is risky--though, as one reader noted, the best thing to do here is to ask one's department chair (and, I would add, get their answer in writing). Here's one other reason to believe this to be really important: I actually heard of a case on social media recently where the reason given for a tenure denial (at an R1) was that the philosopher in question hadn't published a book. Indeed, in addition to asking one's department chair, cases like these suggest to me that it's vital to find out (and again, get in writing) exactly what is expected of one in progressing successfully toward tenure.

But this is just one example. Are there other projects that individuals on the tenure-track should--and, importantly, should not--take on while on the tenure track? I'm really curious to hear what readers think. But here are a few examples that occurred to me:

1. Editing a book: As gratifying as it may feel to edit a book, my sense is that this is in general probably not a great way to spend one's time prior to tenure. The reason why is simple: I've heard that editing a book takes a ton of time, but it probably won't carry much weight in a tenure-and-promotion decision. When it comes to evaluating the research productivity of a candidate for tenure, my sense is that T&P committees (both in departments, and equally importantly, at the college level) tend to focus far more on original research (i.e. authored articles and books). It simply doesn't seem plausible to me that editing a book is likely to be a positive difference-maker in terms of getting tenure. What it may do is take a great deal of time, impacting your ability to publish the kind of original research that T&P committees are actually likely to care about.
2. Publishing articles in edited collections: While there's nothing wrong with publishing an article or two (or three) in edited collections prior to tenure--particularly if your piece is in an edited collection with a notable press--my admittedly anecdotal sense is that some pre-tenure people go overboard here, primarily publishing in edited collections rather than in anonymously peer-reviewed journals. For what it is worth, my experience here is that in cases like these, T&P committees may have real reservations. Many publications in edited collections, after all, are 'invited' and it's not always clear just how anonymized the reviewing for such collections is. The mere fact that a piece is invited, after all, is itself a kind of 'thumb on the scale' that doesn't exist in the case of journal submissions--and peer-reviewers for pieces in edited collections may be inclined to be more supportive than reviewers for journals, assuming that if a piece is invited, that is a prima facie reasons to provide a favorable verdict. To be clear, I'm not asserting that this is the case (that is, that edited collections don't have the same peer-review standards as journals). What I am saying is that T&P committees--who a candidate for tenure has no control over--may have these kinds of reservations, for better or worse. My recommendation for anyone on the tenure-track, then, is to prioritize publishing in anonymously peer-reviewed journals. It's okay, I think, to publish a few pieces in edited collections. However, if most of your publications are in edited collections, I worry that it could come back to haunt you in a T&P decision.
3. Overcommitting to service: People in universities today tend to take service very seriously. As a tenure-track faculty member, my experience is that you will be nearly-constantly bombarded with requests to take on more service--to serve on this committee or that, or to even head some kind of institute. Alas, my experience here is also that as serious as people take service, one's service record is probably the least likely thing to 'make the difference' in an eventual tenure and promotion decision. Here, my experience is that T&P committees tend to care the most about research and teaching. If (depending upon the kind of institution you are at) your research and teaching records are sufficient for tenure and promotion, chances are you'll get a favorable decision--and conversely, if either your research or teaching record is insufficient for tenure or promotion, you may get an unfavorable decision. Service, in my experience, is sort of regarded like 'whip-cream on the top' of a dessert. T&P committees look favorable upon service, and you should almost certainly engage in some fair amount of service. The problem, though, is that it can be very easy to take on too much service. Again, my experience is that once you are on the tenure-track, you will get asked to do more and more service on a near-continual basis--and so, if you don't learn how to say no and 'jealously guard your time', you may very well find yourself in a situation where you lack sufficient time to publish and/or teach effectively...and these are the things that, far more often than one's service record, are likely to make a difference when it comes to tenure. 

Anyway, these are just three things that immediately occurred to me off the top of my head. What do you all think? Which projects should--and shouldn't--one take on before tenure?

External dissertation committee members?

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

PhD student here. What are reasons for and against having a dissertation committee member who is not part of your department? How do you go about inviting a professor from another department to be on your committee? Should you be working with them first/already, or at least be acquainted with them? What are the odds of their acceptance if you ask them? Are there any drawbacks to asking?

These are great questions. I imagine there are two different types of dissertation committee members who are not a part of your graduate department: committee members from other universities and committee members from a different discipline at your own university (e.g. psychology, political science, etc.). In both cases, I imagine there are two main reasons to want an external committee member like this: (1) to draw on their expertise, and (2) get another recommendation letter for the job-market. I'm not entirely sure what reasons there are against having external committee members, though, nor am I at all sure what the process looks like for seeking one out. Do any readers with experience in these matters have any tips to share?

Spring sounds

An email list for government jobs (by Madeline Martin-Seaver)

Madeline Martin-Seaver (postdoc, Auburn University) writes in:

I am a philosophy post-doc at Auburn and a longtime appreciator of the work you and your teammates do at the Cocoon! You’ve definitely helped me with my jobs and teaching.

I recently started an e-mail list compiling job USAJobs postings for which humanists might be good fits...The first post is here: https://andgovcheese.substack.com/p/jobs-for-humanists-64 It’s on Substack, but free.

I also have a little blurb on the “about” page..: https://andgovcheese.substack.com/about

"Wine and Government Cheese is a weekly e-mail of federal jobs for people with advanced degrees in the humanities and social sciences. You have a particular set of skills. Allegedly, they’re fungible. Also, there are 10k openings on the USAJobs website and the search engine doesn’t let you exclude terms or reverse sort. W&GC points out at least some of the positions that are 1) open to the public and, 2) applicable to people with MAs or PhDs in the humanities and the humanistic social sciences.

Subscribing gets you a weekly e-mail with highlights from the job descriptions and links to the questionnaires so you can do a better job searching and applying for jobs."

This looks awesome. I thank Madeline for her kind words about the blog, for her work putting her initiative together, and for sharing it with us!

New series: tips for the tenure track

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a new faculty member on the tenure-track writes:

Maybe I am just not looking in the right place in the archives, but in general I would love to see more early (TT) career advice featured on the blog. Things like: what projects you shouldn't take on before tenure (e.g. maybe writing a book?); getting to know academics outside your department (is this important? why or why not?); how involved should you get in department politics or the direction of the department (if at all); being on the TT as a (single) parent, etc.

This is a great query, and I plan on running a series of posts to discuss each of the topics they list above. But before I do that, it occurred to me that this blog probably has many readers who are relatively new to the tenure-track, and so I figured it might be good to start with a thread crowdsourcing questions from you all relating specifically to tenure-track jobs. If you are currently on the tenure track, about to start a tenure-track job, or even not on the tenure-track yet and are curious about advice or tips relating to doing well in a TT job, ask away in the comments section below. Tomorrow, I'll begin the series with one of the topics in the OP above, and then move on in subsequent posts to topics in your comments!

Is teaching meaningful?

In a post over at Philosophical Disquisitions last week entitled, 'The Trouble with Teaching: Is Teaching a Meaningful Job?', John Danaher (National University of Ireland) gives a mostly negative answer to his title question, concluding not that teaching is totally meaningless, but rather "It’s just not as noble or inspiring as some people suppose." Still, Danaher is open to having his mind changed, writing "I hope that someone will convince me that I am wrong." So, let me try to give it a shot.

I agree with much of what Danaher writes. I agree that teaching is "a job and often a frustrating one." I also agree with many of Danaher's negative arguments, such as the general purposes and value of education are dubious, that teaching tends to fail to achieve its aims (viz. 'student learning outcomes'), that the feedback we receive as teachers is of dubious value, that there are institutional constraints that can seriously undermine the meaningfulness of teaching for those who engage in it, and so on. I agree with virtually all of this. And yet I still find teaching profoundly meaningful. Why?

The answer, for me, is grounded in a phrase that (surprisingly to me, at least) does not occur in his post: namely, making a difference in at least some of our students' lives. I not only think that teaching does make a meaningful difference in some of our students' lives, and in ways that probably few other occupations do. I also think that teaching can meaningfully approximate Platonic love (agápe, or empathetic universal love) and Aristotle's conception of true friendship. Allow me to explain.

Save the date: job-market mentoring program

This is just a quick note that the Cocoon's job-market mentoring program will open for signups on July 1st this year. If you're a job-candidate in need or a tenure-track faculty member willing to mentor someone in need this year, keep an eye out!

How can we help you? (June 2021)

Now that it's been a month 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!

Now that it's been a month 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!

Resubmitting a paper to the same journal?

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

Hello! I have a situation that I would like some advice. I submitted a paper to a special issue called for by a journal. The paper was rejected by the editor. However, the two reviews seem to both recommend a "revise and resubmit". I understand that the editor made the decision due to the fact that there is time pressure for the special issue. My question is, once I have the revised version ready, can I send it to the same journal (but obviously not for the special issue)? If so, should I make a note explaining all these, hoping that the editors reach out to the same two reviewers? Or should I just submit it somewhere else? Thank you!

These are good questions, and I have to confess that I've been in a similar situation. Anyone have any insight? Is it okay to resubmit a paper to the same journal as a 'normal submission' after it has been rejected for a special issue? Also, this brings to mind a more general question that I have seen raised from time to time: will journals ever consider a newer version of a paper they previously rejected, if for example enough time has passed (say, a few years) and the paper has been 'completely rewritten', substantially changing and improving its main argument? I've heard this question raised a few times by a few different people, but can't recall what the answer is!

What you 'should have read' & are glad you did?

Last week, we had a fun, guilt-free thread where readers shared examples of philosophical works that they are "supposed to have read" but haven't. This week, I'd like to have another thread that turns this on its head: what philosophical work(s) are you supposed to have read that you were (perhaps unexpectedly) glad you did, and why?

I'll start things off! I have to confess that until a week or two ago, I had never read most of Alasdair McIntyre's After Virtue. I had read small bits and parts of it before, mostly because those bits had been cited in the literature and were relevant to things I was working on. But I had never sat down before and read the book from beginning to end--and I'm glad I finally did. Like some of the book's critics, I don't quite buy the book's positive argument. But what I found really insightful, deep, and plausible is the book's negative critique of contemporary ethics and the implications that the problems with contemporary ethics have had in modern society. I also very much enjoyed MacIntyre's writing style and manner in which he situates the book's philosophical theorizing in history.

To simplify greatly--and really, I encourage readers to check out the book itself--McIntyre's basic idea is that throughout most of human history, 'the moral' wasn't taken to be a distinct category of reasons or requirements (indeed, he argues, some historical languages haven't even had words that correspond to the modern notion of 'morality'). Rather, prior to the Enlightenment, the fundamental normative notion was to live a good life, where this conception of 'morality' (as it were) in no way divorced 'moral reasons' from descriptive psychological motivations or posited any 'is-ought gap' (McIntyre gives a rather quick yet masterful analysis of how, absent the modern philosophical insistence there is such a gap, there are plenty of intuitively valid inferences from what is to what ought to be). McIntyre then argues that the modern philosophical insistence of schisms between is and ought (qua Hume) and between moral and non-moral reasons (qua Kant) have been bad for moral philosophy and practice, by pushing them in two opposing directions: in the direction of mind-independent moral realism, on the one hand, and emotivism on the other. His critique here--again, to simplify greatly--is that both of these doctrines are problematic, turning morality either into a set of essentially contestable moral intuitions about what is right and good (here, MacIntyre notes how many modern moral debates appear to be based upon incommensurable intuitions), or mere appeals to emotion. 

Whatever you think of these negative arguments (and you might not be convinced!), I found the way that MacIntyre defends them both plausible and exciting to read. This is just one recent example of a philosophical work that I was 'supposed to have read' but hadn't. There are many others, as well. Another, less recent example is Charles Mills' The Racial Contract, which I read for the first time about nine years ago. I remember reading the book distinctly because (A) I had surprisingly never been exposed to it either as an undergraduate or graduate student, and (B) when I read it, I found Mills' account of how seemingly anti-racist liberal ideals can serve in practice to uphold white supremacy enlightening and important. While I'm not persuaded by Mills' longstanding critique of Rawls and ideal theory (see here, here, and here), I nevertheless found The Racial Contract to be an exciting read as well, one that has influenced me deeply as a researcher and teacher ever since.

Anyway, these are the two examples that most obviously spring to mind for me. What about you? Which work that you were 'supposed to have read' did you find exciting and important when you finally did get around to reading it, and why?

Should philosophers lead interdisciplinary projects? (Guest post by Mandi Astola)

One of the Cocoon's readers, Mandi Astola (PhD Candidate, Eindhoven University of Technology), submitted the following guest post:

We are doing interdisciplinarity wrong

A lot of young philosophers are being educated to become interdisciplinary philosophers. And many philosophers scoff at that. Journals that publish interdisciplinary work tend to be seen as less prestigious, as are papers with many co-authors (which is what often happens in interdisciplinary work). There is a sense in which interdisciplinarity can involve a “watering down” of philosophy, which philosophers don’t love.

However, even for all the negatives: the rise of the interdisciplinary philosopher is probably a good thing in the long run. The ecological, technological and political crises that we are facing cannot be solved with single disciplines. It is important that philosophers learn to talk with other disciplines. However, I think that the way in which we are doing it is often counterproductive.

Before I tell you why it’s counterproductive, let me explain how I came to think this. I have worked on an interdisciplinary project, in the role of an ethicist. I also took part in writing a project proposal, where I would have a part as an ethicist. Apart from that, I have been in close contact with various other projects where there was an ethics component. I have always felt a little dissatisfied with the place of philosophy in these projects.