The Philosophers' Cocoon

Summer sounds

Grad school question: getting scooped?

In our new thread soliciting questions from new and returning grad students, a reader writes:

I've written a paper for a conference that's due in the next few days. But then someone posts a forthcoming paper to PhilPapers on the exact same topic making the exact same points as my paper. And it is far better than my paper. What do I do? Not enough time to change my paper substantially. Do I submit my paper anyway? Or just scrap it? I'm a PhD student and have not attended a conference before.

This is an excellent question, and a bunch of other readers submitted replies. NH writes:

Having had and overcome the experience of being "scooped" several times, I think that if you appreciate the finer details of both your account and theirs, you'll find differences that are productive to discuss. Being first to a point is important but you can still make a major contribution. Just don't let the feeling that you've been scooped be a mental block that prevents you from working further on the topic.

Prof has similar advice:

Make sure it really is the same. Subtle differences matter. If not, try to tweak it to make it more clear (at least to yourself) how it is different (keeping in mind you can almost always make some changes before presenting). If you really aren't adding anything new, scrap it. This happens.

S-U adds:

If your paper presents a different argument, then send it in to the conference (adding a note in the paper that a different argument has been put forward by someone else). IF it is the same argument, then, move on.

Tammo writes:

I'm aware of one recent case where one author (call them A) made an interesting technical point, and not much later another author -- B -- published a paper that made the same point. B's paper had a footnote saying something like "After finishing work on this paper, it was brought to my attention that A makes the same point in a recent paper." B's paper explored a few ramifications of that point that A's paper didn't, but the "heart" of the paper was the same. I don't think that B's behavior there was unethical, but I did hear a few negative comments about B's paper. (There wasn't any insinuation of plagiarism, but B was rendered as being a bit to keen to publish in some of those comments.) So I guess pursuing publication of that exact point is probably not a good idea -- although I'm less certain about whether to present at the conference or not. That said, I would probably consider (a) thinking about whether you still have some interesting and new thoughts about what to make of that point and (b) getting in touch with the author of the forthcoming paper and have a discussion, given that you have overlapping interests and positions. One other thought: the fact that the forthcoming paper seems "better" than your paper probably has a lot to do with the fact that it's at the end of a process of presenting at a conference and getting feedback, submitting to a journal, and (most likely) being revised after peer review. When you submit to a conference, it is normal that your paper would be in a much more "raw" state -- so I wouldn't take the apparent differences in quality at heart.

And Michel writes: 

Just send it in and see what happens. (This other paper won't be held against you, especially since it's just forthcoming; nobody has read it yet!) To publish it you'll want to acknowledge this new paper and try to make a distinct contribution. But for the conference, don't sweat it.

Thanks to everyone above for their tips and advice! I'm curious to hear what other readers think, but here are a few quick thoughts of my own.

Grad school questions & support thread

Given that many MA and PhD students will be either starting or returning to graduate school in the next month or so, I thought it might be good to have an open thread—much like our more general “how can we help you?” series—where grad students specifically can pose questions to the community.

When I started this blog all the way back in 2012, one of my primary aims was to create a place where graduate students in particular could find support—as in my experience, one’s years in graduate school can range from exciting and wonderful to extremely tenuous, stressful, and dispiriting. Indeed, like more than a few grad students I knew, I went through significant periods in grad school when I felt utterly lost, unsure of myself, and not altogether comfortable with opening up to other grad students or grad faculty about my struggles—and the data on the mental health crisis in graduate school indicates just how common these kinds of experiences (and worse) can be.

In any case, to all of the new and returning grad students out there: please feel free to share any questions or struggles you are facing in the comments section below (anonymously, of course, if you prefer). Do you have questions about course work? Could you use tips on finding a dissertation topic? Are you struggling with an unsupportive graduate advisor or a difficult department climate? Or, are you just about to begin your grad program and looking for general tips on how to start off well, do well, and flourish? Fire away!

As in our “how can we help you?” series, I will plan to run new threads to discuss each individual query as a community. Finally, a couple of important quick notes: (1) when posting comments/queries, please bear in mind the blog’s safe and supportive mission. This blog is not the place to make allegations or insinuations about particular individuals or institutions. If you are struggling with a difficult situation, please share only in very general terms in a way that cannot be used to infer the identities of individuals or institutions. We are here to help, but this aspect of the blog’s mission is vital to preserve; (2) readers may feel free to submit follow up comments in the thread below (responding to a reader’s posted query); however, to keep things organized in the thread below, I will not approve follow up comments but instead may post them in new threads introducing the topic for broader discussion.

Anyway, bearing these notes in mind, if you are a grad student with questions or looking for support or advice, please do ask away in the comments section below. We’re here to help!

'Spare time' book recommendations?

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

I am wondering what philosophy books people read in their spare time "for fun" (or, at least not for research). Most of what I read in philosophy are related to my research or teaching. In my spare time, most of what I read are outside of philosophy, such as fictions or news articles. I imagine there are philosophy books that are inspiring while not too technical. I can read them in my spare time, may or may not dive deep into them, but will learn something new and interesting. Do people have recommendations? I hope the question makes sense.

What a great idea for a thread! Brad answered:

There are some great philosophy books to read in your spare time - they are as much about the broader culture as they are about philosophy. For example, Wittgenstein's Poker is a real joy to read. It is so engaging, and it gives you a nice picture of the worlds of Wittgenstein and Popper, including their social worlds. It is truly funny at parts. A second book is The Murder of Professor Schlick. It is a bit more technical, but also quite insightful. The Vienna Circle Positivists are shown to be quite humane people, each with their own challenges and strengths. Finally, I would mention George Reisch's books: The Politics of Paradigms and How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science. George is very knowledgeable about the Cold War period. He also has a great sense of humor.

I've also read and can recommend Wittgenstein's Poker and The Murder of Professor Schlick. Personally, my favorite spare time books are biographies and autobiographies of philosophers and scientists. I highly recommend this John Stuart Mill biography (which contains some great history of philosophy, including some of Mill's criticisms of moral intuitionism), Cheryl Misack's recent Frank Ramsey biography (which has some nice coverage of why Ramsey favored naturalistic philosophy), Ray Monk's Wittgenstein biography, and (for those interested in science and philosophy of science) this great physicists book, which provides a wonderful history of and relatively non-technical introduction to the groundbreaking contributions of a wide variety of physicists ranging all the way from Galileo to Marie Curie.

I love biographies in particular because they not only expose me to interesting tidbits of intellectual history--including the fascinating personalities and personal stories (and struggles!) of influential historical figures, as well as their otherwise lesser-known thoughts about ideas and debates that may have never shown up in their published work--but also because it helps to bring the history of ideas alive, situating great works in their historical context, revealing how many of the greatest figures in intellectual history had struggles not unlike you and I. For example, did you know that Kant had to work for a number of years as an unpaid lecturer before getting a paid (not to mention permanent) academic job? Or that the Critique of Pure Reason initially received brutal reviews? Also, in addition to being a pleasure to read, I find that biographies often inadvertently inspire new philosophical ideas! 

What about all of you? Any good recommendations for philosophy-related books to read in one's spare time?

Handling new-job jitters?

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

I recently was fortunate enough to land an amazing job that I've very excited about. Especially given the current market situation, I feel very lucky. But I also feel more nervous than I ever felt on the job market. It's not really concerns about teaching or publishing (well, at least not beyond the general anxiety I imagine everyone experiences about those things). I'm more worried that I'll say something wrong and all my new colleagues will start to dislike me. Honestly, it feels a lot closer to how I felt on the first day of kindergarten than it does anything else. I'm hoping the feeling will get better with time, but I was wondering if anyone had any tips on how to make the transition to my new department smooth and how to be less nervous talking to people?

Good question! Another reader submitted the following reply:

You made it through the 1st day of kindergarten. You will make it through this one too. Generally, the selection process is so rigorous, the candidate who gets the job will do just fine. You are off to a great start to a wonderful career. (if you want something to worry about, you should be more concerned that the department is dysfunctional - hopefully not, though).

Moving/relocation tips for academics?

On Twitter, Alex Bryant (PhD student, McMaster) writes:

Early career academics: Presumably you have developed a kind of expertise related to moving (including problems common to grad students/academics, like moving books). What have you learned, what do you suggest, and what mistakes could you help others avoid?

Related: One way long-tenured senior people might be out of touch with the state of the profession is just how much of an impact frequent moves has on people who have to move from contract to contract, postdoc to postdoc, rather than picking up lifelong job out of school.

This is a good question that we've never discussed before, as in my experience moving between jobs can indeed have a serious impact on an academic's ability to get work done. The couple of times that I moved (first to UBC, then to Tampa), the summer that I moved was mostly a 'wash' where I wasn't able to get much research done. My experience was that there are just so many things to figure out and daily stressors having to do with it that it can be hard to focus.

Anyway, do any readers have any tips? Also, it might be worth hearing from readers on whether (and how), in their experience, senior academics may be out of touch here.

Applying to philosophy PhD programs w/multiple grad degrees?

In our latest "how can we help you?" thread, Claire writes:

I'm another unusual applicant to PhD programs, and I'm hoping for some advice on how to proceed. I have a PhD in History from Cambridge, with several prestigious scholarships. I also have one BA in Sociology (UCSC), another in History (UCR), a masters in medieval history (Cambridge), and another masters in urban and regional planning (Virginia). I also worked for a while in digital humanities and in cancer research (medical abstracting). I gave up on academia because History just didn't make me passionate enough, and I felt I would get backed into a temporal corner. I'm a broader thinker and needed something that makes my sense of wonder come alive. I now know that philosophy is what does that. I might seem like a perennial student, but the truth is, I've always sought out philosophical issues in each degree, and am currently writing a book that touches on philosophical topics in many ways. Writing this book is actually what got me looking into academic philosophy in the first place.

I want to dive into a PhD in philosophy now, and pursue research (and teaching, if I'm lucky) in the field. But how do I proceed with getting enough official philosophy background and letters of recommendation to be admitted? I have never taken a class in philosophy (but a lot of social theory, and a lot of independent reading). I have maxed out all student loan possibilities, so can't do a third BA or MA. What are my chances of being admitted straight to philosophy programs with my existing profile? Since I gave up on academia after my last PhD, I also haven't been in touch with anyone who might be a letter writer. I'm not sure what they'd think of me asking for one at this point. Any advice? Much appreciated.

Good questions! Amanda submitted the following response:

I think you'd be okay if it were just a history Ph.D., but all the other graduate degrees on top of that will probably work against you. People have a tendency toward "judgeness" in these situations (in my experience) and might see you, as you say, as a "professional student."

I would also be cautious about saying things about finding your passion in philosophy. As sad as it is, the field is full of philosophers who felt that way initially and now look back on that old self with a jaded eye roll. No, not everyone, but many are cynical and bitter, having learned that the profession is not what they hoped.

I'd argue that the best way to increase your odds of achieving your goals is to take a handful of philosophy courses (4-6) in the "core" areas, i.e., epistemology, metaphysics, history, ethics. These should be either upper-division undergrad courses or grad courses. I recommend taking them at a school with either an MA or Ph.D. program in philosophy. In-person is best as that would make it easier to get letters, but online courses would be okay. This would achieve both the goal of showing background in philosophy and getting letters of rec from philosophers. It would be best to find a program that allows people to enroll in one-off courses, but auditing could work with the right personal statement and letters of rec.

A possible alternative path would be to sneak your way into a Phil adjunct teaching position and then sell yourself as self-taught. With all your degrees, you will be able to get by with minimal official training. While in general, there is skepticism of self-teaching, a Ph.D. changes things. Create a syllabus and explain that your other academic work created a familiarization with philosophy. A school that really needs instructors might hire you. However, COVID is going to make things far more difficult than before.

CFP: Southwestern Philosophical Society

Southwestern Philosophical Society 2021 Annual Meeting Call For Papers 

An association of scholars and philosophers founded in 1936, Southwestern Philosophical Society provides a forum for philosophical and scholarly research. While SWPS originally served philosophers in the American Southwest, it has been for many years a national and international society. While SWPS does follow trends and methods that prevail in the world of Anglo-American philosophy, the Society is proud of its pluralism and its tradition of openness where scholars from diverse backgrounds and of all major traditions find their views and philosophical styles taken seriously.

The 2021 meeting of the Southwestern Philosophical Society will be held at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN from Oct. 15-16. All papers accepted and presented at the conference will be published in volume 38, issue 1 of the Southwest Philosophy Review.

Papers on any philosophical topic are welcome. There are multiple benefits to submitting to the Southwestern Philosophical Society:

1. All papers undergo blind peer review from two scholars; 
2. Presented papers will receive a written commentary, published in Volume 38, issue 2; 
3. While the journal owns the copyrights to the journal-formatted article, the author retains copyright over the words. Thus, the author can potentially expand the conference-length article and publish it in another venue.

Dealing with undercitation in philosophy? (Guest-post by Ten-Herng Lai)

Ten-Herng Lai (Australian National University) writes in:

I understand that pretty much the same issue was discussed here around 2015, but I think it is important that we bring it up again. I believe that literature review and under-citation is a problem in academic philosophy. Here I can only provide some personal experience as a journal reviewer. It may be that I’m not being a very good reviewer. I’m open to this possibility, and if so, please simply point it out.

I am a very junior scholar, but was fortunate enough to publish a paper in a decent journal on an issue that proved to be quite topical. So I get these invitations to review, several of them. Last time I counted, there are at least 20+ papers published in print or online first on this topic since 2019. A good portion of papers I reviewed cites almost none of them, as if the issue was uncharted territory. Some papers have very good insight, but fail to engage with the literature at all. Some papers just reinvent the wheel. Occasionally there are some papers that make good proposals but would be much better if taken certain points others have made into consideration.

Here’s what I did as a reviewer. I would encourage them to at least say “Archer (2020) Bard (2018) Cleric (2019) Druid (Online First) have all suggested certain solutions, but mine is different and covers an ignored but important point.” Better is that they say why their point is better, or at least distinguish their own point from those made by others. Sometimes I suggest that they can simply cite and rephrase a “respond to objection” someone else already made, instead of writing a separate response to some objection that has already been responded to like 5 or 6 times in different papers. Some more particular points may be that the author(s)’s solution can be combined with someone else’s solution to become even better.

I hope what I did as a reviewer helped to improve the quality of those papers, even if they were not accepted in those particular journals. I sincerely believe that doing some literature review and actually engaging with some previous papers enhances the quality of papers. (And I admit sometimes I see some papers published that fail to do so, and are of very bad quality, e.g., proposing points that have been utterly knocked down by previous publications. I don’t know how they went past the reviewers in those journals...) I also believe that there seems to be some sort of disrespect going on when not engaging in previous publications enough. Probably it’s some sort of arrogance, believing that one has “discovered” something new, just like (though obviously less serious than) how Columbus “discovered” America and how Captain Cook “discovered” Australia.

I agree that this is a problem, and have heard other people say similar things. I also agree think that what Lai did here as a reviewer is right. But this raises an obvious question: what else can/should be done to address under-citation in philosophy? I have two ideas, and am curious what other readers think, including whether readers have other suggestions, as well.

Summer sounds

 

Using old teaching letters when TT?

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

I have a question about acquiring a teaching reference letter. I am a junior TT faculty member, looking to switch to another institution. My last teaching letter was acquired when I was teaching in grad school. However, I am more than several years out now, and I am not comfortable asking any member of my department for a teaching letter for another job (for obvious reasons). How problematic is it to use an outdated teaching letter? Finally, all of my current letters do address teaching in some capacity or another, would it be OK (given my circumstances) to not submit a teaching reference for a job that technically requires one? Could one address this in a cover letter?

Good questions. I'm inclined to think that it is probably fine to use an old teaching letter when applying out of a TT position, as it seems plausible to me that search committee members will think something like, "Oh, they are applying out of a TT position, so they probably can't get a teaching letter from their current place of work." At the same time, I think there may be a better alternative--or rather, a way to supplement your old letter in your application.

At my university (and, I suspect, at many other universities), it is not uncommon for TT faculty to have teaching observations, where another (usually tenured) faculty member sits in on one of your classes to observe your performance. Normally, in my experience, the faculty member who does the observation will write a detailed letter evaluating your performance--which you can then use in your tenure file to help make the case that you are a meritorious teacher. Further, as long as you perform well, these letters are usually positive on the whole--though they may contain some critical feedback or teaching suggestions. 

For these reasons, I think it might be helpful to include a letter or two like this in the OP's job applications, not as reference letter per se, but instead as supplemental materials in their teaching portfolio. I'm not entirely sure about this, though, so what do you all think? Is it okay for a TT faculty member to only include an old teaching letter in their application? If so, should they address this in some way in their cover letter? Should they try to include a teaching observation letter or two in their teaching portfolio?

Getting well-known people to read drafts?

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

[I] often see philosophers thank people for helpful comments on earlier drafts of a published paper. And they are usually thanking the 'big names' in the field. My question is, how do I get these people, the 'big names' in my field, to read drafts of my papers? I assume most of this happens at conferences. But how do I figure out which conferences these people attend so that I can also attend and hopefully get them to comment? Are there certain conferences in a given sub-discipline that most people working in that sub-discipline are likely to attend? How do I find out which conferences those are?

I expect some readers may be puzzled by these questions: why care about getting 'big names' to read paper drafts? It's not as though one has to do that in order to publish effectively, right? Although the OP doesn't say, I expect there may be several reasons why they might care about this: (1) to get better feedback (i.e. from top experts in their area), and/or (2) to get their work noticed. Anyway, regardless of their reasons, the Cocoon is here to help.

Political philosophy & poli-sci job markets

I came across an interesting question recently, which is whether and to what extent political philosophers and political scientists who specialize in political theory are competitive for jobs in the opposite departments. For example, I know of a fair number of junior and senior political philosophers housed in political science departments--but I'm not sure that I know of any political science PhDs who have jobs in philosophy departments. 

Does this sound right to everyone? If so, I'm curious about the asymmetry. Why would political science departments be more willing to admit philosophers into their ranks than the converse? If you were on a philosophy search committee, would you take a Political Science PhD seriously if they specialized in political theory? Why/why not?

How to list affiliation in a non-university job?

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

First, for some context, I recently accepted a job teaching philosophy (along with a few other subjects in the humanities) in a private high school.

Lately I've been considering submitting a few papers I've been working on to journals and conferences. In the process, however, I've been confronted with the question of what to list as my affiliation. Since finishing grad school, I've mostly been using "no affiliation" or "independent philosopher" for this kind of thing. Continuing to use that wouldn't exactly seem accurate now, since I'm now employed at a school. The only apparent alternative, I suppose, is using my new high school as an affiliation--but something about that makes me uneasy, too. Perhaps it's simply the fact that I've never seen anyone do this; to the extent that I can remember philosophers' listed affiliations, they've always been a college or university. Part of me wonders whether the very meaning that most people give to "affiliation" in this context restricts the word to institutions of higher education, such that listing a high school as one's affiliation would be considered a bit like listing, say, Costco (assuming one worked there), or a given elementary school, etc.

If I'm to be honest with myself, I suppose I also sense that there might be a certain stigma to listing a high school as one's affiliation--that others might sense that one isn't a "real" philosopher, that one's work isn't to be taken as seriously, etc. Perhaps that's what's ultimately making me feel uneasy (though arguably I shouldn't be bothered by others' thoughts in this way).

What I wanted to ask, then, was whether anyone has any thoughts on what I should list as my affiliation going forward.

This is an interesting question. My general sense (though it could be wrong) is that the prevailing convention is to list oneself as an 'independent scholar' in cases like this. But, even assuming this is right, whether this is a good convention is another story entirely--as the convention seems to presuppose that an affiliation is only worth listing in a journal if it is a university. Personally, I'd prefer to see 'non-traditional' affiliations (such as high schools, etc.) actually listed in cases like these--as I think it would be very interesting to know where such scholars work! But, on the other hand, I wonder whether (as the OP notes) it might work to the author's disadvantage. First, might journal editors discriminate against authors like the OP? Second, would journal readers? For example, would Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity have gotten the attention it did if Einstein listed 'Swiss Patent Office' as his affiliation? Or would many readers have written it off as a work of an amateur? 

What do readers think? It might be great to hear, in particular, from journal editors and independent scholars. What is the prevailing convention here? Would it hurt a scholar like the OP to list their actual (e.g. high school) affiliation rather than merely listing themselves as an independent scholar? 

Starting v. finishing papers?

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

I have questions about writing papers. Specifically:

how do I finish them?

does everyone else find them as difficult to finish as I do?

It has been five years since my Phd and have managed to publish some stuff that I am happy with. I have never found starting writing particularly onerous, and generally enjoying getting the first 80% down. But, I always find the last 20% –actually getting the thing into a submittable state takes me an enormous amount of time.

Right now, I have a more than 80% of a paper finished –but it has been at this stage for the last month despite me working on it pretty much every day.

I find that a paragraph that I need to fix/alter slightly/rewrite will lead to me needing to fix/alter/slightly/rewrite another part of the paper. And so on...

So, I guess a couple of things could be happening:

1. Many people go through something like this and it is just a normal part of finishing papers.

2. I am doing something wrong. perhaps I need to get ideas more clear in my head before I start writing?

Yeah, I think this is totally normal--or, at least, it's something that I struggle with too. I love drafting new papers. Finishing them, on the other hand, is the tricky part. It takes a ton of polishing, and this in my experience is the least fun and most difficult part to do. You constantly fiddle with things, insert and remove things, second-guess yourself, and so on. I currently have maybe ten papers like this that are 80-90% done, but which I'm finding it difficult to polish into the kind of shape that I'm happy enough with to submit. And what often happens is that I have an idea for a new paper, so I'll begin drafting that up because I find that more enjoyable (this is in part the reason why I have so many papers in the 'polish' stage). 

Maybe the OP and I are outliers in this regard, I don't know--but I suspect not. Any readers care to weigh in? And any tips for the OP to help them get to the finish line more quickly?

Which Objections Should You Include in a Paper?

This is a guest post by Andrew Moon, Assistant Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University.

When philosophers write papers, they also discuss objections to their own arguments. But how much should they do this? A paper could go on forever with discussions of more and more objections, making the paper unhelpfully long.

ONE way to know which objections to include is to present your paper at a few conferences and run your main argument by a few people in the relevant area of expertise. If an objection commonly comes up (e.g., it's the first thing that comes to mind when you mention your argument to someone), then that's evidence that it should be dealt with in the paper. Idiosyncratic objections (which might still be good objections!) probably needn't be dealt with.

These factors matter because they make the paper better and more enjoyable to read. More people will enjoy reading a paper if the objection mentioned is the one they have, not an idiosyncratic one that they don't find plausible. Following this advice will also increase the probability that you will deal with the objections a referee is likely to have.

This has implications for when YOU are the referee. The fact that you have a good objection to the argument in a paper you are refereeing isn't sufficient reason to not accept. It takes some knowledge of how people in the philosophical community would likely respond to the argument. It also requires some self-awareness of how idiosyncratic of a philosopher you are. These factors will help you know whether the objection you are thinking of is sufficient reason to not accept the paper.

How many (outside) letters are optimal?

A reader writes in:

I have a couple of questions about getting job letters from people outside of your graduate program. 

First, when is it a good time to ask someone for a job letter? How well does a potential letter writer need to know you to write a sufficient letter? 

Second, I will likely have at least two external job letters when I go on the market. Is this enough or would more be better? How many letters does one need on the market?

Excellent questions. Here is how I replied:

I don’t think there’s a simple answer to the first question, as in my experience different people can have different standards for how well they think they should know you in order to write a good letter. So, here’s my suggestion: if you have some working relationship with the person and any reason to think the person knows your work and may think well of you as a philosopher, it doesn’t hurt to ask. The worst that can happen is that they say ‘no’—but the best that can happen is that they say ‘yes’ and write a good letter. I’ve had both happen to me, and while it’s disappointing when someone says ‘no’, the only way to get some ‘yes’ answers is to ask.

On the second question, I think two outside letters is more than enough, particularly for someone just coming out of graduate school. Indeed, given that many job application portals limit the number of letters that you can submit, there is such a thing as having ‘too many letters.’ I think four or five letters total (2 or 3 from your grad program, and likewise from outside) is probably optimal.

But these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?

Summer sounds

Getting a visiting student post while ABD?

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

I have a question about the process of applying for becoming a visiting student in another university especially when you are in the dissertation phase. I am currently in a PhD program of one of the US universities and I am wondering how can I be a visiting student in another university (in the US) for awhile.

This is an excellent query. I seem to recall a grad student or two that I knew having done this, and it seemed to really be a boon to their career, as they were able to draw on the expertise of people outside of their home department, get good outside recommendation letters, network, and so on. However, I don't know much about the process. Although I could be totally wrong about this, I sort of suspect that you (and/or your dissertation supervisor) just need to approach a person or two at the department or two that you would like to visit to see if their department would be willing to have you.

But again, I am really just speculating here. Do any readers have experience with this? It might be great to hear both about the process of becoming a visiting student at the dissertation stage, and the costs and benefits of doing so! 

When (and how) to try to publish a dissertation?

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

For those who want to try and publish their dissertation as a monograph: what is the best time to start getting in touch with publishers? Once the thesis is starting to take shape, or when it is more or less finished/submitted, or only after the dissertation has passed the defence?

On the one hand, it seems that earlier = better, if only because the same time can otherwise be spent trying to publish individual chapters. On the other hand, the defence itself might provide valuable feedback, and publishers might not want to take a gamble on a dissertation that has not even passed yet!

Relatedly, suppose one plans to revise their dissertation to become more like a monograph, rather than a dissertation (i.e. include a gentler introduction, but leave out long literature reviews): should one do this *before* submitting the manuscript to a publisher, or is it fine to submit the dissertation 'as is' but with a (detailed) note in what ways one intends to change things? (I am thinking here of the initial 'proposal' stage, not the later 'review' stage, for which it seems sensible to submit an as-final-as-possible version).

These are excellent questions, and I am curious to hear what readers think. Here are a few quick thoughts...

How to juggle projects effectively?

A reader writes in:

I'm looking for some advice about how to juggle different projects.  I put together a draft, sent it to a few folks for comment, and I received back one set of thorough comments already.  I'm wondering: Is it better to stick with one paper all the way through til it's ready to be submitted somewhere? --the idea being I have the material in my head so it's good to work on it while I have it all well-rehearsed.  Or is it better to sit on some of those comments and work up a different paper draft altogether so that when I do come back to the first project, I'll be looking at the comments and my own work with fresher eyes?  Bear in mind, (1) I have zero pubs and (2) I'm not talking about drafts that are submission ready nor am I talking about drafts that have been commented on by journal reviewers.  Maybe I'm asking a broader question related to a fruitful publishing program: is it better to complete one thing at a time start to finish or to have several papers going at any given time?

These are really great questions. Although everyone works differently, my sense is that it may be a mistake to focus on just one project at a time. For better or worse, academia has become progressively more competitive. Job-candidates seem to have more publications than ever before, and so to be competitive on the market (and then, for tenure) one must publish quite a bit. And unfortunately, focusing on just one project at a time doesn't seem to me to be all that conducive to this--as to publish a lot, one has to get a lot out for review, and to get a lot out for review, one has to (I think) be drafting and revising multiple projects at any given time. Maybe this is wrong, and if so, I'd be curious to hear from readers who work on just one project at a time and are successful that way. In any case, I don't work that way. Allow me to briefly explain how I work (and why), and then open things up for comments.

Call for guest posts: 'Non-traditional paths into philosophy'

A reader writes in:

I have a suggestion that I think would be very nice to have. This would be a series on people who have started doing philosophy later than their peers, maybe only going to graduate school in their forties, with the idea of showing people alternative career paths and encouraging people who feel out of place because they are older than the average graduate student. I also know someone who has done an MA in philosophy and has started on philosophical work (not yet published) in his 60s after retiring from a permanent position in a psychology department. The literary magazine The Millions started a series like this about ten years ago about authors who published their first book in their 40s or later. This includes many of my favourite authors, eg Barbara Pym. This has now grown into a separate website called Bloom https://bloomsite.wordpress.com/

I think this would be a great feature to have, showing that being an early career academic does not necessarily mean being young by age and you don’t have to be some kind of wunderkind to succeed. This could also showcase alternative career paths, like starting to publish philosophy after retirement or writing philosophy alongside an alt-ac job. I think there is a good chance that if I cannot get an academic job, I would try and continue research and writing alongside another (paying) career, so it would be nice to see other people doing this.

I think this is a great idea! If you took a non-traditional path into philosophy and are interested in contributing a guest-post on your experience and path in the profession, please just email me at [email protected]. Also, if you know someone else who took a non-traditional path who might be interested in contributing a post, please feel free to direct them to me or to this post. 

Philosophy in Kazakhstan

This is the twenty-sixth 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 Vladimir Krstić, Philosophy Assistant Professor at Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. 

The first thing that comes to one’s mind when hearing the word ‘Kazakhstan’ is Borat. In reality, however, the first thought should be amazing job opportunities. Kazakhstan is a developing country but it is developing fast. The capital, formerly known as Astana but now Nur-Sultan, is growing faster than one can keep track of. This is a perfectly normal course of events. Kazakhstan is a young but vast country, the 9^th largest in the world in terms of physical size, with 18.5 million inhabitants. After a long period of being under the strong influence of Russia and the Soviet Union, Kazakhs are now re-discovering their language and national identity, and they are building their country according to their own preferences. The country is secular, multi-ethnic, and all religions are highly respected: Eastern Orthodox Christmas (7^th of January), for example, is a national holiday, even though the country is predominantly Muslim. Kazakhstan is rich in oil and gas and thus it can afford to attract a skilled labour force and provide them with exceptional work conditions. For these reasons, this country offers many possibilities for excellent employment, philosophers included. Most foreigners work in the oil and gas industry in the south of the country but a very nice job can be found in cities like Nur-Sultan and Almaty.

Maintaining a (coherent) research program?

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

I'm 5 years post-PhD and have been publishing at a modest rate since then (about 1 article per year), and I'm starting to find it a bit onerous to keep track of my own research program. Now when I'm editing new drafts I find myself always uncovering thorny issues with subtle details of how the new paper fits in with my previous ones. I would love to hear if others have found effective ways to manage and streamline this part of the late-early-career writing process. I feel like I'm always having "Oh shit, I can't say that because..." moments fairly late in the game and then scrambling for a solution. I work in a so-called "core" analytic subfield, in case that's relevant.

Interesting query. I'm nearly 13 years (!) post-PhD now and have published quite a bit, and I haven't really encountered this difficulty. I guess I'm a bit puzzled by the OP's thought that they can't say something in a new paper because of something they have written before. Is their thought that everything they say across different papers must be entirely consistent? If so, I'm not sure that I think one needs to do that! Why not follow the arguments where they lead, publish things that are in tension with each other if that's where the arguments lead, and then perhaps explore and try to resolve those tensions in future work?

Tips for new faculty & postdocs?

Last month, we ran an inaugural thread soliciting questions from readers on tips for those on the tenure-track. Given that some readers may be beginning their first jobs post-PhD in a month or two--ranging from tenure-track job to postdocs, VAPs, etc.--I thought it might be worthwhile running an open thread soliciting queries from people about to begin new jobs of all sorts.

Are you about to begin a new job and have questions or are looking for tips on how to start off on the right foot? Fire away, and I'll run new threads discussing your queries!

Call for mentors

The Cocoon's job market mentoring program has begun matching mentors with mentees. However, as has been the case in the past, we have quite a few more mentee applicants than available mentors. So I'd like to put out this call for mentors.

Are you a tenure-stream (i.e. tenure-track or tenured) faculty member willing to mentor job-candidates on the market this year who face special challenges? If so, please consider signing up here, and please consider spreading the word to other tenure-stream people you know (e.g. on social media). We really want to help as many candidates in need as we can. But, to do that, we need as much help as can get!

Of course, I understand that many of us are exhausted from the past year of the ongoing pandemic. However, having been a mentor several times myself, I can say that the program is rewarding and not very time consuming. Further, because of the effects of the pandemic on last year's job market, there is sure to be an abnormally large number of job candidates on the market in need of help. So please, if you think you might have the bandwidth to help someone, please do sign up to mentor here!

Currently, we could use mentors with philosophical background in the following areas:

• Aesthetics
• Cognitive science & philosophical psychology
• Early Modern
• Environmental ethics
• Epistemology
• Ethics
• Logic
• Philosophy of economics
• Philosophy of mathematics
• Philosophy of mind
• Philosophy of physics
• Philosophy of science (including history of philosophy of science)
• Political philosophy

Pedagogical literature for philosophy?

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

I'm thinking about applying for a Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (if you don't know about it see here: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/fellowship/fellowship) and for that I need to engage with the pedagogical literature. I've found plenty of literature on teaching at university in general. But I wonder if anyone here has recommendations for pedagogical literature that is specifically relevant to philosophy (or better yet, specifically addressed to philosophy lecturers).

I'm curious to hear recommendations too. I know of the journal Teaching Philosophy, but beyond that I don't have any specific recommendations. I'd love to hear from readers on particular books or articles they recommend!

Summer sounds

When/where can one post preprints?

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

I recently had my first journal article accepted for publication. When can I put it on Philpapers and my personal website? Do I have to wait for official approval of the de-anonymized version from the journal? Or can I do so immediately?

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

First, congratulations! Welcome to the club. Second, you should read the contract you signed with the publisher. It is a contract. And you signed it. It is imperative that you learn what you can legally do.

I agree on all counts. Different publishers can have very different policies. Some publishers allow you to post final drafts (non-copyedited, etc.) on non-profit repositories such as PhilPapers immediately upon acceptance. However, others have 'embargo periods' of a year or two post-publication during which you can post a final draft to your website, but which you have to wait to pass before you can post anything to a repository. Other publishers still do not permit any version of a paper to be posted to a repository, but instead only allow you to link to the actual published version at the journal. Finally, many publishers only allow posting drafts to non-profit repositories, but absolutely forbid posting drafts to for-profit sites (such as Academia.edu). 

Long story short, the safe thing to do is to read (and follow) your publishing contract very carefully. Of course, I suspect that not everyone follows such requirements. But personally, I wouldn't risk that. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

CV gaps and the market?

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

I struck out on the job market this year, no surprise. I haven't even been able to secure adjuncting gigs for the fall. And I have not had any luck finding employment outside of the faculty track, either. If I go back on the market, how bad will it look that I have no affiliation and no employment for the upcoming academic year? Will that lower my chances even further?

Good questions. It's not clear from the reader's comment whether they are just out of graduate school and this past year was their first year on the job market. If so, I suspect that they will still look like someone 'just out of graduate school' and the gap on their CV won't matter much. I suspect this is especially true right now, due to the COVID pandemic. Search committee members will be well aware that candidates just out of grad school faced a uniquely horrible market this past year.

On the other hand, my sense is that the longer one is out of grad school, the more likely it is that these kinds of gaps are likely to affect one's chances. Generally speaking, my guess is that you want to look like you are 'still in the game', publishing, getting teaching experience, etc. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? I'm especially curious to hear from people who have served on search committees.

Being a philosopher in Sweden

This is the twenty-fifth 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  Sofia Jeppsson, associate professor of philosophy at Umeå University (or Ubmeje Universitiähta in the local Sami language) in northern Sweden.

Sweden is a country in northern Europe and part of the European Union. The surface area is slightly smaller than Spain, slightly larger than the US state of California – still, only a little over ten million people live here. Originally, Sweden consisted of only the southern 1/3 of the present-day nation. In the fourteenth century, the Swedish crown decided to colonize the north, although this went very slowly until the seventeenth century when the colonization efforts picked up some speed. The crown wanted access to metals and other natural resources up north, and to convert the Sami population to Christianity (although somewhat unusually, they explicitly wanted a diversified economy with the Sami remaining hunters, fishermen and reindeer herders, while Swedes did agriculture and mining). When Norway became independent of Sweden in 1905, this led to further oppression of the Sami; many groups were forcibly relocated, creating legal conflicts about land rights between different Sami groups that persist to this day.

Nevertheless, after all this, roughly 90 % of the Swedish population still live in the southern 1/3 of the country. I did too, until I got my current position in 2018 and moved up north.

Sweden’s oldest universities are Uppsala University founded in 1477 followed by the University of Lund in 1666, both of which persist to this day and are among the biggest universities of the country. Most universities in Sweden are run by the government, and officially counts as government agencies.

Umeå University was founded by the Swedish government in 1965, with the aim of increasing the general educational level in the north. We differ from the big universities in the south in having lots of online courses and -teaching besides what we do on campus.

Higher education in Sweden is done in either a universitet or a högskola, although both institutions are often called universities in English. (Högskola literally translates to high school, but should not be confused with American high schools!) The distinction used to be that a högskola only provided bachelor and master’s degrees, whereas an universitet also offered doctoral degrees and was more research focused. The differences between högskola and universitet are getting increasingly blurred as time moves on, though.

If you’re accepted as a doctoral student in Sweden, the department will hire you with a monthly salary for up to five years (with some teaching and administrative work included). You also have benefits such as a long and paid parental leave if you have a child during grad school (regardless of gender). Another difference between Swedish academic jobs and those of many other countries is that we don’t really have a tenure-track system. You’re either hired for a fixed term, or hired permanently, in which case you have high job security. Permanent positions can be either as lektor or professor. The latter is only for people who are already far advanced and accomplished in their careers. My own job title is that of lektor; we who have permanent lektor jobs usually call ourselves associate professors in English (as I did in the beginning of this blog post). However, it’s also possible to be hired as a lektor for a limited period of time, like 6-12 months, when the university has need of an extra teacher; the lektor position is at bottom a teaching one, even though you have some time for research too.

After defending one’s PhD thesis in Sweden, people traditionally host a big dinner and party for colleagues, family and friends. I’ve talked to American colleagues who have been invited to some such event to serve as an opponent during the thesis defence, and attended the dinner and celebration afterwards, who compared it to a wedding dinner. I think it’s an apt comparison. People give toasts, hold speeches, and present gifts to the new PhD. Furthermore, although the details differ a bit from university to university, there’s often a big yearly ceremony in town for everyone who became a PhD during the year. The new PhD’s, wearing tailcoats or evening gowns, are crowned with laurel wreaths and given rolled up documents stating (in Latin) that one has now become a Doctor of Philosophy in the name of the King (well, there’s much more text than that, but I’m honestly not certain what it says since I can’t read Latin).

Tips for a first-time conference presenter?

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

I have my first conference presentation coming up with a dedicated commentator. Any tips for navigating the session will be very much appreciated! What is the general aim of a commentary? What do I say after the commentator finishes? What are some strategies for navigating the Q&A? (Do people like presenting papers? I've been regretting submitting this one for months!)

Congrats to the OP, and great questions! I'm curious to hear how other readers answer, but here are some quick thoughts:

1. Any general tips?: If at all possible, don't read your paper. Instead, either present from a couple-page handout or from a PowerPoint (though if you plan for the latter, make sure the conference has A/V!). Also, try to get your commentary in advance from your commentator--at a minimum, a few days in advance and ideally a week or two before that so that you have time to think through a good response. Then, if at all possible, write out your response, at least in bullet-points. It's generally a good idea to practice your talk so that you see what works and to ensure that your talk fits properly into your allotted time. Also, try to speak fairly slowly and deliberately. Finally, be sure to present the version of the paper that your commentator received. It is extremely bad form to 'revise' your paper and present a different version after they have read the version you submitted.

Job-Market Boot Camp, part 30: teaching demos

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

One thing I didn't really see on the wonderful [job-market tips] compendium compiled above is something about giving teaching demos. Has there been a discussion of this on this site?

I'm really glad this reader asked, as I hadn't realized we skipped the teaching demo! What do you all think makes for an effective teaching demo? Things to do? Things to avoid? Allow me to share a few thoughts before opening things up for comments.

New paper in AJP: 'Two New Doubts about Simulation Arguments'

This is just a quick note that my former student, Micah Summers, and I have a new paper, 'Two New Doubts about Simulation Arguments', forthcoming in Australasian Journal of Philosophy. Here is the abstract:

Various theorists contend that we may live in a computer simulation. David Chalmers in turn argues that the simulation hypothesis is a metaphysical hypothesis about the nature of our reality, rather than a sceptical scenario. We use recent work on consciousness to motivate new doubts about both sets of arguments. First, we argue that if either panpsychism or panqualityism is true, then the only way to live in a simulation may be as brains-in-vats, in which case it is unlikely that we live in a simulation. We then argue that if panpsychism or panqualityism is true, then viable simulation hypotheses are substantially sceptical scenarios. We conclude that the nature of consciousness has wide-ranging implications for simulation arguments.

Hope some of you find it interesting!

 

Summer sounds

How can we help you? (July 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.

Given that the main academic job market is coming up soon, feel free to ask job-market related questions. But, as usual, 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!

Alternative paths to academic philosophy jobs?

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

The standard path towards landing an academic job in philosophy involves getting a doctoral degree in philosophy, and upon its completion, either securing a post-doctoral position in a related field or (if one is lucky) securing a fixed-term or tenure-track position within a philosophy department.

Now, I get the sense that there is some apprehension towards offering someone who has already obtained a doctoral degree (in a different subject) a place within the philosophy department to complete another doctoral degree, perhaps for reasons of fairness -- that given the competitive nature, it is only fair that someone who does not have a doctoral degree be offered a chance to obtain that degree than someone who already has a doctoral degree.

However, without a doctorate in philosophy, it appears difficult (much harder than it usually would be for people with a philosophy doctorate) to secure a post-doctoral position in philosophy, especially if the area of their original doctorate is pretty far from their primary(ish) research interests in philosophy. Even if one were to chance upon a rare instance where they do secure a post-doc position, it appears to be an uphill battle to convince a hiring committee that one indeed has sufficient philosophical background to teach philosophy at an undergraduate level (I have a suspicion that many would not consider having a master's degree to be sufficient). It therefore seems that, at best, one no more competitive within the job market after the end of that post-doc tenure even if they were to be lucky enough to land a post-doctoral position in philosophy without a doctoral degree in the subject (again, I suspect that one would, in fact, be less competitive on the job market because of the unconventional academic path).

So, more specifically, I have the following questions:

(i) is there an alternative path towards landing an academic job in philosophy that is just as effective/efficient as the standard path?

(ii) if the standard path is all that is available, what could someone who has already obtained a doctorate in a different subject (and is currently pursuing a master's degree in philosophy) do to make themselves reasonably competitive when applying for their second PhD so that their application is not dismissed on the account that they have already received a doctoral degree?

Interesting questions. I'm not sure that there is an alternative path toward landing an academic job in philosophy. But fortunately, I'm not sure there's any reason to think that PhD program admissions committees in philosophy are likely to be apprehensive toward admitting someone who already has a PhD in another field. Far from it, my guess is that admissions committees may find candidates like this especially interesting--as the person's expertise in another field could well enrich their department. Indeed, what could be better than having a new PhD student who has expertise in (say) physics, or psychology, or biology, political science, sociology, etc.? All of these fields (and many others besides!) have much to offer philosophy, and I imagine it might not only be interesting on a day-to-day basis to have someone like that in the department, but also educational, offering grad students and faculty alike fertile ground for expanding their horizons and knowledge-base.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Job-Market Mentoring Program: signups open!

Helen De Cruz and I are happy to announce that signups are now open for this year's iteration of the Cocoon's Job-Market Mentoring Program. Job-candidates in need and potential mentors are both encouraged to sign up for the program here. The full details of the program are as follows.

Program Description:

This program, associated with The Philosophers’ Cocoon, aims to provide job-market mentoring to all those in need (regardless of background). The aim of this mentoring project is just what it sounds like: a scheme to enable job candidates in philosophy who face special challenges, including members of historically-marginalized groups as well as those with little access to mentoring (e.g., because their department or advisor does not offer this), to receive advice and support from more experienced (e.g. tenure-stream or tenured) members of the profession.

Handling frustrating journal verdicts?

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

I just received a verdict from a journal. One referee suggested minor revisions and the other referee suggested major revisions. However, the editor rejected my paper. I wonder if that is common nowadays? Could I argue with the editor? Or is the idea crazy?

In my experience, this is very common. In fact, I received a similar verdict just yesterday. While I've heard of rare cases where arguing with editors can work (specifically, in cases where a referee made clear and obviously negligent mistakes in reading the paper), my sense is that, generally speaking, it's probably not worth one's while to argue with editors. If they made the decision they made, it's probably for a reason. Perhaps they agreed with the referee who advocated major revisions, and they (the editors) just thought that even with the major revisions, the paper is at most 'very good' rather than excellent, and the editors only want to publish stuff in the journal that they (and both reviewers) deem to be excellent. That's their prerogative as editors, after all.