The Philosophers' Cocoon

When to fix errors in an accepted manuscript?

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

I recently got a paper accepted for publication, and the editor sent my manuscript to the typesetting office. Since then, I noticed a few typos and minor mistakes that I had somehow missed until now (and so did my reviewers). Since I still have not received the proofs, do you think it is all right to contact the editor and let them know I would like to fix these mistakes? Or is it already too late for that?

A couple of readers submitted responses. An Editor writes:

The time to fix this is in the proofs. When you get your proofs read them with care. There is a chance that some of the mistakes will be caught in the proof stage, by others involved. But if they are not you will get a chance. Further, as an editor of a journal, I read the proofs as well, and catch yet-uncaught errors. But wait for the proofs.

Mike Titelbaum added:

Presumably once the piece is typeset they will send you proofs. Are the typos minor enough that you could fix them in the proof-correction stage?

It seems to me that Mike's question here is potentially important. One should ordinarily not make significant substantive changes to a final manuscript without running them by the Editor, right? But this doesn't sound like what the OP is describing. If it's just a matter of a few typos here and there, that's what proofs are for fixing!

What do search committees think of consulting?

On Twitter, Jeremy Davis (postdoc, University of Florida) asks:

Search committee members: What are your thoughts on a candidate mentioning their outside consulting work during an interview? (Context: it's relevant to their research, could be construed as 'outreach', and informs interdisciplinary teaching approach.)

This is a great question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. While I suspect consulting might not be particularly appealing to search committees at R1's (who presumably focus primarily on a candidate's research), I wonder whether it would look neat to committees at other kinds of institutions. First, it's a way for a candidate to stand out from the crowd. Second, search committee members might be interested in hearing more about it, and perhaps even want to get involved in some form of consulting themselves! But I'm really just speculating here. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

How to get asked to referee?

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

How can I get papers to referee? Where to start? I am a junior researcher with a few publications, but not from EU or USA, and without much of a network. Any advices?

Several readers submitted replies. Michelle wrote:

[I]f the journals you are interested in refereeing for use Manuscript central or similar then create a profile and add you keywords. When the editor looks for reviewers you'll show up in the search. You can also email the journal and ask to be added to the reviewer list I imagine.

And Ref wrote:

You are less likely to be asked to referee for journal that you have not published in. So it is crucial that you publish in good places, if you want to referee paper for journals. I have refereed over 170 papers, many for leading journals in my sub-field - I am not junior. But that is largely because I have published in these journals (I also have three books with a leading press). Further, once you start refereeing, it helps if you are effective at getting useful reports in to the editor in a timely fashion. No kidding, most of the time I get my report in within 5 days of agreeing to referee the paper. Further, I write my reports for the editors - I given them a professional assessment of the paper, and provide justifications for my evaluation.

These both seem like good suggestions, though for what it is worth, I was asked to referee for a number of good journals early in my career before publishing all that much. What do you all think?

Fruitfulness versus productivity--thoughts for writing what you want to write

What do we want to achieve when we manage our time better? I do not think that productivity should be the aim per se. Productivity, especially in tenured academics, is overrated, and there is already so much to read. The world isn't worse off if a tenured academic publishes a bit less in a given year. Productivity is also overrated in untenured academics, I think, but here lurks collective action problem. In a job market where people have to come with heavier CVs, you have no choice but to be productive. 

Still, even in that context, I think the focus on productivity is misguided. Productivity plays into ableist narratives, neglecting how much variety there is between people in getting various academic tasks done. It also frames people as being a means to their employer's or (in the case of job market), their future self's end.

It is more helpful to think management in terms of fruitfulness. Getting your projects to fruition, flourishing as a human being who is also an academic, sowing the seeds of later projects. Sometimes you do a lot of work, but it doesn't immediately turn into a payoff. A writing project (paper, book etc) can be done in a matter of weeks, or years. 

This excellent blogpost by University of Edinburgh's chaplain Harriet Harris probes this distinction between fruitfulness and productivity. As Harris writes "imagine if trees had been forced to produce apples non-stop. We can make nature do such things for us – turning dairy cows into continual milk-producing machines, for example. We can treat ourselves this way too, expecting endless productivity."

But that's not a sustainable way to live (in fairness, the years I spent on the job market this was exactly how I lived). You cannot treat yourself this way for years on end without burnout. So first and foremost, it is helpful to step away from a narrow focus on productivity toward feasibility and goals you want to accomplish without being burnt out.

To this end, I propose the following tips (you can read an early version, slightly shorter, of this in a series of tweets here). They are not tips to be more productive, per se, but to

• accomplish more what you want to accomplish, and hence reduce frustration
• give you enough time for projects that otherwise go on the back-burner forever, or projects that simply help you to flourish and thrive as an academic though less urgent than others
• feel less stress or the sense you're forever running behind.

How can we help you? (December 2021)

I'm taking the next few days off for some much-needed rest during the Thanksgiving holiday. In the meantime, now that it's been a couple of months since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new one!

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

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!

Contacting EICs in peer-review delays?

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

A question about journal etiquette. I have a paper that has been under review at a journal for nine months. For the past two months, I have not been able to get any response from the managing editor about the status of my paper. My question is: is it ok to write to one of the chief editors of the journal about this? Also, the journal is triple-blind, but as far as I understand that applies to the area editor who is handling the submission.

Good question! Another reader submitted the following reply:

I got a paper off the backlog at [redacted], where it had been stuck for nine months with no response from the ME, by emailing someone from the editorial board. I tried the chief editor first, but they had not responsive either. But the editorial board member was very apologetic and got me a decision in a week. Extreme times call for extreme measures, I think. My only caveat: be extra polite if the CE works in your area or it's a journal you need to publish in at some point (I purposely chose a board member as far removed from my area as possible).

I'm curious what other readers think. Do any of you have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

How to know if you're a good referee?

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

I referee more and more for journals, and there is this question at the back of my head everytime I send a report: How do I know if I do a good job as a referee? Or: What are good signs that you do a good/bad job as a referee?

A bit of context: When I send my reviews to editors, I usually also send them a message saying "if you need more information, or if my report is unclear, please let me know". I never hear back from the editors. When authors get an R&R, they are not dismissive of my comments, but this is hardly good evidence (as an author, being nice is part of the game!). We've all had experiences with bad referees. How am I supposed to know I'm not one of them? Maybe getting new invitations to referee from the same editors is a good sign. But perhaps they don't even keep track of this.

Good questions! In my experience, one of the best indications of one's performance as referee are how one's reports compare to other referees' reports. First, some journals have the (very good) practice of sharing all referee reports when an editorial decision is rendered not only with the author, but with other reviewers. As a reviewer, I've often found this to be very eye opening. On some occasions, I've seen that my worries were shared by other referees--which gave me some independent evidence that I had raised the right concerns about the paper. On other occasions, my reports seemed better than the other reports, giving more detailed feedback. However, on still other (thankfully rare) occasions, other reports led me to wonder whether I did a good job with my report (as they either understood something in the paper better than I did, etc.). For these reasons, I think the practice of journals sharing referee reports with all of a paper's referees is a great practice, and I only wish more journals did it (as in my experience, very few do). Finally, of course, sometimes journals share other referees' comments (or the author's reply to them) when authors submit revised papers for revise-and-resubmit verdicts. I find this to be really helpful for the same reasons. Other than this, though, my sense is that all one really has to go by is one's own internal sense of whether one is doing a good job.

What do you all think? What indications do you think a referee can have that they are doing a good job? And, are there things that journals should do in order to give one a clearer picture of how good of a job one is doing?

Informing your department you're on the market?

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

I am in a TT position in a R1 university in a city where I know no one (also bc of CoViD). I am not unhappy, but another R1 university in a city where I have very deep roots has recently advertised an associate prof. position. It is unlikely that they will choose me, since I am not yet tenured, but it would be foolish for me not to apply. Should I mention it to the head of my department and my colleagues here? How?

My sense is that a lot of people in TT jobs apply for jobs elsewhere, and that it is probably a mistake to let your home department know. First, as the OP notes, the chances of getting a job elsewhere are low (particularly if it is a tenured position, as is the case here). Second, letting your department know could bias people at your institution against you, leading them to think, "So-and-so really doesn't want to be here." Although I'd like to think this wouldn't effect how people would treat you (including in tenure and promotion), you never know what the effects will be. Finally, I just don't think an employer has any right to know that you are looking for work elsewhere. It's your career, not theirs--and I think you probably only have an obligation to let them know once you have accepted an offer elsewhere.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Also, I'm very curious to hear what people think of a TT Assistant Prof applying for a tenured Associate position. Is there any realistic chance of a non-tenured person receiving a tenured appointment? I would have thought not, given how protracted the entire tenure process is (i.e. going through a department committee, college committee, Dean, Provost, and Board of Trustees). I seem to recall hearing that it is possible, but if so, I'm curious how it works and just how good an untenured candidate would need to be for this to happen.

The dissertation prospectus

A reader writes in:

I wanted to see if you have posts on the cocoon about the prospectus. I'm currently writing mine and I wanted to see what people think about it--e.g., it's purpose, the expectations, the features that make it good, etc. 

Interestingly, I don't think we've ever had a discussion of the dissertation prospectus before. My own sense is that the prospectus is primarily intended to evaluate whether one has a viable dissertation topic--one that can fly, as it were, even if you still need to work a lot out. And of course the prospectus defense can help to isolate potential problems and what you'll need to do in the rest of the dissertation. Beyond this, I'm not sure. What do you all think? I actually attempted the prospectus twice, so allow me to share my experience there, as some readers may find it helpful.

How do search committees sift through apps?

In our job market discussion thread, a reader asks:

Does anyone know how search committees typically sift through applications? Does the search committee look at applications before the deadline? Does every member of the search committee look at every application, or do they divide up applications before making a first cut?

These are great questions, and I expect many job candidates would be interested in hearing answers! Any search committee members willing to weigh in? In addition to answering the OP's questions, it might be great to hear a little as well from search committee members on how they actually read and evaluate apps. For example, how long do you spend, on average, on a candidate's file? Which parts of the file do you look at first, and what do you focus on? What matters to you most when deciding who to interview or place in the 'don't interview' pile? Etc.

Inferential model on women in philosophy

Katharina Nieswandt (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Concordia University) alerted me to this new study on the gender ratio in philosophy. To the best of the researchers' knowledge, it provides the first inferential-statistical model of the causes of gender-inequality in the profession. Their primary findings?:

Overall, our findings provide (of course defeasible) evidence for the claim that students choose philosophy because they perceive a good fit between philosophy, qua requiring brilliance, and themselves, qua being brilliant, combative, systematizing, and indifferent towards “worldly rewards,” like family-life and money.

Future research should investigate whether these factors are causes of the gender gap or perhaps partly the result of a self-serving, stereotypical image that philosophy students develop after choosing philosophy as their major (perhaps reinforced by the discipline’s culture).  More research is also needed of the relations between combativeness, systematizing, and the sense of belonging in philosophy:  Is combativeness really the driving factor behind gender differences on these variables, as our research suggests?  In addition, it would be important to test to what extent our results generalize to comparisons between philosophy and other fields than psychology.

Philosophical readers will ultimately be most interested in interventions. Foundational research rarely licenses pragmatic steps directly, of course, but the following two inferences appear justified:  First, there probably is no quick fix for philosophy’s unequal gender ratio, since that might be part and parcel of a general social perception of certain abilities, character traits and life priorities as female or male.  Second, pre-university interventions might be necessary, given the well-replicated finding that gender stereotypes develop early...

Using rec letters for 'internal' job apps?

On Twitter, a philosopher by the name of 'Julia' (Lecturer, Toronto) asks:

Job application etiquette question: is it considered bad form to use a letter of recommendation written by a person who works at the institution to which one is applying?

I'd be very surprised if this were considered bad form, as I would have thought that recommendation letters are generally thought of as 'all purpose' documents (i.e. the recommender supporting your candidacy for jobs in general). But I've also been surprised many times at the kinds of things that people can object to, and I also tend to think that when any question arises in one's mind, it can't hurt to ask! What do you all think? Would a search committee have any problem with this? Should Julia ask the letter writer if they are okay with it?

Norms for applying to TT jobs

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

I have a question about norms around applying for tenure-track jobs. From talking to professors, I've heard of two basic views (which I'm sure admit of gradation). On the one hand, I've been told that I should not apply to any job if it is not the case that, were they to be the only job offer I received, I would definitely take it. In other words, according to this restrictive view, applying to a job basically commits one to accepting an offer (unless one rejects it to accept another offer).

According to other professors, it's acceptable to apply to jobs even if it's not the case that, were it to be your only job offer, you would accept it. This view takes a much more permissive perspective on applying and learning about jobs along the way.

I'd rather take the permissive view, but I also don't want to seem like a nube. More importantly, if it's a norm violation to interview for a job and then decide that it's not right for me (even if I don't have other offers), then I don't want to do that! I have a good idea of how the non-academic job market work, but I also accept that there may be special considerations in the academic world (such as paying for fly-outs, etc).

This is an interesting query. Another reader submitted the following response:

[T]he restrictive view is absurd. You should apply to any job you feel like applying to. You will create only marginally more work for the people on the committee. But either your file is worth looking at or it isn't. If it isn't, you won't have wasted much of their time. It if is, then you haven't wasted their time at all. In either case, you've done no wrong. And they're being paid to read your application. Why apply to a job that you *know* you won't take? Negotiating leverage for other jobs. As a matter of policy at many instituions (my own, my former employer...), a department chair or dean can offer the choicest goodies (extended sabbaticals, spousal hiring, salary beyond your pay scale, etc...) only if you have a second offer. The market thus incentivizes applying to jobs that you will not accept. It's a collective action problem, but as a job-seeker, let the better-off people forgo self-interest to solve the problem. Look out for you. I can only imagine one of your competitors recommended the restricted view to you. That person isn't looking out for you.

My own thoughts are roughly this: I don't know how you can know with any confidence that you will accept a job before applying. Why? Well, there is so much that you can learn in the interviewing process, including the on-campus visit (if you get one). You may or may not gel with people in the first-round interview or on campus interview. You might find that the university's culture and norms don't quite fit your expectations. You might find during the on-campus visit that you wouldn't like living in the city or region. And so on. I was always told by my mentors that the search process is a 'two-way street' in which search committees are trying to figure out whether they should hire you, and for you in turn figure out whether the place is a good fit for you. Of course, you probably have some idea of these things before applying--but this at most seems to me to support the 'permissive view' in the OP. So, my thoughts are: if there's any realistic possibility you would accept the job, apply. The only thing that seems to me morally dicey is applying to jobs you are certain (or near certain) you would not accept. That seems to me to not only waste a committee's time, but also harm other candidates who would (or might) accept the job were it offered to them.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Incomplete grades & temporary faculty

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

How should people with temporary positions deal with teaching demands that extend beyond a particular course’s contract? Suppose I am contracted to teach PHIL 101 in the Fall term, and there is a student who (for legitimate reasons) needs to defer some of their term work until the following term. My inclination is just mark the stuff, since I’m invested in my students. But I also feel like there is something exploitative in having that even minor burden fall to temp workers.

This is a really good question. I imagine there are a few different situations where this can arise. First, one could be in a temporary postdoc or visiting position, and then leave for another institution before the student is able to finish the work they need to finish the Incomplete. Alternatively, one could be in a part-time adjunct position where a student needs to finish up work after the course of your contract is over (i.e. during the summer months). I agree that there seems to be something really unfair about expecting people who are no longer getting paid for a course to have to do substantial amounts of work like this after the term is over (or after they have left the university for another institution). But I also imagine that, insofar as Incompletes are covered in faculty handbooks and the like, they are nevertheless considered by the institution to fall under the terms of your contract. So unfortunately, I'm not sure what to advise other than making things as easy on oneself as possible. Perhaps departments could/should come up with policies to have full-time faculty do this kind of work (though I'm not sure whether that would fly with administrators). What do you all think? 

Promoting new publications?

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

I am an early-career philosopher who recently got published in a highly ranked journal. Given that I am pretty much unknown in the field, I wonder what would be some good ways to promote my publication?

Sharing on social media and posting a pre-print on PhilPapers are some obvious things I plan to do. I was also considering sending the paper directly to people in my field. However, I am not sure whether this is a good idea or it might backfire. In any case, I would be really glad to hear the thoughts of more experienced philosophers on this matter.

Interesting question! One reader submitted the following reply:

I would encourage you to send the paper to people, BUT only to those whose work you engage with in the paper. When someone I do not know sends me a paper on something I write on, but it does not engage my work, I wonder what they are up to. I am a busy person. I have enough to read. But I have send my work to people I have discussed, and it has been worth it.

I guess I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I've had people send me papers of theirs, and I normally do take a look to see if the paper interests me. I also have sent people papers of mine on relatively rare occasions where we are working on similar stuff and I think they might find it interesting. On the other, I guess sending one's papers to a bunch of people seems to me a bit 'salesperson-ish', and I suppose I've always thought that the best way for one's work to get attention is to just keep publishing good stuff. Finally, though, I guess I doubt there is much risk in sending people your paper. At worst, some people might give you a subtle brush-off, as it were. So, I don't know. What do you all think? 

'X and philosophy' books

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

I was wondering what people think about contributed chapters to "X and philosophy" books. Are they just considered a 'popular publication' or are they closer to a contributed chapter to an edited volume? Are they peer reviewed in any serious sense?

Good questions! I contributed a chapter a few years ago to Westworld and Philosophy, a book in Blackwell's Philosophy & Pop Culture Series. I enjoyed writing the piece a great deal, and it was cool to have the piece featured on a major fan site--and in addition to being fun to write, I think it's good for our discipline to be engaged in public philosophy and outreach like this. Obviously, given that the series is written for the general public, the piece wasn't technical or very advanced. But I do recall it being peer-reviewed, going through one round of minor revisions.

As for "what people think" of pieces like this, my sense is: it depends. Presumably, hiring and tenure committees at R1's aren't going to assign much (or any?) weight to these pieces, but I know second-hand that people at teaching-oriented colleges and universities--including tenure committees and (especially) administrators--love stuff like this. Remember, at teaching-oriented places, the primary focus is on students. More down-to-earth, popular-facing pieces like these can not only interest students in our disciplines, but also be featured in college magazines for parents, alumni, and donors--particularly if and when the pieces are featured various places online, increasing the university's visibility. In terms of how they should be listed on a CV, I'm not sure there is a clear-cut answer. On the one hand, my experience is that they are peer-reviewed, and often 'do real philosophy.' On the other hand, they are pitched toward a popular audience and presumably not reviewed with the same kind of rigor as more professional-facing work does. 

What do you all think? How do you view these pieces, and how do you think they should be listed on a CV?

 

How are R&Rs handled?

(Update: comments now open!)

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

When I re-submit a revised manuscript to a journal after an R-and-R decision, will they go to the editor first, or will they be sent out directly to the reviewers? I ask because I think I should clear something I've done in the revisions with the editor (a slight compromise of anonymity) before the reviewers see it.

Good question. My sense is that all submissions (both initial submissions and R&Rs) go to editors first, and then the editor decides whether to send it out to review, and if so, to whom. Sometimes (e.g. for an R&R with 'minor revisions'), editors may not send out an R&R to reviewers at all, deciding for themselves that you have adequately addressed the reviewers' concerns. Other times, the editor may send out the R&R to some of the reviewers but not others (my sense is that this can happen if one referee initially submitted an incompetent or unfair review: an editor might not be interested in hearing that referee's opinion again). Finally, sometimes editors may send out the R&R to all of the previous reviewers, or even (sigh) a new reviewer, if one of the original reviewers is unavailable. I guess my only concern about the OP is their note that they are interested in "clearing something" with the editor that might involve a "slight compromise of anonymity." If the journal is triple-anonymized (so that editors do not know the author's identity), this seems to me to be problematic. Although I can understand situations where this might be tempting (such as a reviewer misinterpreting some of the author's previously published work cited in the paper!), authors should still respect anonymous review in submissions and resubmissions, I think. But perhaps the OP can chime in and provide further context in the comments section.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. What are yours? 

Listing job talks on a CV?

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

May/should I list (research) job talks under the 'presentations' section on my CV? Or is that cheating?

Good question, and I'm curious to hear from readers, especially those who have served on search committees. Here are my thoughts...

My guess is that it will be pretty obvious which talks are job talks, and that listing them could make one look particularly desirable. At the same time, there is one equally obvious way that this could backfire: namely, by scaring search committees away at 'less desirable' institutions, making them think "we'll never get this candidate to work here. Interviewing them or flying them out for an on-campus visit may be a waste of time." These are not, I think, idle concerns. My experience is that search committees can worry a lot not only about perceived "flight risks", but also about doing a failed search. For example, at some institutions, the administration will only fund 2 or 3 on campus interviews. If all of the candidates who are flown out turn down the job, it's a failed search, and no one may be hired. Which is really bad for the hiring department, not only because of wasted time and energy, but also because there is no guarantee the search will be renewed the next year. 

Long story short, it seems to me that listing job talks on a CV are a double-edged sword. Yes, they can make you look highly desired by other institutions, but that can (at least in principle) backfire in a really serious way. So, I guess I might only recommend it for candidates who are competitive for jobs at top research departments, where this sort of thing is likely to only be perceived as a positive.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Learning how not to rely on one's PhD advisor

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

I don't think I'm alone in this, and I'm looking for advice from those who've gone through it or something like it.

I have an excellent relationship with my advisor. With his guidance, my mediocre ideas become significantly less mediocre, and even, on occasion, quite interesting. I've worked with other professors and, to be honest, we're on the same wavelength in ways that I haven't experienced with others.

While I'm incredibly grateful to be working with them, I'm also a bit anxious about what's to come. At some point, I'll move on, ideally to a job, and it will be less and less appropriate for me to lean on my advisor to lift up my work and make it more intelligible. What can I do to prepare for this? Should I just hold on as long as possible? Will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?

These are very good questions. Timmy J. submitted the following response:

My own adviser told me that most of the point of grad school is to get voices in your head. You get your adviser’s voice is your head. You get some of your cohortmate’s voices in your head. Maybe you get frege or Kant or whoever’s voice in your head. Then you leave but the voices stay and some large portion of the help they could give before they can still give later, albeit in a disembodied way. Yeah yeah it’s weird and mystical and whatever. But it sorta helps me deal, and maybe it’ll help you too.

This seems right to me (I still bear in mind many lessons that I learned from my advisor). However, I don't think they are the only way to handle the OP's situation--and I also think it can be critical to develop one's own voice, as it were, becoming one's 'own philosopher' (there are, for example, some preconceptions about research that I was taught in graduate school that I now firmly reject). In any case, what other strategies are there? One strategy that I have seen is for people to slowly wean themselves off of their advisor, staying in close contact with them for their first few years out of graduate school, meeting with them via Zoom, sharing work, etc. My sense is that this can work if one's advisor is a caring and conscientious person, particularly given that advisors can want their former students to succeed. Not all advisors are like this, however--and so, one might very well find oneself 'ripped away' from being able to rely on them. In that case, my sense is that one's situation can be very much akin to being thrown into the deep end of a pool and simply having to learn how to swim. 

Long story short, I don't think there's just one way to answer the OP's questions. I think a lot depends on you (are you 'naturally independent' or someone who really needs support networks?), on your advisor (are they willing to stay in close contact and be helpful once you graduate?), and on context (is your first job out of graduate school in a large research department or small department with high teaching loads?). Because things can differ so much, I'm very curious to hear from readers. How did you handle the kinds of issues the OP asks about? Did your strategy work well or not?

Finally, I do want to say a few things about the OP's third and final question: "will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?". My sense is that you probably will. My own advisor once told me in graduate school that at some point, one undergoes a transformation of sorts. You begin to realize that, whereas for your entire academic career as a student, you had to satisfy your professors with your work, now the main person you need to satisfy is yourself. Sure, you need to convince referees to publish your work. But, at some point, you'll get a sense of how to do that while being the kind of philosopher you want to be. And, in my experience, it can be a really wonderful experience, generating not only a kind of confidence in your work, but indeed, a kind of confidence that doesn't depend so much on others for validation (which, I think, can be a really liberating experience). But again, this is just my experience. What's yours?

Indicating post-dissertation research on a CV?

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

I have a separate section on my CV for papers under review. I was wondering whether it's a good idea to highlight which of these papers are derived from my PhD thesis, and which ones are not? I can imagine it's helpful if a search committee sees that about half of my papers under reviews aren't thesis chapters, meaning that I am (hopefully) capable of producing further non-thesis research. On the other hand, it also somehow feels as if I define myself by my thesis, especially as I am currently in a postdoc position. I would appreciate some input on this!

Good question. Another reader submitted the following response:

You are way over thinking things. These papers are JUST under review. They are not publications - it matters not whether you wrote them as part of your dissertation or as part of a new project. That is something you can talk about, if you get an interview, but even then it does not matter.

I half-agree with this response. Speaking as a search committee member, I think it can matter whether a candidate has a robust research program beyond the dissertation. Search committee members can want to know whether candidates are likely to publish enough to get tenure, and at least typically, that requires publishing articles beyond the dissertation. So, I think it is a good idea for a CV to show that the candidate has such a research program. I just don't think the OP needs to explicitly indicate this in their CV. This is because it is usually pretty easy to tell, just by looking at the candidate's dissertation title and/or research statement, what is a part of their dissertation, and what's not. So, that's what I would do: just list the papers they have published and under review, and let the reader infer what goes beyond the dissertation.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Alex Guerrero (Rutgers) on research methods

Over at Daily Nous last week, Alex Guerrero (Rutgers) shared some really helpful advice for applying to PhD programs. But, in addition to being helpful for grad applicants, I actually think his remarks on writing samples may be helpful for graduate students and other early-career scholars who are struggling to publish. Here are the key passages that I have in mind:

Let me begin by saying some possibly controversial things about how good philosophy comes into existence. I’ll begin by describing a method that rarely works. First, start with an interest in some topic that has been discussed a lot by philosophers. Second, read everything on that topic, over a long time, keeping kind of neutral notes on the views throughout. Third, try to think of something new to say. Disaster!

Maybe some people can do it that way, but it’s very hard to find your voice and keep your passion and energy throughout that process. Instead, you learn about the 18 moves that have been made, the 14 positions in logical space that have been occupied (like tanks running over flowers), and you can maybe spot another 2 or 3 that haven’t been occupied. You can write a paper that takes up one of those, but often you aren’t really excited about that position, it’s just kind of left over. And maybe for a reason…

Much better: start with something that is bugging you or disturbing you. Maybe it’s an actual thing in the world that is happening. Maybe it’s an idea that was presented in a class that just seems wrong somehow. Maybe it’s some text or topic that seems philosophically interesting, but which no one is talking about. Maybe it’s just a way of looking at things that comes to you from who knows where, while your mind wanders around (like flowers growing over tanks).

What I find so interesting about this is that the first method--the method that Guerrero says rarely works--is the one that I initially adopted when trying (mostly in vain) to come up with a viable PhD dissertation topic. After my comprehensive exams, I spent something like one-and-a-half years doing just that: reading everything on moral motivation, taking copious notes, and trying to come up with something new. It was a disaster. I found myself in exactly the position Guerrero describes: I knew the "14 positions in logical space" that everyone had already occupied, as well as the 2 or 3 that hadn't because, well, those positions were obviously wrong. So, I couldn't come up with anything! It was like running into a brick wall, day after day after day. Then, I did what Guerrero says to do instead. I found something that was bugging me. I read Rawls again, and noted that he never did nonideal theory in any kind of systematic way, and that no Rawlsians really had either. So, I immediately had an idea--to use Rawls's machinery to develop a nonideal theory of justice--and wrote a dissertation on it. Just like that!

Anyway, it's really amazing what a simple change in research methods like this can do, so I figured that I would not only share it--as I expect there are probably grad students and early-career philosophers who are struggling to come up with dissertation ideas and publishable work. I also figured it might be good to see (1) whether other readers have found Guerrero's approach to research beneficial, and (2) whether you have any research tips of your own! Any readers care to weigh in what you've found helpful in coming up with good research ideas or otherwise being productive as a researcher?

Open thread on hiring timelines

In our job-market discussion thread, Bill Vanderburgh (CSU San Bernardino) chimed in to clear up some confusion/misinformation about the search he is chairing at his institution:

We have barely begun evaluating candidates. The email that candidates received was automated. It is meant to indicate that they have advanced from "applied" to "under consideration". I didn't even realize the system would be sending those notices, or I would have tried to change the wording. The department has a meeting scheduled for mid-November to begin building our list for preliminary interviews by Zoom, and we hope to schedule those to take place in the second week of December.

Some job candidates in the thread appreciated, with one asking:

It would be great if other chairs or members of search committees would share similar timelines of their searches, which may as well be public but typically aren't, either in this thread or elsewhere. Is there a way you (Marcus Arvan) might facilitate this, for those search committee chairs or members who are able and willing to share such information?

I think this is a great idea, and so I hereby open this thread for any members of search committees who are able and willing to disclose their timeline (e.g. for reviewing applicants, holding first-round interviews, on-campus visits, etc.). My experience is that many committees need to give administrators rough timelines for all of the above anyway, so hopefully some search committees will be willing to weigh in!

How many applicants are jobs receiving?

A reader writes in:

I have a question...  Our department is currently taking applications for a tenure-track position.  Although our advertisement has been out for only a couple of weeks, we have not received nearly the number of applications that we were expecting at this point.  I recently mentioned this to the chair of the department where I earned my PhD.  That department is also conducting a tenure-track search, although in a different area.  My former chair said that they too have received far fewer applications than they had expected at this point.  So, I'm wondering how widespread this is.  Are many departments who are conducting tenure-track searches receiving fewer applications than they expected?  

This is an interesting question, and I'm curious to hear from other search committee members. If you are hiring this year (particularly for a tenure-track job), are you receiving fewer applications than you expected? Depending on what we hear in the discussion thread below, it might be good to hear from others about why this may be. Have many candidates given up on pursuing an academic job due to COVID (and the 'Great Resignation')? Alternatively, have many candidates decided to stay in grad school longer, delaying dissertation defenses due to COVID?

Language requirements for jobs?

A reader writes in:

I'm wondering how relevant (and necessary) a language requirement is for the job market. Many top departments have no language requirement, so I've heard. Does this suggest that the language requirement is not necessary for the job market?

Good question. I'm assuming the author has in mind language requirement for history of philosophy jobs (e.g. Modern Philosophy, etc.), and perhaps jobs in diverse philosophical traditions more broadly (i.e. Chinese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, etc.). Traditionally, there was an expectation that philosophers working in such areas became proficient in the relevant language(s). But, like the OP, I get the impression that language requirements have faded over time. Is this indeed the case? Should it be? Should language requirements not be necessary on the job market? I suppose, in principle, it's up to hiring departments to decide, but if more and more grad programs are dropping these requirements, I can imagine language requirements for jobs putting otherwise-qualified candidates in a difficult position. What do you all think?

Reference info in online applications

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

I'm currently in the process of filling out job ads. Many places require applicants to fill out online forms. These forms usually ask for reference contact info such as an email address and phone numbers. If you're using a third party document service like interfolio are you supposed to enter the "send.Referee" emails addresses that interfolio provides as the "contact email" for your references? Or should you enter the email addresses of the references? I've been told that it's the former, but in some cases, the job ads suggest that your references will be contacted directly and that makes me wonder if entering the interfolio address will suffice. Of course, emails for references are standardly found on our CV's, too. But I don't want to mess up these forms. Any help would be appreciated.

Good question. I don't know how search committees approach this stuff, but I suspect that many of those online forms that say that references will be "contacted directly" involve automated emails to letter writers. Since it can be a real pain for letter writers to continually upload letters (particularly if they have written letters for multiple candidates applying to many different jobs), I suspect the thing to do here is to put in the Interfolio link whenever possible, just to save your letters writers time and energy. I highly doubt much turns on it for search committee members. Are they really going to look askance at a candidate who submits a letter this way? It's hard for me to see how, especially if the letter writers' direct contact info is listed in the candidate's CV. But perhaps I'm wrong about this. Any search committee members able to weigh in?

Tips for (pre-tenure) research leave?

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

I am newish assistant professor at a school with a medium-level teaching load, where I am fortunate to get a guaranteed pre-tenure research leave (one semester at full salary or two semesters at reduced salary). I would love to hear tips from readers about how to make the best use of this time. Here are some specific questions. Where might I look for funding to support the longer leave? And then, assuming I can swing that financially, what are the advantages and disadvantages of staying put vs. going somewhere else as a visiting scholar? At present I am slowly recovering from burnout related to making a number of demanding life transitions during the pandemic and I am instinctively resistant to any more upheaval. But I fear I might regret not taking the opportunity to travel, especially since I am not an a research-intensive institution and do not have much local accountability for my scholarship.

Good questions! As far as funding is concerned, visiting fellowships seem to me to be one obvious answer--but as the OP notes, moving for a fellowship could involve quite a bit of upheaval (moving to a new place). So, it could be good to hear from visiting fellows/scholars whether it is worth it. Grants are another obvious source of funding, though they can take a lot of time to apply for and be hard to get. So, I'm not sure what to recommend here, especially given that I've never had a research leave myself. Finally, in terms of making the best use of one's time, I guess I expect that a lot turns here on how one works best--but, in my case, I find it's usually a good idea to have an idea of which projects I want to write on before I have time set aside for it. My guess is that one way to "waste" a research leave is not to have any good idea what to work on, and then spend most of the leave reading and trying to come up with ideas. So, I guess I'd say: have a clear picture of which projects you want to work on and (roughly) how you think the projects should go. Then spend the research leave focusing on writing, etc.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? For obvious reasons, it would be great to hear tips from people who have had research leaves themselves (both tips on things to do, but also potentially things to avoid!). 

Discussing grad school with undergrads

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

I have been advising an undergraduate senior thesis for several months now, for a student who expressed early on that they were interested in applying to a philosophy PhD. I'm becoming increasingly certain that they don't yet have the skills or preparation to be accepted into a program this year (ideas can sometimes be good but writing quality not so much, etc.), especially the mostly top-10 programs they seem set on applying to. I'm early-career at a PGR-ranked but not top department, certainly not "famous" enough for my letter to have much clout, which makes me even more pessimistic about the student's chances. I've talked with the student multiple times about how competitive (and random) the PhD process is, to consider some MA programs seriously (which I think would be a really good step for them before a PhD anyway), and have a backup plan if things don't work out this year. But I'm wondering whether I'm still not being straightforward enough and should give a little more tough love. On the other hand, I've never sat on a grad admissions committee, and maybe my pessimism is misplaced and harmful. Should my role be to build up the student's confidence, based on their stated application goals? Or would it be better to let them know very clearly that I think they have a minuscule change of getting in?

These are really good and (I think) difficult questions. On this case, I guess I feel torn between the following two responses: (1) honestly telling the student you don't feel they are quite ready for a PhD program and encouraging them to pursue an MA to better prepare themselves, or (2) support them in applying to PhD programs but strongly encourage them to apply to MA programs, explaining to them that many (most?) students who pursue PhDs these days go to good MA programs first. I myself tend to "err on the side of tact", as my experience is that frank honesty sometimes can do more harm than good. But, that being said, I also understand the argument that we should be honest with students. So, I guess I'm inclined to say that either of these approaches may be legitimate, and honestly, if the student really isn't quite ready to get into a good PhD program, then my sense is that this will probably be reflected in their application results (i.e. them perhaps getting into a good MA program but not to any attractive PhD programs). So again, maybe the thing to do is to just encourage them to apply to both, and then give them good advice once they hear back on the places they get into. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?