The Philosophers' Cocoon

Presenting a paper too many times?

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

Lately, I've been wondering about conferences, and to the extent to which it's acceptable to give the same talk at multiple conferences. Obviously, I know that most people present their work at multiple venues, but is there an upper limit to this? I suspect people might look oddly at a CV that had twenty presentations of the same idea.

I haven't reached anything close to that point yet, but I'm an early-career scholar who teaches a 4/4. As such, I haven't gotten a ton of new writing done since March 2020. But I have continued presenting old work, in part to keep my CV up to date and in part because I like attending conferences. In my case, this work remains unpublished, and each time I presented it was to a very [sic] audience. However, I wondering if there are some ideas I should 'retire' at this point because they have had their moment to shine.

This is an interesting question. On the one hand, I'm sort of inclined to say, "Present it as many times as you want!". It's your paper, after all. You may well get good feedback each time, and in any case there are multiple reasons to want to attend conferences, including exposing yourself to new work, etc. On the other, you might get bored presenting it so many times; you might keep getting the same feedback; and you might start "eating into the journal reviewer pool" for the paper (i.e. presenting the paper to people who might be asked to review it for journals)--all of which might be reasons not to keep presenting it.

But I don't know: I routinely see people who present papers tons of times--not just at conferences, but at departmental colloquia, etc. So, I'm not sure whether any of these considerations are decisive. Finally, I guess if you keep presenting the paper, people might start to wonder why you haven't been able to publish it yet. But honestly, how many people out there spend this amount of time thinking about what other people are doing or not doing?

All of this is just a roundabout way of saying: I have no idea! What do you all think?

What actually helps on the job market?

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

On this blog, I have seen many questions like "Would X help my prospects on the job market," and often that answer is "No, X won't really make a difference." My question is: what actually, substantially, really, definitely makes a difference? What should grad students actually spend their time on?

Here are the things I think really, actually matter the most (please tell me if I am wrong!): prestige of the PhD-granting institution, publications in top journals, being a great fit for the job AOS/AOC wise, (at least for a lot of jobs) having some solid teaching experience. There are also so many random things at play that can play a major role, like how your personality meshes with the people on the committee, who knows who, who they just hired last year, etc.

It seems like most other things just don't make a big difference, at least enough where it's worth doing action X JUST because you think X will help you on the job market (versus, say, doing public philosophy stuff because you are passionate about it).

So, it seems like there is not too much that's actually both helpful to my prospects AND within my control (publish in top journals, meet a lot of people and seem cool/smart/professional to them, finish the program while keeping my sanity), and I should just focus on those things without worrying much about the rest. Does this sound right?

These are excellent questions, and I'm very curious to hear how readers respond. Allow me to make a few quick points before opening things up for discussion.

Publishing Advice for Liberal Arts College Faculty

This is a guest post by Erich Hatala Matthes, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Faculty Director of the Frost Center for the Environment at Wellesley College.

His first book, Drawing the Line: What to Do with the Work of Immoral Artists from Museums to the Movies is now out with Oxford University Press.

One of the draws of being a professor at a liberal arts college is that you often have the opportunity to teach a wide range of courses. In my nine years at Wellesley College, I’ve taught 10 different courses ranging from philosophy of art to environmental ethics, and including advanced seminars on topics such as authenticity, public philosophy, and cultural heritage. This variety in teaching can also spur a similar diversity in your research. Rather than trying to become the world expert in a very niche topic, you can be a research omnivore, publishing on a broad range of issues.[1]

I’ve published papers on topics that careen from food waste to love, and from cultural appropriation to landscape art. But publishing on a broad range of research topics isn’t necessarily well-served by submitting your work to the most exclusive generalist journals and playing the odds. I’ve seen folks in the blogosphere recommend always having five(+) papers under review at a time, but that has never been for me, in part because I’ve never had close to that many unpublished papers in existence at the same time.

The truth is, research is not my favorite part of the job. You might look at my publication list and think that I write a lot, but it would be more accurate to say that I write efficiently and strategically: with one or two exceptions, I’ve published all the philosophical work that I’ve written. Keeping all of that in mind, I’ve outlined some publication strategies I found useful while I was on the tenure track at a liberal arts college with fairly demanding research standards for tenure. As always, your mileage may vary, and I’ve gotten lucky many times. But I think these are at least useful strategies to consider trying out.

1. Keep your research in dialogue with your teaching.

Students are a fantastic source of philosophical inspiration. I didn’t have any particular plans to write about cultural appropriation early in my career, but my first year at Wellesley I taught a little unit on the topic in my philosophy of art course: my students were deeply dissatisfied with the existing literature. So, I wrote a paper that tried to speak to some of their concerns. It’s my most cited paper by a factor of about 6. I also put a lot of brand-new papers on my reading lists each time I teach a course. That way, what I’m engaging with in the classroom is simultaneously keeping me up to date with the literature for research purposes. I’ve also learned a lot from getting feedback on work in progress from my students.

Hopeful tips for the stresses of an R1 job?

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

Simple question: how is a R1 job different from being a graduate student? (Wrong answers only.)

What I mean is, grad school can lead to burnout, especially if one is caught up in trying to publish and do everything possible to get a job. From what I hear, things are only more hectic and stressful if one succeeds in getting a job (with committees, teaching more, and trying to get tenure). If this is the case, then would many borderline burned out grad students be best off thinking about alt-ac careers? (Asking for a friend.)

I get that, perhaps once one gets tenure, then one's academic life might become less stressful. And maybe, if one's initial job is right, then there might not be as much stress w/r/t becoming tenured. As someone who's relatively new on the job market, though, it does seem like there is a decent chance that, if I get a job, the relative stress will only increase. This concerns me.

A more positive spin on my question might be: what is the most hopeful thing you might tell a grad student who faces a precarious job market and an increased set of responsibilities even in the best case scenario in which she lands a R1 job? In what ways will the job that she's hoped for be truly worthwhile?

These are interesting questions, and I'm very curious to hear readers' answers. If you work at an R1, how would you answer?

Publishing a book after leaving academia?

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

I have a question about book publishing. I am two and a half years post-PhD and have transitioned to non-academic full-time work after poor luck on the job market. I still find myself wanting to continue publishing work in academic philosophy, beyond journal articles. Would any decent book publisher (e.g. Routledge, Palgrave, Wiley, university presses) take seriously a proposal for a scholarly monograph from someone now entirely outside academia, assuming a completed manuscript was submitted?

This is a good question, and I don't know the answer. Any readers out there have any helpful insights?

Specialty journal rankings?

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

There's the best generalist journals, and best moral/political journals on Leiter's website. But how about other fields? How do we figure out which are the best journals in our fields and how they are ranked?

I'm not a big fan of rankings. Still, this is a fair question, since it's probably important for grad students, job-candidates, and tenure candidate to know--and, to be honest, I've sometimes wondered this myself. I mean, I have some idea (for example) of which journals seem to be well thought of in the philosophy of science or (to take another example) feminist philosophy. But in terms of how to rank them? I must confess that I have little idea! And what about other philosophical subfields? Here, things are even less clear to me.

Anyway, I think it would be great to hear from readers. What are your philosophical subfields, and what are the most well-regarded journals in them? Also, if you have a rough 'ranking' in mind for journals in your subfield, feel free to give it. I'm really curious to find out more about various subfields, and figure there are probably other readers who probably feel the same way. Inquiring minds want to know! ;)

Predicting fly-outs on the basis of interviews?

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

Now that readers are doing interviews, I was wondering if we could field thoughts on how well, in your experience, your sense of how the interview went correlates to success in getting job talks (or from job talk to offer). Have readers ever gotten offers from truly terrible interviews? Or not gotten offers from interviews that seemed guaranteed to go through? Can you get a sense of how interested the committee is in your application based on how they act in the interview setting? Curious for your thoughts!

Another reader submitted the following response:

I think that job candidates can tell almost nothing from (1) their sense of how an interview went or (2) how interviewers act. First you may not have a good sense of how the interview "went." That's because how an interview goes is not just about your own performance, but how others perform. You can't know that by your own sense of whether your answers were good, whether you presented yourself as a collegial candidate who knows your material, has thought carefully about teaching, etc. It's also because we often misjudge, in either direction, how well we've done. Interviews I feel that I bombed were perceived by the interviewers as awesome and vice versa (I know this from later conversations). Sometimes they are looking for things you just don't know about. In one interview, I answered a question very carefully in a way that aligned with my sense of how I "should" answer. Apparently that answer was the direct opposite of what they were wanting (and what I'd been prepped to say in grad school). But I felt like that interview went well--I didn't get a flyout.

Second, that kindly nodding interviewer? The one who seems to be listening intently, smiling, and sending out good vibes? They may be your worst critic. The one with furrowed brows may think you are their best candidate. Unless you already know these people and how their visible cues are linked to their internal states, you can't tell were you stand with them. And, again, after the interview, a lot happens. You may have interviewed "the best" (whatever that amounts to) that you possibly could have for that position. But the committee has to then navigate questions about fit, about internal politics and whose favorite candidates get invited, etc. So you can't read anything from how you think *they think* the interview went. The best advice I can give (having been interviewing for about six years now, with success at all stages, though shy of an offer) is to interview having prepared as well as you can, and then set it out of your mind. You have no control over what happens next, nor can you anticipate what the search committee will decide.

As frustrating as it may be for job candidates (which I appreciate, as I was one for seven years!), this response sounds broadly right to me, both as a former job-candidate and (now) as a search committee members. As a job-candidate, my judgment of how my interviews went seemed to bear little (if any) correlation to whether I got a fly-out. Sometimes I thought I bombed an interview but got a fly-out, whereas in other cases I was sure that I "killed it" in the interview only to get a PFO. To me as a candidate, this seemed rather baffling. However, now that I've served on like five search committees, it makes more sense to me. Let me explain.

Should you be willing to move anywhere for a TT job?

Today, as I contemplate 2.5 years not having seen my parents in person, I got thinking about mobility as an essential aspect of the academic job market. We take it for granted that if you want to succeed in academia, you must be willing to move to a wide range of geographical locations, away from people you care about including family and friends. You must be willing to uproot yourself to a location far away from them, and then find that it is hard (or impossible, as often turns out) to make friends. People with the two-body problem likewise face heart-rending choices of either sacrificing one's academic hopes to be able to stay with one's partner, or signing up for an indefinite, difficult long-distance relationship.

All of this was hard before the pandemic, now it's become even harder. With a changing and unpredictable public health situation, travel bans and border closures, academic job market candidates will increasingly ask themselves "Am I willing to put an ocean (or another large geographic distance) between myself and the people I care about?" -- My guess is that the answer to this question will be increasingly "No". 

It used to be common wisdom to tell grad students that they should be willing to take a job anywhere, and apply anywhere, even in places that they don't find geographically desirable. Given the state of the job market, it is indeed the case that making any sort of geographic restriction will severely limit your chances of academic employment. For this reason, it is a good idea to be frank with prospective graduate students about the many challenges of the academic job market, including the lack of geographic control. In my experience, talking to many alt-ac philosophy PhDs, geographic control was an important (and sometimes decisive) factor for them to leave academia. 

However, as placement director now more even than before, I do not advise prospective students "Apply (and accept) any TT job anywhere". Rather, I say that it does help to apply widely, and to be open-minded about where you want to live. But I would never recommend to people who definitely, 100% because of family reasons or whatever want to stay in their current city/area to take any TT job anywhere. Rather, if they are not willing to move where the jobs are, they need (early on) to have a good backup alt-ac plan. I've since seen several candidates who got placed in positions in places where they want to live, including one person who was able to find a nice alt-ac job just a few miles from where his parents live. 

So, given the pandemic and given how unexpectedly hard it is to find oneself basically without friends and family nearby, I would recommend that we revisit the recommendation to graduate students they should be willing to live anywhere. Even before the pandemic, I think people underestimate the importance of geographic control in their overall happiness, and our job market plans and advice should reflect that reality. 

How many applicants do jobs receive by AOS?

(Temporarily moving to the front for further discussion)

In our job-market discussion thread, an early career philosopher asks:

I am wondering if we can have a discussion where search committees share the AOS they seek and the number of applications they received in this job cycle. I think that a post like that will be especially valuable for early careers. We know that for most open searches, a typical number is around 600, but what about areas like M&E, history, ethics, non-western, gender, race, etc,.?

This is a great query. I think it could be really eye-opening to hear from search committees about how many applicants they received by AOS. 

If you're on a search committee, please do feel free to share in the comments section how many applicants you received this year, and what the advertised AOS was/were. Please feel free to share anonymously, but if possible, please also feel free to mention what kind of position you advertised (e.g. postdoc, non-TT/VAP position, TT, etc.). I'm really curious to see people's responses!

Designing good PowerPoints?

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

I wondered if anyone in the discipline might be willing to share tips on designing powerpoint presentations. Or maybe even some templates or ideas for color or font schemes. I have always been aesthetically-challenged and while I understand the very basics—like don't fill the slide with a wall of text—I have always felt at a disadvantage here. Perhaps there are even some disciplinary norms specific to philosophy which I am missing. I would really benefit from any and all tips!

Good query! Me? I like to keep things relatively clean and simple. Although I recently started using title slide templates, for the most part I just use solid backgrounds (white or black) and sans serif fonts (e.g. Calibri) for easy reading. I also like to strategically use colored fonts for key terms and phrases to 'pop out'.

As an illustration, here's a copy of the précis I gave of my 2020 book, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality, in an author meets critics session at last year's Eastern APA. I'm not sure if my powerpoint style is everyone's cup of tea, but I've generally received positive feedback. What about you all? Any tips on designing a good PowerPoint? Feel free to share slides of your own to illustrate!

Why "Just publish a paper in Philosophical Review" is not all-round good job market advice for grad students

This tweet was meant satirically, but taken in earnest by many people: 

(I don't know how to do alt text here so I'll just also type out what it says: "Grad Students: You NEED to publish. But you NEED to do so in top journals. I routinely see grad CVs with 4-5 publications, but in small journals. And I think… Great, but they must have a small mind. One publication at a top journal is far better than five in low-impact venues.")

The tweet struck a nerve because it seems to be advice many grad students hear, or at least, gather from successes of others. It does seem that one paper in Philosophical Review is vastly better than a ream of papers in journals you never heard of, and even better than papers in respectable, but lower-ranked journals including specialist journals.

Here are my thoughts on the matter: there is no unified publication strategy that will work for all job candidates. You need a publication strategy tailored to your work, your level of risk aversion, and even your geographical location. Taking advice like this (meant non-satirically) can lead to a suboptimal job market strategy.

In-person v. Zoom 'flyouts'?

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

I've attended two first-round interviews so far, and both said the final round will be physical flyouts. I understand that this is the pre-pandemic norm in the US. I will do my best to fly into the US if I happen to get into the final round. Just would have preferred to have all things done online, to make things easier for me, less costly for everyone, and avoid unnecessary risks.

Another job candidate then added:

I agree with @job candidate. I live in a country where getting in and out during the pandemic involves a lot of bureaucratic hoops. And there's the always looming worry that borders will be shut while I'm on a flyout. This is a pretty big risk to take, in addition to health risks and costs of flying.

This is an interesting issue, as well as (obviously) a moral and public health issue. My understanding is that some universities in the US are still doing 'Zoom flyouts', whereas others have moved back to in-person ones. My general sense is also that these sorts of things tend to be dictated not by departments but by upper-administration (e.g. the Provost). So, I'm not sure that in many cases, much can be done here. But I do wonder whether it might make sense for overseas candidates to ask departments that request a physical fly-out if they would be willing to do a virtual one. What do you all think? Do any job-candidates or search committee members have any helpful experiences or insights to share here?

Updating search committees w/publications?

On Twitter, a philosopher asks:

Is it still relatively common practice/a good idea to email *every* job that you're still plausibly in contention for if you get a paper accepted that was previously listed as 'under review' in your cover letter? Is this advice at all department/program-specific, though? E.g., what Harvard might find 'desperate', a smaller state school/R2 might find appealing?

Good questions! Back when I was on the market, I seem to recall it being fairly standard to update committees with things like this. However, I don't know whether it is still something that candidates do or how well it comes off (does a new publication ever make a real difference with search committees?). What do you all think? It might be good to hear from candidates and (especially) search committee members here. Any helpful insights to share? Does the kind of school (R1, R2, SLAC, etc.) make any difference as to what to do?

Editorial experience and the market?

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

1. How do job committees view being an editorial assistant of a journal? For example, suppose that as a grad student you could serve as the editorial assistant for a top 20 journal, or perhaps an Oxford Studies in XYZ. But if you do so, you'll lose out some teaching experience. How will job committees view this?

2. How do job committees view being being a guest editor of a special issue?

My sense is that these kinds of things probably make very little difference to search committees, if any. At least in my experience, search committees care about research and teaching far more than they do about service--and I don't think that being a guest editor of a special issue counts for much in terms of research. The real career benefit of editing, I think, is probably networking (that is, getting to know and develop relationships with people in the profession--which can be a real benefit). But, if I were a grad student looking to be as competitive on the market as possible, (1) and (2) aren't the kinds of things that I would focus on, particularly if they distract from research or teaching. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Incomplete job applications?

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

I have a question that might have an obvious answer. I applied for a job in September, like two months ahead of the deadline. I realized after the deadline that I forgot to include a CV. I inquired to the search chair and was told they searched for contact information to contact me so I could supply the CV but they couldn't find my contact info in my dossier, so my file was never considered because of my lack of a CV.

Now, I get that its my responsibility to double check my app for completeness. But I also a bit surprised at the explanation--they couldn't find a way to contact me? My email is probably available in 30 seconds through a google search. Anyways, I get that is not the responsibility of a search committee with so many applicants but this struck me as kind of an odd explanation.

Thoughts on whether a search committee has any kind of obligation to try and inform applicants of incompleteness in their app and does that fall entirely on the applicant?

Interesting question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think, particularly members of search committees. I wonder whether there may be some kind of HR-related answer, such as that the committee has to evaluate candidates on the basis of what is submitted in an online application system, such that the committee cannot consider applicants who don't correctly submit all of the materials online. Anyone have any insights here?

Do search committees prefer TT applicants?

In our job-market discussion thread, a non-TT applicant writes:

How do committees approach comparing people who have yet to have an assistant professorship against people who are already assistant profs and are looking to move laterally? As someone who lost out on certain jobs last year as an ABD to people who already had TT jobs elsewhere, it's hard not to feel discouraged and like there's no hope in terms of competing against those applicants. All things considered, do committees typically opt to hire those who are already assistant profs, or are there sometimes reasons to hire the new PhDs over assistant profs? When I think about it from the perspective of a search committee member it seems like a good deal to just hire the person who is already seasoned and can hit the ground running, but this obviously really sucks for brand new people just trying to find *a* job in this awful job market.

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from search committee members. One search committee member responded:

Though there are no doubt advantages to hiring someone who's already on the TT somewhere else, there are also some ways in which the applications of TT people are at a disadvantage. These include:

1. The aura of 'potential' is mostly gone. You basically know what you're getting, especially if they're advanced assistant professors.
2. Some admin might want them to start over completely on the tenure clock, making any offer less attractive.
3. Some SC members might be suspicious of them if they don't give a good reason for why they want to move (are they just a constant jumper? are they combative? are they just looking for a counteroffer?)
4. There's some worry about a potential bait-and-switch: they say they're willing to start over or lose a couple years on the tenure clock, but then at negotiation time they take it back.

All these are basically non-issues for people not yet on the TT.

And another reader added:

This is an issue , but it really depends on the search committee, what they value, what they don't. And at some places, search committee members differ drastically from year to year, and so you don't know fore sure that there's a pattern they will follow.

You can take a look at this in job postings on PhilJobs - e.g. you can see some places hired ABDs/new graduates last year where surely there were also very experienced candidates in the pool, as well as some places that did the opposite.

I'm not sure about the overall numbers, whether there's a profession-wide preference in either direction. My vague, non-statistically backed up hunch is that fancier places are more excited to hire people without substantial track records.

Both of these comments cohere with my general sense. I guess I would just add that my sense is that teaching-focused colleges and universities may tend to prefer people with more experience. Why? Well, for a number of reasons. First, there is an enormous difference between teaching or TA-ing one class a semester (as one may as an ABD graduate student) and teaching a 3-3 or 4-4 course load while trying to balance research and service (which can be an enormous challenge for a new PhD). Second, teaching-focused colleges and universities may need someone who is well-prepared to teach many different kinds of courses from day 1, including courses outside of the job's advertised AOS. So, someone who has experience teaching a wide variety of courses may again be at an advantage over someone with far less teaching experience. Finally, people at institutions like these can care about hiring someone who is likely to get tenure, and more experienced people may be more established publishing, etc. All that being said, my sense is that regardless of this, all applicants are given serious consideration, as committees are (in my experience) sincerely looking to hire whoever they think is the best person for the job. Also, I think it is worth bearing in mind that usually (though not always) when someone leaves a job for a position elsewhere, the institution that they left may hire a full-time replacement for their position. So, lateral moves may or may not reduce the total number of full-time jobs needing to be filled.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Good public philosophy venues vs. ones to avoid?

Earlier this week, we discussed how public philosophy is perceived on the job-market. Perhaps surprisingly (to some of us, at least), most commenters seemed to think that public philosophy is a positive, at least if a candidate has a good record of peer-reviewed academic publications. As a follow-up to that discussion, I'd like to run a thread on these questions raised in our newest "how can we help you?" thread:

How are magazines like "Philosophy Now" viewed in the profession? Or others, like Aeon, Nautilus or The Conversation? Is there a ranking of prestige among these kinds of venues in philosophy? Ones that are good to publish in, or ones to avoid?

On occasion I peruse such magazines, however I mostly ask because I see people sometimes list articles they've published in these kinds of magazines as "publications" on their CVs. That strikes me as odd, and something one ought not do, (right??) - at least without making it very clear the publications are pop-pieces that aren't peer-reviewed.

Point being, I'm on the job market now and I'm curious how much these kinds of publications are worth on a CV, and how they should be listed.

I'm curious too! Which public philosophy venues are particularly good to publish in (or, at least, are likely to be perceived that way)? What about places to avoid? Why?

Nominations for prizes?

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

I sometimes see 'calls for nominations' for certain prizes, e.g. the APA Article Prize. I have no idea what the norms are for these. Is it acceptable to suggest to someone that they nominate you for the prize? If so, would you only ask someone like your supervisor who knows you well and has a stake in your success, or could you also ask someone you don't know that well but who might appreciate your work? Or, is the idea really that a nominator just nominates someone whose work they appreciate, without any prior discussion?

Good questions, and I don't know the answers. What do you all think?

Insights on jobs outside of the US?

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

I'm wondering if anyone has ideas and advice about applying for jobs outside of the US. First, might an American PhD be an advantage for a candidate applying to, let's say, Eastern Europe? Second, should I be competent in what is happening in that country philosophically, or is it enough if I just specialize in my area? Third, how is the academic job market in other places in the world? Is it more difficult or easier to find a job elsewhere?

These are very good questions. Another reader, Qiu Lin, submitted the following reply:

While I do not have full answer to your questions, I do learn from my China-based scholar friends that many universities in mainland China do not post job ads openly, so you do need to ask people already working in their departments whether they are hiring this year. It is generally easier to obtain a professorship in China than in the U.S, as many Chinese institutions are trying to become more "internationalized" by recruiting Ph.D from non-Chinese departments. Feel free to email me if you'd like more info!

I also recall that this site is home to several informative posts about doing philosophy outside the U.S -- a quick search should take you there.

Indeed, I think our series, The Cocoon Goes Global, might contain some helpful insights. But I'd love to hear from readers. Is having an American PhD an advantage or disadvantage in international academic job markets? Which ones, and why? 

What is it like to be a philosopher in Italy?

This is the twenty-ninth 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 Chiara Russo Krauss, associate professor at Federico II University in Naples

1. General Information

Italy is a peninsula in the south of Europe, which extends in the Mediterranean Sea. Italy also has two big islands: Sicily and Sardinia. The Italian peninsula is separated from Northern Europe (France, Switzerland, and Austria) by the Alps mountain chain, whereas another mountain chain, the Apennines, runs from North to South along the peninsula. Given this geographical configuration, the climate – although generally temperate – changes drastically depending on whether you are in Northern or Southern Italy, on the coastline or in the mountains.

Italy has a population of roughly 60 million inhabitants. Rather than having a few big metropolises, Italy has many medium-size cities. Only three of them have more than one million inhabitants (Rome, Milan, Naples). Apart from the many cities that have from 50.000 to 500.000 inhabitants, there are also a lot of smaller towns and villages spread along the Italian territory, which is thus densely inhabited and highly anthropized. If you drive by car in any part of Italy, you won’t travel long before encountering another town.

Public philosophy and the job market

An interesting question was raised on social media the other day about public philosophy counting against candidates on the academic job-market, the idea being that it is not considered 'serious' philosophy. Is this true? I assume that by 'public philosophy', the issue is publishing philosophy-related pieces in places like Aeon, Slate, etc. Does this kind of work really count against job-candidates? If so, why? Or, do (some or many) search committees look upon it favorably?

I guess my vague sense here is that doing public philosophy could be looked at unfavorably under certain circumstances--for instance, for jobs at R1's or if the candidate isn't also publishing more traditional peer-reviewed research in good journals. But my sense is also that public philosophy is probably also looked at quite favorably at other types of institutions, for instance, at liberal arts colleges and universities (whose administrations often care about having a 'public face'). Of course, it might also matter what kind of public philosophy one is doing, such as whether it is highly political--though I'm not exactly sure whether this would be considered a positive or a negative.

Anyway, I'm curious: do readers have any evidence that doing public philosophy is a positive or negative on the academic job-market? It would be great to hear from search committee members in particular, as well as from readers who do public philosophy!

Open thread on hiring timelines (update)

This is just a quick note that (as requested by one reader), I have pinned the Cocoon's open thread on hiring timelines to the blog's right side-bard. If you're on a search committee and can share any information on your search's timeline, I'm sure many candidates would be grateful!

Refereeing papers that are critical of you?

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

I was recently asked to review a paper that engages with some of my work. Since the journal asking for the review made the manuscript available to me, I was able to look it over before agreeing. I quickly discovered that the paper is very critical of one of my papers, and that it also includes a number of serious mischaracterizations and misunderstandings of my arguments (which I found very irritating). On the one hand, I feel the urge to accept the review request so that I can correct these mischaracterizations. On the other, I know that I am not a neutral party in this matter, and so I am also somewhat inclined to decline the review on account of my obvious bias. What do other people do when they encounter this kind of situation? Is it better to decline on account of my bias, or to accept on the grounds that I am an authority when it comes to what I say in my own papers?

These are very good questions. From what I've heard elsewhere on social media, my impression is that editors ask targets of critiques to referee papers fairly often. Further, in one way, this sort of seems like a good practice--for the journal has an interest in publishing good papers, and if anyone is well-placed to prevent mischaracterizations, then it is presumably the author being critiqued. On the other hand, it does (as the OP notes) introduce a kind of conflict of interest into the review process. After all, if anyone has an interest in not being embarrassed or their arguments disproven, it is the author whose work is being critiqued. So, I wonder whether editors have a way of spotting this. When editors receive a review from an author whose work is being critiqued, do they subject it to especially careful scrutiny, reading the paper for themselves to determine whether the referee's review is fair? 

I'm really curious to hear what readers think of this practice, as well as from editors--and on whether the OP should accept the referee assignment. What do you all think? 

Two funded PhD scholarships in philosophical theology

As part of the international research initiative Widening Horizons in Philosophical Theology, two fully funded PhD studentships are being offered in philosophical theology at the University of St. Andrews in the broadly continental tradition.  

 

Scholarships comprise home or overseas fees, as well as living support of c. £16,000 per year. Students will be part of the School of Divinity and pursue their proposed projects under the supervision of Prof Judith Wolfe and/or Dr King-Ho Leung. 

 

Projects should participate in the vision of Widening Horizons. 

 

Questions? 

Informal enquiries may be directed to Prof Wolfe or Dr Leung. 

 

How do I apply? 

Applications should be submitted through the PhD application portal of the University of St Andrews by 15 January 2022. 

Will journals consider significantly revised versions of rejected papers?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an early career philosopher asks:

How different does a paper have to be from its earlier incarnation for it to be acceptable to submit it to a journal that rejected the earlier incarnation?

More concretely: I have been re-writing a paper that was rejected from a generalist journal but with encouraging comments from two referees and the area editor. The new version has a very similar fundamental point as the old version. But the main claim is formulated differently, the argument is a bit different, the paper is shorter, with a different structure and the writing itself is all completely new, no copy-pasta. Will the journal(s) that rejected its predecessor consider my new version? Might they even send it to the same referees?
Also, is the answer affected by whether or not I change the title?

These are good questions, and I'm really curious to hear what everyone thinks. A late-career philosopher submitted the following reply:

Just send the paper to another journal. I once was asked to referee a paper that was resubmitted with a different title to the same journal. I was so angry. Having agreed to referee it, and discovering it was a revised paper I had seen before, I then retracted my offer to review it. Just just delayed the whole process for the author and journal. But I was done with that paper, and felt tricked!

My own sense is that it's probably best to move on to other journals. But, for all that, I'm curious to hear from authors and editors. For authors, have you ever tried doing what the OP describes? What was the result? And for editors: what do you think about this kind of case?

CFP: 6th MAP-Penn Conference on Philosophy of Disability & Illness

The University of Pennsylvania chapter of Minorities & Philosophy (MAP-Penn) is organizing a spring conference around the philosophy of disability and illness. Please circulate this call-for-abstracts to your graduate students and other early career scholars.

What: 6th MAP-Penn Conference on Philosophy of Disability & Illness

When: Apr 08, 2022, 11:30 AM EDT – Apr 10, 2022, 3:00 PM EDT*

Where: Virtual!

Keynotes: Havi Carel, Joseph Stramondo, and Jasmine Harris

Anonymized abstracts due: Jan 03, 2022

Website: https://tiinarosenqvist.wixsite.com/map-penn-disability

We are soliciting anonymized abstracts of 500-750 words on any aspect of Philosophy of Disability and/or Philosophy of Illness. This includes, but is not limited to, disability and/or illness-related conceptual and normative issues in philosophy of law, in medical ethics, in bioethics, in general ethics, in the history of philosophy, in social and political philosophy, in social epistemology, in one’s personal experiences as a philosopher, and in philosophy teaching practices.

Please send abstracts to [email protected] with subject line ‘MAP Conference’ by January 3, 2022. The abstracts should be prepared for anonymous review (i.e., please remove identifiers) and submitted in .pdf, .docx, or .doc format. Please specify your name, institutional role (if any), and institution (if any) in the body of the email. 

For more information, please visit our website, our Phil Events page, or get in touch!

Approaching people for recommendation letters

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

I wondered if anyone had any advice or strategies regarding when and how to ask senior members of the profession for letters of recommendation. There are a few such people whom I know well and who I know think very well of me as a philosopher but haven't read much, or any, of my work. I feel bad asking them for recommendations since it seems like I presume that to write a good letter they would have to get to know my written work, and so it seems like a much bigger ask than simply writing a letter (which is already not a significant ask!). I would also hugely appreciate any general strategies for approaching people. In general I am not such a confident person, and in particular I am really concerned that those I ask would think that I had an ulterior motive in building relationships.

This is a good query, and having been in Sam's position, I expect many other readers may be in a similar position too. One reader submitted the following reply:

Sam I think you misunderstand letters. No one should be writing a letter for you if they have not read your work. They cannot say anything worth including in an application, unless they have read your work. So it is hard for me to understand what you mean when you say such people think very well of you as a philosopher.

However, this doesn't seem to be what Sam is saying. Sam seems to recognize that to write a good letter, a letter-writer will presumably need to have read his work. Sam just seems to be (quite reasonably) concerned with asking someone who hasn't read his work to write a letter because that would require the person to actually sit down and read his work--which is a lot to ask! (Also, as an aside, there are plausible grounds for someone to think highly of you without reading your work: you may have had good philosophical conversations with them, they may have attended a talk of yours and complimented you on your presented paper, etc.). Anyway, bearing all of this in mind--namely, that Sam's concern is about coming across poorly in asking someone who hasn't read his work to write a letter--I think Sam's query is a very good one.

Asking for interview feedback?

In our job-market discussion thread, a reader asks:

Do interviewees usually ask for feedback on their performance from search committee members after they've been ultimately rejected? And if so, what is the best way to do this?

These are good questions. Another reader, Andy, responded:

It can be helpful to ask for feedback. What you get can vary a lot. I have had one line of just "it was a strong field" all the way to the chair of the search committee organising a 30 minute zoom meeting with me to give feedback. I know others who have had similar experiences. I think it is usually worth asking (unless you just got a really bad vibe at the interview).

I'm curious to hear from other job-candidates. If you have asked for interview feedback, have you received helpful responses? Also, for search committee members: what do you think of candidates asking for feedback? Is there a best way to do so?