The Philosophers' Cocoon

Tools for keeping track of projects?

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

Can anyone recommend tools (ex: a spreadsheet template or app) they have found helpful for keeping track of multiple writing projects? Like most academics, I currently have lots of different, "big" projects, and I find myself spinning wheels going from one to the other trying to figure out what needs to be done next when. I know it helps to break big projects into daily and weekly goals, and I'm wondering if there is a tool that lets you break down several projects and plot them on a calendar, so that I can look and say "ok, tomorrow I need to revise section 2 of the R & R and draft the introduction to ch.3 of my dissertation."

Good question! Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions, as I don't keep track of things anywhere. ;) But I expect that some of you are more well-organized than I, so I'm curious to hear which kinds of tools are out there.

Moving from a CC to a 4-year university?

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

If one accepts a job offer from a community college, how difficult would it be to make a lateral move out of this position? In other words, imagine I'm on the tenure track at a CC. Would that likely put me out of the running for jobs at four-year universities (even if they're primarily teaching schools)?

These are good questions. I have to imagine that a lot depends here on how one publishes while at the CC. If you have a strong teaching record and publish sufficiently to be in a good position to get tenure at a 4-year university (teaching-focused or otherwise), then I have to imagine that you could move--or, at least, that search committees at a fair number of 4-year colleges or universities would seriously consider you. At least in my experience serving on a number of search committees, we really are looking to hire whomever we think is best for the position, given what we are looking for--and so if you have a great teaching (and service?) record at the CC while publishing, I see no reason why you wouldn't be competitive. That being said, not all search committees may be so open-minded, and people may have implicit or explicit biases.

What do you all think? It might be good to hear from people who are at CC's who apply for jobs (are you competitive?), as well as from search committee members. 

NPM book review in Metascience

This is just a quick note that Metascience just published this nice review by Tom Buller (Illinois State University) of my 2020 book, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory.

As a quick aside, my recent book chapter, 'Morality as an Evolutionary Exaptation', addresses one of Buller's critical concerns: that the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) has broader functions outside of moral cognition. In brief, my answer is that moral cognition is a learned capacity that puts a wide variety of innate capacities (including the vmPFC) to new uses beyond what those capacities were selected for in evolutionary history. I also think the book itself does address some of Buller's other concerns, but of course I'd think that as the book's author. ;)

In any case, I appreciate the charitable review!

Tips for triangulating what one enjoys + what one can publish + getting grant funding?

On Twitter, Joshua Stein writes:

Finished up revisions for the paper that was provisionally accepted (pending revisions, ofc). It’s very weird that one of my increasing areas of publication is philosophy of economics. TBH, it’s an area where I think it’s easier for me to write, b/c I really think of the issues in terms of puzzles and theoretical frames. I have far fewer complicated substantive commitments re: background theory than I do in metaethics.

Weirdly, there are a few postdocs I’m in the mix for (or will be soon) that would involve dedicating the next few years heavily to that area of research. I kinda wonder how my work will shift if I get and accept one of those...My goal would be to actually yolk the future work much more heavily to my metaethics work, which I’ve avoided in these publications (for reasons of simplicity and prudence). But that could be fun. There’s an element of my research on philosophy of tech and markets which I think is probably the most promising area for me in terms of highly visible future pubs.

I wonder if anybody has ever written smart career advice on this phenomenon of having to triangulate what you like × what reviewers think you do well × where there's interesting stuff to say × where there's grant funding × ... It's... really hard to figure out.

FWIW, I have gotten this advice from several people over the years, including David Dick, @marcusarvan (whose work is published regularly, so may have said something like this @ Cocoon), and my doctoral advisors. I agree having some formal discussion would be great.

This is an interesting query, and I'm curious what others think. I have no experience writing grant proposals, as grants aren't expected in philosophy in the US in the way that I know they are in other parts of the world. So, I can't really comment on that. But, setting that important issue aside, my own reaction is this: just do research on what you are genuinely interested in. Early in my career (like, right out of grad school), I tried to figure out what the OP talks about: how to triangulate what I like vs. what reviewers like vs. where there's interesting stuff to say. Etc. Alas, I had a terrible time publishing this way, and I didn't enjoy my work. It was only when I decided to just start writing papers on whatever fascinated me that I began to have any luck and enjoy my work. So, grants aside, that's what I'd recommend: doing work that's authentic to you is likely to result in better work (since, you know, you actually find the issues you are writing on interesting), and if you do good work, you're likely to publish. 

Also, I personally think that many people (including job candidates) overestimate the value of working on "popular topics." The problem here is simple: if you work on popular topic X, chances are there are hundreds of other very smart candidates just like you working on some variation of the same topic, in which case it can be very hard to stand out in a pile of applications. It's easier to stand out if you work on a relatively unique topic, which can come across as original, interesting, etc.--indeed, as "your own" research program. So, grant issues aside, I think there's a lot to be said for simply working on what fascinates you. If you do good and interesting work that genuinely interests you, the publications (and grants?) will come! But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

New paper in BJPS: 'Jury Theorems for Peer Review'

This is just a quick note that Liam Kofi Bright (LSE), Remco Heesen (Western Australia), and I have a new paper, "Jury Theorems for Peer Review", forthcoming in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. The paper is open access, and defends an online, crowd-sourced model of peer-review similar to what Rottentomatoes.com does for movies, arguing that this would be a more reliable mechanism of quality control than traditional peer-review. Hope you all find it interesting!

Conferences and professional hierarchies

On Twitter, Emily Brier (Lecturer in Composition, Western Carolina University) writes: 

Anybody want to talk about how as an MA student at conferences nobody (and I mean NOBODY) would talk to me, and when I was a CC instructor nobody TT would talk to me, and how conferences often just reinscribe hierarchy in ways that show why TT folks are itching to go back FTF?

Our own Helen De Cruz followed up:

I have been thinking about this often. FTF conferences are often touted as great networking opportunities, but if you comes from a low-prestige program or are an MA student you're often just being ignored. The APA "smoker" reception is a good example of how this works. When I was a job candidate with a diploma from an obscure European program, I'd just stand around at that reception holding a glass and no-one to talk to. Meanwhile, you had the stars from the top department everyone would flock to. Eventually, I found some other job seekers...And we had great conversations. Still, conferences reinforce hierarchies. The informality of that in between talk results in a lot of people being left out of that talk. How can conferences provide more equitable opportunities for informal networking?

These are good questions. I myself endured a few rather humiliating conference experiences early in my career, and like Helen I would often stand (and sit) around at APAs with no one to talk to. Fortunately, this has changed over time, at least in part (or so it seems to me) because I adopted Helen's own strategy: trying to talk to other early-career people like me who didn't have jobs at fancy places. This is also part of the reason why I created the Cocoon, and in fact I used to hold informal Cocoon get-togethers at APAs I attended to provide a forum for early-career people to come together and get to know each other. I'll be at the Central APA this year, so maybe I'll try to hold a get-together or meet-up of sorts. 

But in any case, do any of you have any suggestions for answering Helen's question? How might conferences provide more equitable opportunities for informal networking?

Nous/PPR submission window?

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

Do people know when Nous and PPR close submissions, or around when? Trying (and almost certainly failing!) to plan in advance.

Another reader seconded the question, and it's a good one. For those of you who may not know, Nous and PPR close temporarily for new submissions each year, a moratorium that usually lasts until November. I'm not sure when they tend to begin the moratorium. Do any of you know?

Mentoring project for early-career women* philosophers

From Carol Hay (UMass Lowell) on Twitter:

Mark your calendars and spread the word! The 6th Biennial Mentoring Project Workshop for Early Career Women* Faculty in Philosophy will take place July 23-25 2023 at the University of Missouri https://marcsandersfoundation.org/the-mentoring-project/mentoring-workshop/

This seems like a great endeavor. For more details, visit the link above!

What could search committees do better?

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

I would appreciate a thread/post that provided candidates with an opportunity to discuss the "bad behavior" of hiring committees...

Given the blog's supportive mission, I don't think a thread calling out bad behavior is appropriate here. However, another reader added a nice suggestion:

In light of anonymous associate professors' post, maybe such a thread could be framed as candidates constructively reporting things that they don't like/contribute to bad mental health, etc? That might also get more uptake than people complaining, especially if people are not aware of what candidates would prefer...

My list would include:

1. Not updating shortlisted candidates who didn't make the fly out stage. (Or, more generally, not updating candidates who you told made progress but then did not advance.) It comes off as disrespectful, even cruel.
2. Not having accurate timelines. If you tell candidates you will contact them on date X, then either update them to tell them why you can't do so (e.g. delay), or be more careful about giving such estimates. Constantly waiting and checking makes it very difficult to focus, especially when you're waiting for news on a particular day.

As a quick aside, following a few other comments, my sense is that candidates may over-estimate how much control search committees have over these kinds of things, as things like HR requirements and unexpected logistical difficulties (such as delays in getting administrators to approve finalist lists, etc.) can seriously constrain what search committees can do. But, that being said, I think a constructive thread on things that candidates wish search committees would do better is a nice idea.

What do you all think? (Note: please avoid "calling out" committees or specific behaviors that an individual reading this thread might infer "they are referring to me". Instead, please post in general terms on things that you have found frustrating as a candidate and what you wish search committees would do better. Thanks!) 

Tips for dealing w/job-market burnout

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

Can we have a thread on strategies to deal with burnout during app season? I am really struggling and have a million irons in the fire (new research, revisions, trying to finish dissertation) on top of dealing with applications and interviews and it feels different than other years where I've experienced burnout.

As someone who recalls job-market burnout all too well, I think this is a great idea. Do any of you have any tips on how to handle job-market burnout? If so, share away!

Virtual Metaethics Colloquium

Preston Werner (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and Aaron Elliott (Lawrence University) have encouraged me to invite interested readers to consider joining a Virtual Metaethics Colloquium they have been running. I've been involved in the group since last Spring. It usually meets once or twice per month, depending on who they have lined up to present, and it's been a really fantastic place to present and discuss people's work in progress. The papers presented in the group have been super interesting, and the participants have been a nice mix of senior and junior faculty as well as grad students.

Interested? Please do feel free to email Preston ([email protected]) and Aaron ([email protected]), as well as fill out this Doodle poll they have set up for scheduling. Hope to see some of you in the group!

UK research council funding?

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

I have a couple of questions about UK research council funding. Firstly, I hear it is highly competitive, but can't seem to gauge how competitive, at least in comparison to US R1 Grad school admissions. Do people know the sort of success rate for applicants? Also, it seems that you compete against people from other subjects, so how well do philosophers do on average?

Secondly, how valuable is it when applying for jobs? For instance, would it be better to go to Oxbridge or a highly ranked UK institution without funding or a lower PGR ranked or unranked UK institution with UKRI/AHRC funding? And is the perception of it different in the UK/Europe to the US?

These are all excellent questions, and I have no idea what the answers are. Do any of you have any helpful insights?

Higher standards for longer papers?

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

I have a question for journal editors and reviewers. Those journals that have length limits for articles usually make it clear that longer articles have a higher standard for publication. I wonder if this is true even for those journals that do not have length limits for articles. Do editors and reviewers for those journals really treat articles with different lengths equally? Or are longer articles still harder to get published? (I do not know but maybe editors still care about lengths and the number of articles they can include in a single issue? Or reviewers just hate long articles so they might implicitly raise the standard?)

These are good questions. I'm curious to hear from reviewers and editors: do you impose higher standards on longer papers, even for journals that don't have an explicit policy on this?

Funded MA at Texas Tech

From Texas Tech:

To all undergraduates interested in pursuing graduate study in philosophy:

The Texas Tech Philosophy Department is now accepting applications for its Master of Arts Program in philosophy.

Our M.A. students are regularly admitted to some of the best PhD programs in philosophy including most recently NYU, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, and UCLA. Recent placement can seen on our website here: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/philosophy/degrees/placement.php

We are able to offer students generous funding packages. Teaching Assistantships are provided to almost all of our graduate students which include tuition and fee waivers that cover more than 80% of tuition and fees as well as a stipend of an additional $14,000 a year. Additional fellowships of up to $5,000 may also be available as well. 

For financial aid purposes, US students should fill out a FAFSA form as early as possible. For full consideration, all other applications materials should be received by Feb 15th, though applications are still accepted and considered on a rolling basis after this. Further information about our program can be found on our website here: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/philosophy/degrees/gradprogram.php as well as on the attached poster.

Please contact Dr. Amy Flowerree, Director of Graduate Admissions, at [email protected] with any questions. 

Disclosing you were a reviewer post-publication?

Elsewhere on social media, Elizabeth Scarbrough (Florida International University) asks:

Question for academic friends: Once an article is published, can you tell the person you were an anonymous reviewer? (Especially if you loved the article, wrote a positive reader report, and genuinely didn't know who wrote the article?)

This is an interesting question. What do you all think, and why?

Philosophy Across Borders (new series at Oxford University Press)

This is a guest blog post announcement by Amy Olberding, President's Associates Presidential Professor, University of Oklahoma 

I’m one of the co-editors on a new series OUP is initiating and wanted to reach out here in particular to make clear that we welcome proposal submissions from younger, less established philosophers.  One goal is to promote novel approaches to philosophy through work that is less constricted by the standard or more traditional boundaries and I’m hopeful that newer philosophers may be more adept at that, as well as interested. 

SERIES ANNOUNCEMENT

Oxford University Press is seeking submissions of proposals for a new series:  Philosophy Across Borders.  OUP is committed to publishing high quality philosophical work that draws on broad sourcing to create novel philosophy or novel approaches to recognized problems, methodologies, or approaches.  The hope is that books in the series will exhibit conversation between traditions or cultural sources not often engaged together.  This might include, e.g., engagement between underrepresented traditions and more widely studied western sources, but it could also include work that engages multiple underrepresented traditions not often engaged together.  The goal is not to re-create comparative philosophy, but to provide accessible philosophical work that simply does philosophy in an idiom that is open and global.  If you have a proposal for the series, please contact any of the series editors below or the OUP editor, Peter Ohlin.

 

Series Co-editors:  Kristi Dotson, Bronwyn Finnigan, Jonardon Ganeri, Amy Olberding, Evan Thompson

Undergrad submissions to grad conferences?

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

Hello! I am helping organize a graduate student conference and we've received a submission from an undergraduate. I can't think of a reason to exclude them from the review process (other than the fact that we are branded as a venue for grad student work), but I'd love to hear if other people have thoughts about the benefits of a grad-student-only conference environment. Is it needlessly elitist of us not to consider their work?

Interesting question. On the one hand, as the OP notes, the conference is branded as a forum for grad students to present their work, and I guess admitting an undergraduate might mean one less opportunity for a grad student to present their work--which seems relevant. On the other hand, undergrads can use forums to present their work as well, and some undergrads may very much benefit from presenting at a grad conference. So, I don't know. What do you all think?

Podcast interview w/Michael Cholbi

This is just a quick note that Bradford Cokelet (Kansas) has a new podcast interview with Michael Cholbi (Edinburgh) on Michael's forthcoming book, Grief: A Philosophical Guide. Check it out!

Talent and Bias

By Sam Duncan

In this post I want to dig more deeply into some points about the deeply worrying effects of our belief in talent on our students made by Allison Gopnik and Eric Schwitzgebel. As Gopnik notes there’s good reason to think that there is some causal relationship between the fact that philosophy puts so much stock in talent and our lack of gender and racial diversity. And Schwitzgebel paints a very plausible picture of one way that this likely plays out in practice; as he notes it’s a lot easier for a young white guy to get away with various ploys that allow him to seem smart than it might be for a woman or a member of a minority group (It’s also a lot less risky). However, I think there are deeper ways that a belief in talent sets up bias in our field.

Let me begin with a question: When you look at student papers or consider how to respond to student comments, questions, and challenges in class do you think about whose paper it is or who made the comment? I’m betting that you do. If you make much of an effort to know who your students are it’s hard not to do this, and to a great extent this is part of getting to know our students. But this also opens up a danger of bias and believing that talent determines success in philosophy makes this danger much worse.

The job market & financial health of universities

An anonymous reader writes in:

I was recently thinking about applying to a private, non-elite SLAC simply because it's a lot closer to my and my wife's families. I decided not to for a lot of reasons but one deep hesitation I had was that I know a lot of the private, non-elite SLACs are likely to flat out fold in the next ten or fifteen years and the public ones are likely to come in for some deep cuts. This brings me to a question that I thought it would be very good to put out there: How in the world does one get any information on the financial health of the place one is applying and related stuff like enrollment trends?

This seems super important. The people who ended up getting two jobs I interviewed in the past at public SLACs have already gotten laid off. It would have been a disaster for me and my family if I'd left a renewable lecturer gig . . . that, while shitty in oh so many ways, was at least stable, for a TT gig only to get laid off in three years. It seems important that applicants know that this is a real threat they need to worry about at a lot of schools, especially SLACs.

This is a really important question, and I'm really glad someone asked it. Over the past couple of years, I too have heard of at least of a few horror stories--cases where someone was finally able to get a tenure-track job, only to see their job eliminated a year or two after they started. Alas, I'm not sure how to answer the question. You can of course ask faculty or administrators at the university about the financial health of the institution (either during an on-campus visit or after a hiring offer is extended). But, as for asking faculty, my sense is that sometimes even they can be quite in the dark about these matters, as the actual financial health of the institution may only be known by upper administration (which, I think, is why so many of the recent waves of faculty-line eliminations have come as a total shock out of the blue to those who faced them).

So, while the OP's question is a super important one, I don't have any real guidance above and beyond: ask around before accepting a job offer. But this advice probably isn't all that helpful. What do you all think? Do you have any helpful tips or insights (or personal experiences) on this issue? 

The problem with "don't go to grad school" advice

You are a professor at a small liberal arts college. A bright student approaches you and says she is considering graduate school in philosophy. She loves philosophy and wants to dive deeper into it. She foresees a life of the mind where she might do this for a living.

Oh, your heart just breaks. This student is so excellent. Her final paper for your philosophy of science course blew you away. Still, you steel your heart and give her the advice that not only is sensible, but that strikes you as your moral duty to tell her.  

"Just don't do it!" you say. "Just don't go to grad school. The philosophy academic job market is abysmal for years, and now with Covid it's gone even further down."

You might temper this advice by saying that maybe she can consider it if she cannot imagine doing anything else (this is terrible advice, btw, but that's for another time), or only if she can get into a top program.

On the face of it, it seems straightforward to give this advice. We might even think we have a moral duty to actively discourage a student who contemplates getting a PhD in philosophy. 

But there is a fundamental problem--the advice takes away the student's agency. This piece by Tracy Evans, who started a PhD at age 60 is illuminating. Evans is privileged in many respects. She already had a long career already behind her when she "heeded the call to change". Yet, her reasons for embarking on the PhD are, I think, recognizable to many of us. As she writes, "'What do you intend to do with a Ph.D.?' [my colleagues] asked. 'It is all about the journey,' I responded. She goes on to quote one of her favorite authors, Ursula K Le Guin, who wrote  “It is good to have an end to journey towards, but it is the journey that matters in the end.”

Did you receive adequate mentoring?

Laurence B. McCullough (Distinguished Emeritus Professor, Baylor) writes in:

As a retired professor, I follow your blog to keep up with what is happening in the world of philosophy.  I spent my career as a medical educator.  In the Baylor Center we (Baruch Brody and I, then the only two senior faculty) had a program for mentoring for all junior faculty.  We met with our colleagues regularly both formally and informally, read their work, advised them on academic matters, etc. 

We called what we did mentoring for success.  For example, Baruch and I mentored a junior colleague who followed Baruch as Director of our Center and therefore as my boss before I retired.  This is common, and a point of considerable pride, in the world of medical education. 

I am struck as I follow the postings on your blog by the absence of mention or mentorship.  I benefitted from mentoring when I was junior faculty, especially from a philosophy colleague at Texas A&M (where I was on medical and philosophy faculties and my first position).  I get the sense that many of our colleagues whose comments you post have no mentoring.  Perhaps mentoring – the absence of it, when it helps, when it does not help – would make a good topic for your blog.

This is an excellent query, and I'm thinking of running a short series on the topic. But, before I move forward with that, I'd like to ask the Cocoon's readers a few questions:

1. If you are a current or recent graduate student, what kind of mentoring are you receiving (viz. research, teaching, professionalization, the job market, etc.) have you received or are you receiving? Do you think the mentoring you've received is appropriate/adequate? Why/why not?
2. If you are or recently were a junior faculty member (e.g. a postdoc, TT faculty, non-TT faculty, etc.), what kind of mentoring have you received or are you receiving? Do you consider it appropriate/adequate? Why/why not?

Repeatedly publishing in the same journal?

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

How do we feel about having multiple publications in the same journal?

For instance, there are four major journals specific to my subfield. Of them, one is an absolute pleasure to work with; one has had egregious, well-documented problems with response time (i.e., taking many years); one has lesser issues with response time (i.e., taking many months); one has an acceptance rate of about 2% and hardly seems worth the effort.

Given this situation, sometimes I'm tempted to stop sending to the other three and only send to the 'good' one. Of course, I'm not actually going to do this, but I'm curious whether anyone has thoughts or stories about this subject. In particular, I wonder how multiple publications in the same (good, maybe A- level) journal would look to search committee or tenure committee members.

Good question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Assuming the journal is well-regarded, it's not clear to me why publishing repeatedly in the same journal should be a problem--or why search committees or a tenure committee should care. But maybe I'm missing something. Anyone have any helpful insights here?

Work habits on the tenure track?

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

As a (very) early career person, it would really help me to know how later career people spend (or spent, when they were on the tenure-track) their average week. How much time to you dedicate to writing? How do you make sure you are setting aside the right amount of time for editing / pipeline type work (responding to reviews, getting papers submitted) vs creating type work (developing new projects, drafting new paper sections)? I'm finding it difficult to navigate this and am curious if others have systems that work for him. I expect this varies widely, but it would still be helpful to hear about others' experiences.

These are very good questions, and I am very curious to hear how readers respond. It is difficult for me to give a simple answer in my own case, as during my time on the tenure-track (and post-tenure) my work habits have varied tremendously. A lot depends, I think, on how in need of publications one is. When I needed to publish a lot, if I had a two-day-a-week teaching schedule, I would basically spend the other three days of the week writing. On the other hand, during times that I didn't need to publish a lot or had a three or four day a week teaching schedule, there have been entire semesters when I've gotten very little writing done--and, in any case, I get the vast majority of my writing done during winter and summer breaks. In general, I've found it pretty difficult to shift-gears between teaching and research on "teaching days", and have friends who report the same thing--though maybe things are different in R1 jobs where one has a very light teaching load.

In terms of how I partition my writing time between pipeline-type work (editing pre-existing papers, completing R&Rs, etc.) and drafting new work, I'd say it's roughly 50/50. On writing days, I'll usually spend the first half of my day (say, 9am-1pm) drafting new work, and then the afternoon (2-5pm) on pipeline stuff. I will say that my sense is that it is vital to always be drafting new things. Most of the people that I know who are the most successful (including in terms of receiving tenure) are people who consistently publish a lot, and hence, always have quite a few things under review at any given time--which requires producing a lot of new work pretty consistently. 

But these are just my habits and experiences. What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from those on the tenure-track who are pretenure, but also (for obvious reasons) from those who received tenure. What does your average work week look like, and how do you partition your time between teaching and research, and between drafting new work and work in your pipeline?

How many applicants are PhD programs receiving?

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

I wish you all a happy new year. I would like to ask if the readers who serve on the admission committees at their schools (or are otherwise acquainted with the situation) know or have any guess how applications to PhD programs they have received or expect to receive this year, especially compared to the last year (when the applicant pool was so big) and earlier years (2020, 2019..).

This is an excellent query. I have heard anecdotally that some programs are way down in terms of the number of applications they've received this year, while other programs are either similar to or up from recent years. I've also heard, again anecdotally, that this might have something to do with whether programs require the GRE--which, for obvious reasons, might push applicants to apply instead to programs than no longer require them. 

Any readers (e.g. on PhD admissions committees) willing to share how large their applicant pools are this year compared to recent years? This might not only provide some idea of big-picture trends (in philosophy PhD applications in general), but also perhaps help us to understand the causes of them. It might also be good to hear from applicants too! Did you apply to fewer PhD programs this year for some reason? If so, why?

Freelosophy: a centralized forum for commenting on philosophy papers

Two philosophers, Filippo Contesi and  Giulio Pietroiusti (University of Barcelona), have created a new site, Freelosophy, which allows users to search and leave public comments on PhilPapers or PhilArchive. Contesi writes:

In some academic disciplines, publication and discussion of articles
before journal submission is generally much more widespread than in
philosophy. Indeed, most journal publishing houses are publicly
committed to considering pre-archived papers for publication. You can
double-check this for your journal of choice here: https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/

Philosophers already can make their pre-prints publicly available at
any point on at least one pre-print repository: PhilArchive.org.
However, currently existing web platforms for public discussion of
scientific pre-prints (e.g. PubPeer.org) cannot be used to discuss
PhilArchive-d papers.

So, we have created a website that allows anyone to comment freely on
papers present on PhilArchive and/or PhilPapers: https://freelosophy.github.io/
On Freelosophy, scholars can add comments to a paper (and read them)
by using its PhilPapers/Archive ID, an identifier present on the page
of each paper on PhilArchive. Each paper on PhilPapers also has its
own PhilPaper/Archive ID (in the URL).

Everyone interested is most welcome to start using our service, which
is currently in public beta. Please do not hesitate to contact us at
[email protected] for any comments or feedback.

Readers can learn more about how the site works at Daily Nous. I hope the site takes off, as I think it's a great endeavor--and I encourage the Cocoon's readers to try it out!

Tips for Zoom job talks?

Earlier this week, we had an illuminating discussion on zoom teaching demos for on-campus visits. In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Amaya writes:

I was wondering if it would be possible to also do a thread on tips regarding Zoom job talks?

Great suggestion! It would be great to hear some tips, both from those who have done Zoom job talks, but especially (for obvious reasons) from search committee members. What works well in a zoom job talk? What doesn't? What do you all think?

Disinviting someone from your dissertation committee?

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

I have a question about disinviting someone from my dissertation committee. Is it 1) possible, 2) acceptable, 3) a bad idea (for strategic/interpersonal/departmental reasons, etc.), or 4) a good idea (given the below)?

The problem I am having is that said committee member does not engage with me AT ALL. This person won't answer emails, including requests for meetings, or give ANY feedback, etc. and is on my committee b/c given their area and my area, it made sense. But it seems they will not be in a position to recommend me when all is said and done, which is pretty terrifying. And despite my best (and many!) efforts, I feel I have no relationship with them not even a bad one, really, since so unresponsive. So I would like to disinvite them (I don't have a replacement yet), but I assume this is extremely controversial. Thus, seeking advice.

This is an excellent question, and I am sure some other grad students have (or have had) experience with similar situations. Mike Titelbaum (Wisconsin) submitted the following response:

That's a really tricky problem you have, and I'm sorry you're stuck with it. Besides the concerns you mentioned with "disinviting" one member, there's the additional problem that if that person is very well-known in your field, when you apply for jobs folks might wonder why that person wasn't involved in your dissertation, and might informally ask them what they think of your work.

Maybe one way to move towards a solution is to recognize that there are two groups of people here: Those that are officially listed as being on your committee, and those who help you write the dissertation. Those two groups don't always have to be the same. Many grad students have three people on their committee, but work closely with only one or two and hardly ever interact with the others. Heck, I've sometimes worked closely with someone on their dissertation without ever being on their official committee. So the fact that this person won't help you doesn't mean you necessarily need to get them off your committee.

If I were you I'd try to gain more information about this person, based on experiences of their colleagues and your fellow grad students: Is this ghosting behavior typical for this person, or is it an indication that they dislike your work? Even if they're unresponsive now, when dissertation defense time comes around will they read the thing and show up where they need to be? It's possible that even if they're behaving badly now, they will come through at the end and then (if they like the dissertation you produce) write you a perfectly good letter. If you do get information that leads you to remove them from your committee, I'd recommend identifying a replacement first. It's a lot easier to say to a cantankerous faculty member that you'd like to sub them out for someone else with whom you've struck up a good relationship, than to simply tell them you don't want them involved with you any more. And until you get a substitute, it doesn't sound like having the bad member on your committee for the time being is doing you any active harm. Good luck!

This strikes me as wise advice. You don't necessarily need to work closely with all of your dissertation committee members. What you do need is to write a passable dissertation and get good letters of recommendation from faculty whose letters are likely to help you on the job market. So, along with Mike, I think the contextual details matter a lot here. Is this just how that committee member is? Might they still write you a good recommendation letter at the end of the day? Would it look bad on the market if you didn't get a letter from them? Can you write a good dissertation working primarily with your other two committee members? These, I think, are probably the questions the OP really needs to answer in order to make the best decision.

One additional note: what the OP describes could even be a proverbial blessing in disguise. Dissertation committee members can sometimes disagree substantially on the direction a dissertation should take--which can give rise to difficult binds where you have to choose between which committee member's advice you follow. I've heard that in some cases, situations like this can lead to a divide within the committee itself, angering the committee member whose guidance isn't followed. So, in principle, it could actually be good to have "fewer voices involved" in working on the dissertation, particularly if the OP's other two committee members are responsive and helpful. So, long story short, I think the answers to the OP's questions are probably: (1)  Yes, it's possible; (2) Sure, it can be acceptable; (3) and (4) whether it's a bad idea or a good idea depends on the details.

But these are just my thoughts (and Mike's). What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from grad students who have faced this kind of situation, including how their decision worked out in the end, but also from grad faculty (including dissertation committee members). What do you all think?

Tips for Zoom teaching demos?

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

Can you open a thread asking for tips/advice regarding best practices for zoom teaching demos for a job interview?

This is an excellent question, and was seconded by another reader. Do any job candidates or search committee have any helpful tips to share?

How is the Omicron surge affecting searches?

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

I have a question for any search committee members who may see this and are willing to offer any intel (anonymously or otherwise): Is the current COVID-19 surge impacting (delaying or changing) your committee’s hiring timeline or the decision to have fly-outs versus online teaching demonstrations/job talks? Also, I wonder how a committee might respond to a candidate who expresses reservations about traveling for a second-round interview under the circumstances? P.S. I recognize how challenging this question is as things continue to evolve, and things may vary considerably based on the university’s location.

Excellent questions. It would be great to hear from some search committees in the comments section below!

Retracting an accepted article from Philosophia?

Back in our October "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I just had a paper accepted at Philosophia two days before the really icky news broke. What do I do? Should I retract it? Interested in both moral and practical reasons to retract/not retract.

Maybe-important details: I'm an early-career philosopher in a TT job at a small school.

These are very good questions. For those of you who may be unaware of what happened with Philosophia, here is the relevant background. What do you all think? 

How can we help you? (January 2022)

Happy New Year everyone! Now that it's been over a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new one.

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

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!