The Philosophers' Cocoon

Job-offer negotiating experiences?

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

It would be great to see a thread where people share some of their experiences negotiating TT offers - either success stories or what they wished they had done differently. I'd be especially interested in hearing about non-salary parts of the negotiations, like teaching releases, startup, and relocation expenses.

I think this is a great idea. Any readers have any experiences to share?

The relative prestige of replies?

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

Hi! I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on a publication-related question.

To what extent are self-standing journal articles considered more prestigious than response / commentary / discussion articles?

While the response articles published by some journals are very short, other journals (i.e. Ethics) publish response articles that are as long and rigorous as self-standing articles. If one had an article that could be framed either as a self-standing article or as a longer response article, would the article carry more weight in job and tenure applications if it were published as a self-standing article?

Good questions. I think the answer to the second question is obvious: self-standing articles carry more weight in job and tenure applications than short reply pieces. I've served on a number of hiring and tenure and promotion committees, and I've often heard the length (or lack thereof) of published pieces seriously discussed--the working assumption that longer pieces are "more substantial contributions." So, all things being equal, if I had to choose, I'd go with the longer free-standing piece. But, of course, free standing pieces can take a lot longer to write than short replies, so all things considered it may not be worth the time to write the longer version.

This sort of addresses the first question too, but I'm curious to hear from others who have served on hiring and T&P committees: how much of a difference does it really make whether a publication is a short reply or full-standing article? Do you think this has ever made a difference in a hiring or tenure decision you've been a part of? Finally, it's worth noting that in my experience, journals can be quite fickle with what they take to count as a 'free standing article.' I've written long response pieces like the kind the OP mentions and on multiple occasions had journals reject them saying, "We don't accept responses to articles in other journals." So, trying to convert a short reply in a long piece may run that risk as well. What do you all think?

Comparing oneself to others

In our February "how can we help you?" thread, Alex Bryant writes:

Quite delayed but have been thinking recently about how much the weight of comparing oneself to others ends up having for people who are either just about to start the PhD (admissions time!), in the PhD (am I good enough to be doing this?), and early career (job market!). I wonder if anyone in philosophy has written about this experience of comparing oneself to others and how hard it can be to overcome, especially when this period in our lives can feel like one where we are deeply tied to our work. If anyone has suggestions for ways to work on this, I'd really appreciate hearing them--it's an ongoing struggle for me, and one that I've had/seen enough discussion about that I figure it's worth posing here.

Great query. I suspect this is something that a lot of academics struggle with, and I too will confess to having struggled with it at times. Personally, I just try to focus on doing the best work that I can and remind myself that everyone is different and moves at their own pace. I've done most things later in life than my peers, from learning to talk as a toddler to finishing my PhD and getting a job, so I'm sort of used to being behind the curve. ;) Alas, that's all I got, and I know 'just focus on doing your best' may not be super helpful. Anyone else have any helpful tips or resources here? 

Data from editors on 'the referee crisis'?

A reader writes in:

I have closely followed the discussion of Helen’s recent essay on the peer review system.  It was disheartening to hear about Helen’s experience as an associate editor.  If anything, it makes me appreciate the work editors go through even more.  Thank you for that.

On the other hand, Ben Bradley’s post seems to paint a very different picture... I think the community would benefit from more data.  So, I am floating the following idea: a new post soliciting relevant information (such as # of accepted requests, # of declined requests) from journal editors.

I think this is a great idea. If any readers are journal editors and have this kind of information available, please feel free chime in down below in the comments section: how many referee requests do you need to send out, on average, per referee who accepts an invitation?

Candidates writing their own recommendations?

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

Though I take it to be frowned upon, I get the sense from graduate students that it's very common for some senior faculty members to ask students to write their own letters of recommendation, and then edit them. I'm curious if admission committees ever feel like it is obvious that an applicant has written their own letter. Is it unethical to do so? Or are letters so 'inflated' anyways that this isn't a major concern for applicants or committees?

These are excellent questions. I too have heard of this practice, and frankly find it a bit astonishing that it apparently occurs. It sort of seems to defeat the purpose of an outside letter of recommendation to have a candidate write it themselves, no? So, I'm curious too: how common is this practice? What do readers think of it? And, do committees ever suspect that a candidate wrote their own letter? 

How to improve (online) networking experiences

A commonly heard complaint about virtual conferences and other scholarly gatherings is that the network aspect is missing. When we gather in person, there are many opportunities to informally connect to others. In particular, for junior scholars, attending an in-person conference affords possibilities of fostering professional relationships outside of our immediate work environment. This not only helps them get their name out, but is also a source of picking up on professional trends, and even developing productive collaborations with peers as well as more junior and senior scholars.  

However, there are also problems.  The following tweet by a former community college instructor, currently university instructor, Emily Brier, highlights a major drawback of in-person networking: 

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 [tenure track]  would talk to me, and how conferences often just reinscribe hierarchy in ways that show why TT folks are itching to go back FTF?

This experience may strike a familiar chord with most people. If you are a grad student, especially from a smaller institution, or from a non-prestigious institution, it is hard to even begin a conversation with others. 

In my experience of many years ago at the APA "Smoker" reception, I mainly stood around with a glass in my hand as people swerved around the room looking to speak to people from the most elite institutions. Eventually, I worked up enough courage to talk to a few others quiet bystanders. I mainly spoke to fellow early career people, which was nice enough. The power of peer mentoring should not be discounted. Still, if networking in the form of informal connection to more senior members of the profession is to be a major aim of face to face conferencing, we fall short of that aim.

Moreover, people who cannot shell out the money, or for other reasons (e.g., disability, illness, caregiving responsibilities) cannot attend an in-person conference also miss out on informal relationships. 

With the 2+1 campaign, the Philosophers for Sustainability (of which I am a member) are petitioning the APA to hold one or two of its divisional meetings per year online. You can read more about the campaign here, the reasons for it, and sign if you agree. One thing we hope to accomplish is to create a white paper on the topic of informal networking and mentorship, and how to do it online. 

For these reasons, I would like to see suggestions by Cocoon readers on what they think could be improved in networking and informal mentorship. What are the ways it could be improved? What platforms, formats, and other ideas do you have to accomplish it? 

--

Many thanks to Colin Marshall, Eugene Chislenko, Jeremy Bendik-Keymer and other members of Philosophers for Sustainability. I post this in a personal capacity, but with support of Philosophers for Sustainability, who are keen to develop a white paper on how to help foster relationships and networking opportunities in formats other than in-person conferencing.

Journal submission cover letters?

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

I've got a publication question. My sense is that cover letters are not really a thing when one first submits an article to a journal, but I want to make sure I'm correct about this. I just listened to a podcast about how to avoid desk rejects in science writing, and one of the big pieces of advice was "submit a good cover letter". My impression from that discussion was that, in the sciences, people actually use cover letters to tell editors why their article is impactful and worth publishing. Am I wrong that this practice is just not a part of philosophy? Does anyone regularly submit cover letters of this sort with initial submissions, and do you have any evidence that it has been helpful?

Another reader submitted the following reply: "Cover letters are unnecessary. Just submit the paper." However, I'm constantly surprised by things that I thought I knew about publication norms, only to be surprised later on. For example, I was pretty certain that it is a big 'no-no' to submit a paper that you’ve received a revise-and-resubmit verdict for at one journal to another journal (and then if it’s rejected at the other journal, submit the RnR at the first one). Yet, Elizabeth Harman chimed in saying it's just fine. So, who knows: maybe some editors care about cover letters? Or, perhaps cover letters can in some way be helpful in terms of selecting reviewers? I have no idea! Any editors out there care to weigh in on this? Does it help an author's cause to write a brief cover letter when submitting, or is it pointless?

Cocoon meetup(s) at the Central APA?

I'll be at the Central APA from Wednesday through Saturday this week and was thinking it could be fun to hold some kind of Cocoon meetup. Helen wrote a while back about how conferences can be rife with prestige hierarchies, and how it can be difficult for early career people to meet other people and network. This was my experience too, as earlier in my career I'd often attend APAs but feel on the outside looking in, as it were. APAs were a bit of a lonely experience: I was never very comfortable approaching people I didn't already know, and wished there were some more inviting way to be able to do so.

Anyway, no pressure at all, but if you are heading to the Central, please do feel free to drop me a line either over email (marvan@ut.edu) or PM me on social media. Assuming there are enough people who are interested, I'll try to put something together (and, of course, do what I can to ensure that it is a supportive environment, in line with this blog's mission)!

Using PhilPeople features to find referees?

In response to Helen's recent post on the troubles that journal editors have finding referees and comments by a number of readers there that they are rarely asked to review, Mike Titelbaum (University of Wisconsin-Madison) helpfully writes in that David Bourget and David Chalmers suggest the following feature at PhilPeople:

"Our 'find a philosopher' feature of philpeople is a good start. You have to pick the relevant topic quite narrowly and order by number of publications in the topic, past five years. That gives you as top hits people that are active in the area and have solid publication records. If you don't do 'past five years' you get more senior people, who aren't going to be new to you or likely to be available. I bet many editors would benefit from these simple instructions."

I hope this helps in some small way with the ongoing 'publication emergency', as it might help authors get more timely verdicts while better distributing the burdens on editors and referees.

Getting invited to contribute to edited volumes?

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

How do you contact an editor about a paper you think would be suited to an edited collection they are working on?

I have a bit of a conundrum. I have very recently found out that a new edited collection is being worked on in my research area. It is a big follow up to a previous edition published 20 years ago. It is high impact and meant for audiences wider than just philosophers. It is published by a international specialised agency (think UN) and involves a lot of big name philosophers. (I am happy to add detail if it would be helpful, but don't know whether that would be considered appropriate here.)

I have been working on a paper that is a response to two core views expressed in the initial edition published 20 years ago. My supervisors and I believe my response is novel, important, and particularly well suited to this edition.

However, neither me nor my supervisors know any of the editors and given I am only a lowly PhD student I don't know how to approach the editors respectfully and to get them to take me seriously. Especially considering there has not been a call for papers for this edition.

Relatedly, suppose I send the paper to the editors, should I avoid submitting the paper elsewhere in the meantime?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated - especially from editors themselves.

Good questions. One editor submitted the following response:

I have edited volumes, and by the time people know they are in the works, contributors have signed contracts, and the press has also made concrete commitments to a certain number of contributions of a certain size. So it is unlikely you can get in. On the other hand if you do send the editors the paper you absolutely MUST not send it out to another journal while you are courting them.

This response sounds right to me. One can always try reaching out to the editors, but the list of contributing authors may already be set. Fortunately, I do think there's a silver lining here: namely, that if the OP's paper is really good, they can always publish it in an excellent journal and it will get noticed there. It's worth remembering that publishing in philosophy is a proverbial marathon, not a sprint. Oftentimes, it can take an author many years to break through--but, if you publish well, then people in the relevant field(s) may start to take notice. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

When do search committees return to long-lists?

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

I would love a post asking / discussing how often it actually happens that search committees go back to people from their long list after not inviting them for fly outs. Often, search committee members let you know that they can't fly you out at the moment, but they might get back to your file later depending on how the search develops. Does this ever happen?

Good question! I have no idea how often this happens, but I know it does happen, and can happen for a variety of reasons, such as candidates backing out of on-campus visits due to accepting job offers elsewhere or the committee not being comfortable with hiring any of the people they initially fly out to campus. It's also worth noting that if a committee isn't satisfied with its long-list, they can also always go back to the general applicant pool to see if they would like to conduct any additional first-round interviews. It would be great to hear from search committee members: how often do these kinds of things happen, and for what reasons? Any reasons or scenarios that I haven't mentioned?

Seems like the peer review system has given up the ghost

I am an associate editor for Ergo, and I was idly wondering last night what would happen once I reach Reviewer Z.

The situation is this: A minimum of two referee reports are needed for each paper that is sent out for review. Each referee is assigned a letter, and I've already burned through Referee invites A through F in a couple of days.

Each referee says the same thing "too busy". One wrote to me the following "Sorry, but this is the 13th refereeing request that I've received so far in 2022 [this was 15 February], and I've accepted most of the others. I try to limit myself to accepting about one per week on average."

Similarly, for the Journal of Analytic Theology, I along with the other executive editor and managing editor made a happy dance when finally, reviewer 8 for a very specialized paper said yes to a referee request. 

Just a couple of days ago, one of the journals I am on the editorial board for wrote to us

"Since the COVID-19 pandemic began it has been increasingly difficult for us to find referees to review papers that are submitted to our journal. At the same time, we receive more papers every year. It is common these days that we have to approach six or seven people before we are able to find someone to review a paper. In light of this situation, I would like to ask you for help and request you to review papers more frequently than before."

It has come to the point that the most suitable referee(s) for a paper are almost never available. It takes us so long to find reviewers, sometimes a month, six weeks or more (this situation is also exacerbated by the fact that many people don't respond to referee requests at all). This lengthens the span of time even more for the total review process. All sorts of small fixes don't work anymore, e.g., shortening the time that people get to review, asking for alternatives (this is still very much appreciated, but unfortunately alternative referees are just as unavailable). 

Of course, it could be that my editorial experience is atypical--I'm just one scholar.

But it is my strong suspicion that the peer review system is finally broken beyond reasonable repair. We've seen a slow worsening of the situation and the pandemic has finally broken the system. People are burnt out and overburdened, job candidates increasingly desperate. 

In light of this, we need to do something. We owe it to authors to change the system, I think, rather than tinkering at the edges. Any suggestions (ranging from proposals to overhaul the entire system and how to do this practically, such as by our own Marcus Arvan in this paper co-authored with Liam Bright and Remco Heesen) welcome. *

Norms for revise-and-resubmits?

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

If you get an R&R from a journal, but you don't have time in the near future to do the revisions, are you at liberty to send the paper elsewhere as is? If it gets accepted there, then great; but if it doesn't, then you can do the revisions and send it back to the first journal. Put alternatively, does the time between receiving the R&R and submitting the revised version all count as "under review" time?

I'm glad Columbo asked, as another reader submitted the following reply, which I entirely agree with:

[P]rofessional norms suggest that you have to specify to the journal whether you will do the revisions or not. If you say that you will not revise the paper, I guess that once you send the paper back to the journal because another rejected it, it will be treated as a new submission. Just ask for more time to revise it, usually editors are reasonable.

I've been told that revise-and-resubmits are technically rejections with the opportunity to resubmit after revision. But just because this is technically true, it doesn't mean that it's appropriate to treat an RnR like any other rejection. The journal that issued the RnR spent their time and resources on it, as did their referees--and it's a clear (albeit often unstated) academic norm not to send a paper to another journal while it's under a revise-and-resubmit some place. Further, the consequences of violating this norm could be severe. It's entirely possible that if you send the paper to another journal, then one or more of the referees who read the paper at the first journal may get recruited to review the paper at the new journal--and so if your paper is rejected at the other journal and you later resubmit it as an RnR to the first journal, then one of more referees will cry foul to the editors. I'm not entirely sure what kinds of consequences this could lead to, but it's not out of the question (I think) that one could be accused of academic misconduct or banned from submitting to the journal.

So, long story short: my understanding is that if you get an RnR, you should either resubmit the paper to that journal only or inform the editors that you do not intend to resubmit the paper there. Maybe there are some people who risk violating these norms, but I'd strongly advise that it's not worth it. Does anyone else have any helpful tips or insights here? Are there any other norms the OP should be aware of?

How to make the most out of a postdoc?

In our February "how can we help you?" thread, a postdoc writes:

I've read a lot of (helpful!) advice about making the most out of grad school and a variety of job opportunities. I'm wondering if there's been a thread on how to make the most out of a post-doc? Post-docs seem to me super liminal and precarious, especially since one likely has to immediately go back on the market after starting (unless one has the luxury/credentials to be very confident of her success the next go round).

What do successful postdocs look like? What should those starting a postdoc in the fall try to do while there? (other than find less precarious employment). All tips and insights from all perspectives are welcome, including what (if anything) those on search committees like to see from applicants who are currently postdocs.

Good questions! Another postdoc submitted the following reply:

I think this largely depends on the kind of postdoc you're on. If it's a research postdoc, then by all means, write as much as you can. If you have to teach, then teach -- if you can choose which classes, try to build up your teaching experience.

I guess I would just add that I think a 'successful postdoc' should probably improve as many parts of your CV as possible (research, teaching, and service), and in ways that make the most sense from the standpoint of job-market strategy. Remember, there are multiple job markets (R1s, SLACs, CCs, etc.), and candidates from certain kinds of PhD programs tend to fare better in different job markets than others. So, I'd say, even if you're in a research postdoc without teaching, by all means focus on publishing--but if there are other ways that you can add to your CV beyond publishing, consider doing it. Second, when it comes to choosing classes to teach, I'd advise trying to find courses to teach that expand your repertoire. The more types of courses you're able to teach, the more likely you'll be a good fit for a department that needs a particular course taught.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great, I think, to hear particularly from commenters who have recently had postdocs. What did you do, and how did it impact your competitiveness on the job market after the postdoc? What, if anything, would you have done differently in your postdoc?

Follow-up job market emails?

In our job market discussion thread, a reader asks:

How are follow-up emails inquiring about one’s status after a first-round interview generally perceived by committee chairs? Is it better not to inquire since it may just annoy them?

I’m considering doing so in a case where I was told they wanted to make offers fairly quickly, and it’s been a week longer than the estimated timeline for offers they gave me.

From all of that, it’s probably safe to assume I’m out. But, I wonder how common it is to request updates or how welcome that would be given where we are in the season? Is it only best to do so when one has an offer from another school on the table?

Another reader then followed:

I would just like to chime in that I would also love to hear more about the norms and do's/don'ts when it comes to follow-up emails. After I was ghosted by one institution for several weeks after an interview and no one else posted about any updates on here I did send the contact person a follow-up email, to which they never replied... That obviously made me think even less of the professionalism of this particular search committee, but perhaps it was inappropriate for me to email them at all? If it matters, they also gave me a timeline for when I could expect to hear back from them and then totally blew past it with no word.

These are good questions. I'm currently chairing a search committee, so I probably shouldn't answer, but I'd love to hear from other search committee chairs in the comments section below. What do you think of follow up emails? Are there any "do's" and "don'ts" that candidates should be aware of? (As a quick aside, I suspect that some chairs may feel quite hamstrung by HR rules at their institution on what they can say to candidates while a search is still in progress, but I'm not sure how common such rules are or how restrictive they may tend to be). 

Weighing priorities (relationships, job types, etc.) when choosing between jobs

In our February "how can we help you?" thread, an anonymous reader writes:

Let's say you currently have a fairly stable NTT position at a reputable institution. Doesn't pay amazing but you get to teach a wide variety of classes in a traditional in-person format and there is no research expectation; however being in this position requires you to be in a long distance relationship.

Let's also say you've been offered a TT position at a community college but there is very little traditional in person teaching but you might be able to stop being in a long distance relationship and move somewhere together. Pays better, etc but you have serious concerns about all the non-traditional teaching.

Thoughts?

This is an excellent question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

That is a major life choice, and only you can do it, because only you have to live with your choice. There are some things in life that are really important, in part, because they play such a big role in our lives for a loooooooong time: a relationship, and a job!

Of course this is true: everyone must determine their own values and priorities in making decisions like these. But, for all that, the OP seems to be looking for other people's insights. So, what do you all think? I'll probably share some of my own thoughts in the comments section, but I'm curious to hear other people's responses. I expect that some of our readers may have had similar decisions to make, and may have thoughts based on first-hand experience of what to prioritize (and not prioritize). Anyone have any tips, experiences, or other insights to share?

When to withdraw job applications?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread and January thread, Arthur asks: 

When you accept an informal job offer, is the done thing to immediately withdraw yourself from other active searches? Or should you wait until signing a contract? Maybe I’m just paranoid but especially given Covid uncertainty I’m hesitant to do so until I sign a contract, but I don't know if that's kosher. (And, if and when you should withdraw, should you only withdraw from searches for which you've made a further round? Or should you contact hiring committees from which you just haven't heard anything yet?

A couple of readers responded. Conrad writes:

A bit of caution seems totally reasonable; I can't imagine it's incumbent on you to withdraw before you've signed a contract.

And "don't count your chickens" writes:

@Arthur, definitely, 100% wait until the contract is signed. Personally, I would only worry about withdrawing from those that you've heard something or other, but I've no strong feelings either way. Perhaps it depends on how many apps you have hanging.

This sounds exactly right to me: never withdraw from a job that you are otherwise interested in until you demonstrably have another job, and you demonstrably have another job when and only when you've signed a contract. Before that, nothing is set in stone. Weird things can always happen, like a university President or Provost deciding at the last minute that, no, they really don't have enough money for the position (due, e.g., to a sudden economic downturn). But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

How to teach a course that is mainly or exclusively composed of Less Commonly Taught philosophical traditions

In this post, I discuss practical ways to teach Less Commonly Taught (LCT) philosophical traditions in your regular philosophy course. This may include such courses as Introduction to Philosophy, Ethics, History of Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, or Philosophy of Mind.

We commonly teach such courses still with a heavy emphasis around the western canon. But increasingly, instructors are experimenting with ditching the western canon altogether, or at the very least, include a substantial number of other texts. 

This past semester, I taught a Philosophy of Mind course for pre-med students (neuroscience majors, though there were also some Jesuits taking the class). I decided to build the class entirely around LCT philosophies, in conversation with contemporary philosophy of cognitive science and cognitive science.

So, rather than starting from, for instance, Descartes and dualism, I assigned a paper by the Ghanian philosopher Kwame Gyekye on the Akan concept of personhood (where Gyekye argues that the Akan conception of personhood is dualistic). 

The student evaluations were very positive. I know that evaluations are a biased and imperfect tool, but the comments indicate students enjoyed the focus on LCT, for instance "The selection of reading was really amazing! I appreciated that the majority was from LCT philosophy – as my understanding of not only philosophy, but history and anthropology grew" and "I liked being able to read so many primary texts from all kinds of cultures." 

Following this, I was asked to teach a module in our graduate student teaching development course on how to teach LCT philosophies, and I think it may be useful to put some of this on the Cocoon as well. 

How can we help you? (February 2022)

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!

Logic based therapy?

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

Has anyone heard logic based therapy and is it legit?

I saw a friend who had become certified or something on social media and I am somewhat skeptical.

Honestly, I hadn't heard of this until now, so I looked it up! Apparently, it's a form of philosophical counseling, which I have heard before but don't know much about. Based on a cursory reading of the Wikipedia entry's section on criticisms and limitations, as well as a Google Scholar search, there appears to me to be a fair amount of theory on logic based therapy, but not much (if any?) empirical research on its effectiveness in treating anything. But again, this is just what I gathered from a couple of quick web searches, and I might be entirely wrong.

However, irrespective of the idea that 'therapy' is (I think) standardly understood as a kind of treatment for disease or illness, I like the idea of philosophical counseling for helping people to grapple with (e.g.) existential, moral, political, and social issues. As I think we see with many of our students (as well as laypeople who are interested in philosophy), a decent proportion of people appear to crave the kind of deeper analysis of life and the world that philosophy can offer--and for good reason: we all face deep existential, moral, spiritual, social, and political questions that are profoundly difficult to grapple with and which personalized guidance from a professional philosopher may very well be helpful regarding.

So, I guess--again, just offhand--I'm inclined to be a fairly skeptical of logic based therapy, but not so skeptical of philosophical counseling (understood not as therapy but rather as philosophical guidance and cultivation). But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

How to list conditional acceptances?

In our January "how can we help you?" thread, ECR asks:

A paper of mine was recently conditionally accepted for publication in a journal. The report states that a conditional acceptance constitutes an acceptance of the paper and that only minor changes (e.g., typographic, bibliographic, cosmetic) are necessary. Where (and how) should this be listed on a CV? Is it OK to list it as a forthcoming publication, if one adds that the acceptance is conditional? Or would it be more appropriate to list the paper as ‘work in progress’?

If I recall, we've discussed this in the past and there was some disagreement about it. My own view is that one should list an article like this as 'conditionally accepted.' More generally, I think one's job in a CV is to give true information in the most perspicuous way available. As examples of a couple of other "no-no's", I think it's bad practice to:

1. List articles under review under 'publications'
2. List book reviews under 'publications' 

Both of these, I think, belong under separate headings: namely 'book reviews' and 'articles under review.' But these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?

Departmental controversies and grad student prospects

In our January "how can we help you?" post, a reader asks whether a public controversy or grievances about a department "could impact the department's graduate students in terms of potentially harming prospects for employment in the future or getting accepted to a workshop or conference?" 

The Cocoon isn't a gossip site, and is supposed to be a safe and supportive forum for all, so I want to be very careful here (and ask readers to be respectful of this). But, given that there have been a number of serious public controversies associated with various philosophy departments over the years, I think it could be good to answer this reader's question, if only to put them and other grad students in a similar position at ease--as grad students are (obviously) in a vulnerable professional position.

In brief, here's my answer: I'm pretty confident that no one one is likely to hold stuff like this against grad students. We all recognize that grad students are normally likely to be innocent bystanders in departmental controversies, and that it would be wrong to hold situations against them over which they have little if any control. My confidence here is bolstered by the fact that I've seen many grad students come out of departments where there were very serious controversies (and indeed, scandals) end up getting jobs, invited to all kinds of things, and so on. 

So, I'd encourage this reader and other grad students in similar situations not to worry about their career prospects, at least not any more than any other grad student or job candidate. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

New paper on moral realism in Inquiry

This is just a quick note that I have a new paper, 'From rational self-interest to liberalism: a hole in Cofnas's debunking argument of moral progress', published online in Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy.

Here's the abstract, for anyone who might be interested:

Michael Huemer argues that cross-cultural convergence toward liberal moral values is evidence of objective moral progress, and by extension, evidence for moral realism. Nathan Cofnas claims to debunk Huemer’s argument by contending that convergence toward liberal moral values can be better explained by ‘two related non-truth-tracking processes’: self-interest and its long-term tendency to result in social conditions conducive to greater empathy. This article argues that although Cofnas successfully debunks Huemer’s convergence argument for one influential form of moral realism – Robust Moral Realism, which holds that moral facts are non-natural, stance-independent normative facts – Cofnas’s debunking argument broadly supports a second type of moral realism: Enlightened Self-Interest Realism, the view that moral facts are reducible to stance-dependent requirements of instrumental (‘means-end’) rationality. Finally, this article argues that insofar as different Enlightened Self-Interest Realist theories make specific predictions about the intra- and inter-personal mechanisms behind moral convergence toward liberalism, empirical observations of cross-cultural convergence can provide independent support for Enlightened Self-Interest Realism. I conclude that this is an important mark in favor of Enlightened Self-Interest Realism over Robust Moral Realism.

Publishing (unsolicited) book reviews in grad school?

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

I know you guys have done posts on book reviews in the past. However, I've looked through a number of journals and all of them do not accept unsolicited proposals for book reviews. Do you have any advice for how a PhD student is to go about publishing an unsolicited book review in a decent journal?

What do you all think? I suspect the thing to do here is to just contact the journal (though some journals state on their website that they don't accept unsolicited reviews). Also, although the OP didn't ask about this, I'd personally caution grad students against publishing book reviews. Why? The short answer is that they don't add much (if anything) to one's CV as far as the job market is concerned, and they can be a real distraction from things that matters far more for the market: publishing original work and developing as a teacher. I knew some fellow students in grad school who published book reviews but little else, and it seemed to pretty clearly be a mistake. Book reviews take a lot of time. You have to read an entire book carefully, summarize relevant parts of it, and then critically engage with the arguments. While this can of course be a good exercise and service to the discipline, my worry again is that it's probably not worth the opportunity costs and tradeoffs. But these are just my thoughts, fwiw. 

Mental health (e.g. PTSD) diagnoses and grad school

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

I am ABD. I have recently been diagnosed with PTSD. This wasn’t exactly a shocking diagnosis for me to receive, but something about the isolation during COVID and recently getting my own apartment allowed this issue to bubble to the surface. I feel stuck. I am tempted to go on leave to try and focus on recovery, but I’m worried I won’t come back to my PhD program if I do, and I really really want to finish my dissertation. It’s hard to focus. I am all over the place, emotionally speaking. And I am coming to terms with the fact that I have been using school to smother my trauma— I’ve almost taken that strategy as far as you can take it! Tips? Suggestions? Help? Anyone else managed PTSD while they are working on a dissertation?

These are excellent and important questions, as are questions about managing mental health diagnoses in grad school (and academia) more generally. Studies have found "strikingly high" rates of mental health issues among graduate students and faculty. Do any of you have any tips, particularly for the OP?

Visiting jobs for TT people?

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

I'd really appreciate a post that summarizes opportunities / postdocs / fellowships that early career people who already have a TT job can apply for. I often hear from people who spend a year somewhere, but it's often unclear to me how to find out about these opportunities. Examples are fellowships with the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, Visiting Fellowships at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Philosophy of Science, or Harrington Faculty Research Fellowships at UT Austin.

This is a good question. I'm on sabbatical next year, and applied to some of these kinds of things--but I expect there are probably other opportunities than those listed on PhilJobs. Anyone have any tips?

Should grad students work on trendy topics?

There's an interesting ongoing discussion at Daily Nous on which topics of research are trending for graduate students and recent PhDs. Having served on six search committees now, I'm really curious to hear from other search committee members: do you think it is advantageous, disadvantageous, or neither on the job market for grad students to work on trendy topics? Why? 

Here's my hot-take: I expect it is probably advantageous for getting an R1 job, but potentially disadvantageous for getting a job at a teaching institution. Here's why: R1s seem likely to want to hire the 'next big thing', and one obvious path to this is to hire someone who does really good work on a hot topic in the profession. However, trendy topics tend to be pretty narrow, and it's easier to stand out in a pile--as a researcher and teacher (for teaching jobs)--if you do something different than most candidates. This, again, is just a hot-take hypothesis. But I wonder if there is something to it. 

One quick note: I'd like to keep this discussion to search committee members. Here's why: job-candidates reporting their experiences may result in a misleading picture of things due to base-rate issues. If (e.g.) 90% of job-candidates work on trendy topics, then as a merely statistical matter, candidates who work on trendy topics will tend to get a lot of jobs. So, if we hear from candidates, we run the risk of committing the base-rate fallacy. We don't entirely obviate this by hearing from search committee members, but at least in their case we might get a picture of which types of candidates they prefer and do well in their hiring processes, all things being equal.

Empirical findings on morality and concern for future selves

This article notes that "a plethora of psychological studies" on "the connection between prudence, morality, and the metaphysics of the self" strongly "suggest that people who score high on the Future Self Continuity measure have higher moral standards" (h/t 'heap of links' @ Daily Nous).

It would be interesting if some philosophical theory of prudence and morality predicted and explained why this is so. ;)

Publishing outside your AOS/AOC?

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

Should we try to publish papers not in our intended AOS and AOC?

Context, as a grad student, we take various classes to fulfil distribution requirements. For one class, the professor recommended that I try to publish the term paper. However, the class and topic lies outside of my intended AOS and AOC. Should I still try to publish it? What are the benefits job market wise, given that it lies outside of my AOS and AOC? Could doing so disbenefit me (e.g. If the only thing I end up publishing by the time I hit the job market is a paper outside of my AOS and AOC)?

Good questions. I think it obviously in the interest of grad students and other early-career philosophers to publish outside of their AOS or AOC, at least all things being equal. First, when it comes to the job market, the broader your publication record, the broader your appeal is likely to be to hiring committees. Sometimes hiring committees have areas they'd love to have someone be able to teach courses in even if it's not in the job ad. You may also just look like a more interesting philosopher to talk shop with. Second, when it comes to tenure and promotion, even if your institution turns out to be one of those (like mine) that only officially considers work you've published since starting the job, your overall publishing record probably has some real psychological impact--as your CV may simply look like someone who clearly warrants tenure. Plus, impact in the literature and your overall reputation as a researchers may be taken into account (viz. outside tenure letters), so why pass up publishing good stuff?

The only potential downside here, I think, is raised by the OP's final question. If your only publications when heading out on the job market are outside your AOS/AOC, then that might look very odd. But, wait a minute: if you've published in the area, why not list it as an AOC? You obviously have some level of competence in the area! So, it seems to me, the expected upsides of publishing outside one's AOS/AOC plainly outweigh the downsides. Finally, given how much uncertainty there is on all things job-market related, it seems to me the best approach is to simply do philosophy authentically, publishing what interests you! It's your career, so (or so say I) just be the philosopher you want to be and hope that there's a search committee out there that finds what you do and the philosopher you are worth hiring. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Norms for negotiating a job offer?

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

[W]hat are the norms for negotiating an offer? salary? course release? do you need to have another offer to have leverage? is negation typically expected?

Although these questions are already being discussed in that thread, these are such important questions that I would like to migrate the discussion over here. One reader, 'the sky is the limit', responded:

If you are working in the USA, anything is open for negotiation. But, know the local culture. If you ask for a pre-tenure sabbatical when you have colleagues who have been teaching there and not had one, you will look a little too self important.

Also, if it is state university you can find the pay of public employees. This should set your target for what you can reasonably ask for. If you are staring a TT job and you ask for what a tenured person is paid, again you will look like a big ass. And you are then off to a bad start.

Another reader followed:

[I]n my experience you don't need another offer in order to be able to negotiate, but you do need to have reasons that are saliant to the administrators at the instutition. "I'd like to have a course release" isn't going to fly, but "If I could have a course release my first year, I'd be much more competitive for this large grant application" has a better chance of working. It's also easier for deans to grant one-time bonuses (e.g., moving allowances, start-up cash, one semester or year of course release, etc.) than to grant recurring boons such as significant salary bumps.

I'm curious to hear what other readers think--but I think it's worth emphasizing how important it can be to be sensitive to context. There was a real horror story a few years ago about someone who negotiated their way out of a job. For example, if you have an offer from a teaching-focused institution, then asking for teaching offloads to focus on research can be a dicey endeavor. It's important to be aware that a job-offer is not a binding commitment until a contract has actually been issued and signed. Fwiw. But what do you all think? Do any of you have tips or experiences (good or bad) to share?

Creating opportunities for informal mentoring?

Last week, we discussed conferences and professional hierarchies, and our own Helen De Cruz's question on Twitter: How can conferences provide more equitable opportunities for informal networking? However, Helen also followed this up with a more general question: how can we create opportunities for informal mentoring outside of conferences? 

This is an excellent question. While I know that some universities have formal mentoring programs for faculty, I've benefitted tremendously from informal forms of mentorship over the course of my career. In my case, developing these kinds of informal relationships occurred in two ways:

1. Simply approaching senior people I had some previous relationship with to ask for help.
2. Meeting and getting to know people at conferences or summer programs that I applied to and was able to attend.

Then, of course, there are formal mentoring programs, such as the Mentoring Program for Early-Career Women* Faculty in Philosophy, as well as the Cocoon's Job Market Mentoring Program. But, I think Helen asks a great question. How can individuals and/or institutions create informal opportunities for mentoring outside of conferences and programs like these? I think it would be great to hear tips and experiences from readers!

Summer Program for the Advancement of Women in Philosophy (UC San Diego)

A reader wrote in about the following Summer Program for the Advancement of Women in Philosophy (SPAWP) at UC San Diego:

SPAWP is a ten-day program for undergraduates who are interested in pursuing graduate study in philosophy while promoting gender inclusivity. SPAWP is hosted by the UC San Diego Philosophy Department, and features philosophy seminar courses taught by visiting and UC San Diego faculty, along with a variety of workshops taught by faculty and graduate students — all geared towards providing an engaging philosophical learning experience and helpful preparation for applying to and succeeding at graduate school in philosophy and beyond.

Readers should note that "this year's SPAWP 2022 will be held remotely via Zoom." The application deadline is February 15th.

Critical reading tips?

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

I’m sometimes wondering whether my approach to reading papers is not critical and active enough, and I think that many weaknesses in other people’s positions slip my attention. I would be interested to hear about your approaches to reading critically. I’m most interested in how actively you engage with the literature, and whether you follow a more or less strict thought process (and if so, what is it?).

Here is what I usually end up doing when I read philosophy: I read a couple of papers that discuss a certain problem or position. But in doing so, I’m usually not following a certain thought process. For example, I usually wouldn’t reconstruct an argument, check its validity, and reflect carefully on each premise, without first having the intuition that it is fallacious, and I usually don’t actively try to come up with counterexamples to general claims that seem unsuspicious to me. Rather, I read until something strikes me as implausible or fallacious. That is, I wait for an intuition that a claim is false or an argument invalid. I’m sure that I would find more things to criticize if I were to read more actively. But on the other hand, this is extremely time-consuming, and the time I have for research is very limited. So, how do you read critically? Do you have tips on how to read more critically without wasting time?

For my part, I don't have a formula here. I just read and if anything pops out to me as implausible, inadequately defended, or invalid, then I'll stop and consider it more carefully. I also like to consider what foundational assumptions are generally accepted in a given literature (not just in this paper or that paper, but across a variety of papers) and ask whether I think they are good background assumptions. But, beyond this, I just read and let the critical part happen organically. 

What about you all? Do any of you have tips or particular strategies you find useful for critical reading?