The Philosophers' Cocoon

Tips and resources for philosophers with ADHD?

We recently had a request from a philosopher who has ADHD for any tips, resources, etc. How can you flourish as a grad student, undergrad, or faculty member with ADHD in philosophy?

If you can talk about personal experience and what helps you, or otherwise know of resources, this would be much appreciated! You can put this in the replies to this post.

Universities treating students as customers

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

At my university (in Australasia) administrators have claimed that students are customers or clients, using terms like "stakeholders" to describe not only current enrollees but also school leavers we are "targeting" for "marketing purposes." A few years ago I read a comprehensive article that argued why we shouldn't believe that students are customers. I'd like to hear from readers of the Cocoon whether they agree or disagree with my administration's sentiment, i.e., that students are customers and that we faculty are contractually obligated to provide them with a product (a degree?) or service (learning?). Second, if readers have recommendations for where I can find arguments like this (either for or against the aforementioned thesis), I'd appreciate them sharing the URL or source. Thank you!

I'd love to hear what readers think about this too. I've always naturally rebelled against this way of conceiving students, considering a university education a privilege rather than a purchased product. I suspect that many (most?) readers will object to this way of conceiving of students too, but that most of us also probably recognize that, regardless, universities have become big businesses. Not sure what can be done about it, but I'd be very curious to hear what other readers think about all of this! 

Measuring publishing success?

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

I know the mere thought of measuring success in philosophy might be unacceptable to some, but here’s where the question came from, at least to me. I just started my first job, a non-TT job. I have under 50 citations from 5 publications in leiterian journals. My brother-in-law, who has a non-TT job in one of the STEM fields, on the other hand, has over 30 publications and 200 citations. This is not coming from him, he’s totally a nice guy, but from the elders at the family table, belittling me because of my publication volume and citation count.

So generally, what would be a decent publication volume and citation count for philosophers? I know the answer will vary according to sub-disciplines and the “quality” of the publications. Or rather, how can one explain on the dining table that one’s doing ok-ish in research?

I'm really sorry to hear that this reader was belittled by family members. One reader submitted the following reply, which I entirely agree with:

I think you should avoid such dinner table conversations. If people do not understand that there are disciplinary differences, then you are going to find yourself engaging in some very unproductive conversations. My own career, especially the early stages, made no sense to my father who own and ran a business.

However, if the OP does want to respond to their belittling family members, the first thing they should know, I think, is that publication rates are vastly different across fields:

Still on grad school wait lists?

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

I am an international student who applied to PhD programs in the US this past application round. I was rejected by all schools except for one, which put me on a waitlist of six in mid-April with me being “high on the list.” Yet to this day there is no final word on my application, neither via email nor through the application portal. I emailed the DGS two months ago for an update but didn’t hear back. My question is: is it all too common to have an application pending at this time of the year? Thanks!

Good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I would email the DGS again and ask; it is highly unusual that they still haven’t notified you about the outcome. Best of luck!

But another reader added:

I recall a friend being admitted to a law school program on Sept 1 - after being short listed - and the school term began in 6 or 7 days. That is an extreme case, but it happens. He ended up finishing about 12th in his class (which is quite high). And I do recall a few late entries where I did my grad school in philosophy.

It does seem to me to be extremely late to still be on a wait list, but you never know. Do any other readers (either grad students or grad admissions committee members) have any helpful insights to share?

A guide for academic self-promotion on Twitter and other fora

This is an expanded version of a thread I did recently on self-promotion. Many academics find the concept of self-promotion on social media somewhat icky, but it is often necessary, especially for junior academics. I find self-promotion by others very useful because it gives me the opportunity to learn new things from them, especially outside of the fields I am working on. 

 

While it's possible to be obnoxious in self-promotion (a topic for another time, perhaps) I think many people err on the side of under-promoting their own work. Here is a list of what I deem best practices, by which I mean, practices that are most helpful for the recipient. Since attention is a limited resource, these practices help the recipient to more efficiently decide: is this something I could be interested in? Writing from the perspective of the recipient, I do not intend to speak for everyone but it's a datapoint you can consider. 

1. Where to promote? I am a fan of Twitter. Facebook etc. is also fine though they are mostly to people who already know you. Twitter helps you to also reach new audiences and expand your network. Put in your bio your scholarly interests, maybe your bylines (recent book published, journals published in). I tend to follow back people who put something professional in their bio (e.g., "Early modern philosophy", "Chinese philosophy", "PhD student at XX"), but it's up to you. 
2. Do not hesitate to use the "pin" feature on Twitter. You can pin one link and you can change it to whatever you want your audience to find. I've found so many wonderful papers and books because people pin them! Especially something that will appeal to potentially a wider audience, you should pin. My personal sense is that a piece of public philosophy in a good venue (such as Aeon or Boston Review) is more useful to pin than a specialist academic article, because you reach journalists and people from other fields this way. Monographs are always good to pin.
3. When you link to the paper/book you wish to promote, put a brief description. I'm likely not going to click on a bald link or "My paper in [journal] just appeared," unless it's centrally in areas that interest me. Better is 1-2 sentences on what your main finding/idea is.
4. Paywalls are horrible. Many people you are in conversation with are not academics and still want to read what you have to say (e.g., alt-ac people, journalists). It's good practice to put a link to a freely available version, such as a latest draft on PhilPapers or your own website. In a second, linked tweet, you can put a link to the published version. This might matter for Altmetric and also for those people who want to see the final published version.
5. If you want to go above and beyond, you might consider a little thread (of linked tweets) summarizing the main points of your paper. I know it's effort but it is effort that pays off.  That helps viewers decide if they want to put in the effort of reading the entire paper, especially if it is not central to what they're working on.
6. If the research is in collaboration with junior colleagues, and you are senior, here's also an opportunity to lift them up. This is especially important for grad students/postdocs e.g., "lead author is [twitterhandle]--see their website for the cool stuff they're up to!"  Similarly, you can tag members of your team.
7. Attention is a zero-sum game, but it always pays to give credit generously. If you work with communities e.g., Indigenous communities, refugees etc, also important to make link to any web presence they have and amplify their voices. 
8. Worries about how often to promote yourself? While it may start to look self-aggrandizing at some point, the fact of the matter is there is so much out there, so much competition for attention, that I think it is OK to repeat-tweet something that had little uptake (don't retweet, just make a new tweet). The pin feature also gets rid of this worry.
9. I like to tweet works by others I find interesting. While this seems like it competes with self-promotion it makes your profile a more interesting place to spend time with. What I've seen some people do (but I don't have the discipline for that) make a challenge of reading/tweeting a new paper every day for a set period of time. It is also just nice to help to amplify work you find valuable, also work you had no hand in creating.
10. When to tweet your new publication? To me it seems fine to pick the following moments: when the paper is accepted (note, I like to play safe and not when still minor revisions are pending, YMMV) you could write "my paper [title] just got accepted in [journal]. If you like a copy, DM me". Once it appears you tweet a link to the paper and your own archived copy (see above). You could even be cheeky and reamplify once it gets assigned an issue. 

There's a lot competing for our attention--while there's only so much research people read in a day it's important to reach the widest potential audience. We benefit from reading widely, especially outside of our normal areas.

 

Good synergy happens.  So don't feel shy to self-promote. 

Reflecting on the Job Market Journey

Several weeks ago, I learned that my most recent job search yielded what should be a long-term position. In the upcoming fall, I’ll be joining the University of Arizona as a member of both its philosophy department and the W. A. Franke Honors College as an Assistant Professor of Practice. While the position is not tenure eligible, it carries the same promotional ranks as a “standard” Assistant Professor position and operates on long-term contracts. My hope and expectation is that the University of Arizona will be my home for the foreseeable future. (Prepping for this transition is part of why I've been preoccupied the last few weeks and have not posted anything in that time.)

The post-COVID job market was not favorable, even by the appallingly low standards of the typical job search in academic philosophy. While the number of tenure-track job openings returned to near pre-COVID levels, the market seemed even more saturated with candidates than usual because the job offerings the previous year had been so meager. While I had a few interviews heading into April, none of them had yielded any tangible results. If that sounds familiar, that’s because it was eerily similar to what transpired last time. But April yielded a new cluster of interviews – a combination of visiting jobs and long-term positions. I even got invited for a campus visit midway through the month. Ultimately, I missed out on that particular job but was offered a visiting position near the end of April. In early May, just before I had to make a decision about the offer in hand, I got the news from Arizona.

I’m thrilled with how it all ended, but having reached this juncture, I have been thinking about how much it required. Here is a short encapsulation of each time I was on the job market and what the results were:

• 2016–2017: 90 applications; 4 interviews; 1 job offer
• 2017–2018: 19 applications; 1 interview; 0 job offers
• 2018–2019: 118 applications; 13 interviews; 3 job offers
• 2021–2022: 54 applications; 7 interviews; 2 job offers

You may notice that there’s a great deal of variance in the application numbers each year. My second job search was a soft search: my postdoctoral position was guaranteed for a second year, so there was no pressing need to find another job. I applied selectively to tenure-track positions for which I thought I was a good fit. My first and third searches were more strenuous endeavors where I went to far greater lengths trying to secure academic employment. The 2018–2019 search almost destroyed me, however. It was simply too time-consuming and emotionally taxing to apply for that many jobs, so on this most recent job search, I opted to be more selective. My target number of applications was 60, and when I received my first offer, I had exactly 6 jobs left in my spreadsheet that I intended to apply for.

Summer sounds

The in-person conference quandary

This June I went to my first in-person conference in over two years. It was in UMSL, which is in the town I'm currently based in (St Louis), so it was an easy transition. And it was lovely--exhausting but lovely. I also have a couple of more events lined up this fall. After a hiatus of in-person conferencing,  there's a general sense for many academics that "it's endemic now." We can't really expect improvements in vaccine effectiveness or transmission rates, so basically we have to do life under these circumstances. And academic life involves (for many of us) in-person conferences.

But I worry that this creates disparity in opportunities and professional development, exacerbating disparities that already exist in many cases, such as for disabled and chronically ill people. 

I got Covid in late April 2022 after being very cautious for over two years, and was quite sick for several weeks (sicker I thought I would be given that I got the full vaccination and a booster.) For the few weeks after recovery I reckoned I was OK in terms of immunity and went to a few events that I normally still deem to risky, such as a lovely dinner organized by the local Jesuit training center which is associated to SLU. It was a great event and the food was great, but it was also a very poorly ventilated area with so many people.

Explaining job titles in applications?

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

I hope I can pose a neurotic and basically trivial question. I'm a junior academic in the UK whose official job title is 'lecturer' but it is a permanent position. Is it wise or appropriate to explain on my CV or website that the position is equivalent to what is called 'assistant professor', which it is what it is called at some other UK institutions and the closest thing to the position in most of the rest of the anglophone world?

I think that virtually everyone on a hiring committee knows what a Lecturer is in the UK, so although I could be wrong, I don't think that warrants explanation in a job application. However, I am curious about job titles in other countries--for example, I know someone who was a Research Fellow in Australia, but I don't know exactly what that means, and I know that in some European countries, recent PhDs often have to complete Habilitations and hold Privatdozent positions, which sort of sound like postdocs and non-tenure track positions, but again, I'm not exactly sure! What do readers think? When (if ever) should job applicants explain their job titles in their application materials? For what kinds of positions, and why?

Dealing with unresponsive journals (again)?

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

Here's a(nother) question about dealing with unresponsive journals:

I submitted a paper last summer (2021). It is with a good journal in my subfield and is one of my better papers. It initially received a 'revise and resubmit, no commitment to publishing' in November '21, and I resubmitted in December '21. The paper has been untouched since then (i.e., for about seven months). The editors have not responded to two emails asking whether the paper is still actively under review.

When do I pull out? At the nine-month mark? The one-year mark? I would of course like to publish with them, but continuing to wait could lead to problems for my career. Thanks in advance for any advice.

Good questions. We've discussed how to handle slow and unresponsive journals before, but the question seems to come up fairly often, so I think it's important to discuss. Personally, I think I'd send the editors one more email and pull the paper within a week or two if they don't respond. There are always other good journals out there, and if you got a revise-and-resubmit at this journal, chances are you'll get one (or perhaps even an acceptance) at another good journal. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Thanking previous referees in submissions?

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

I have a paper that was rejected from a journal, but with an unbelievably helpful referee report that is instrumental in rewriting the paper. How do I acknowledge this anonymous reviewer when I resubmit the paper to a new journal? Is it odd to acknowledge a reviewer from a previous journal's review process in a new submission?

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

[U]sually submissions should not include any acknowledgements, so then there's no problem. Once the paper is accepted and you add acknowledgements you can acknowledge a reviewer from a previous journal.

I respectfully disagree. When I submit papers to journals, I often include acknowledgments to anonymous referees--usually in footnotes at places in the paper that have been substantially revised due to referees' suggestions. I don't mention which journal(s) the referees were from, as I think that could introduce biases into the review process. But I tend to thank referees because I think they deserve the acknowledgment, and because I worry that if I incorporated a ton of their feedback into the paper without acknowledging them, it might irritate them (or worse) if they are asked to review the paper again for the new journal. I've also never been asked to remove these kinds of acknowledgments in an initial submission precisely because they are anonymized (though if I ever were asked to remove them, of course I would). My understanding at any rate, has always been that the reason that journals ask you to "remove acknowledgments" is to preserve anonymized review and prevent bias (which might occur, obviously, if you write things like, "I thank Derek Parfit and audiences at NYU and Princeton for their feedback").

Anyway, this is just what I do and my experience with my approach. What do you all think?

Norms for travel reimbursement in the COVID era?

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

What are the current norms about COVID and travel reimbursement? For example, suppose one gets invited for an in-person talk and the host promises to pay. But due to COVID, the trip had to be cancelled, the talk had to be given online, and some travel arrangements are unrefundable. Should the host pay? Or, for example, suppose one is traveling using university money, but again the trip had to be cancelled, is it still okay to submit the unrefundable travel costs for reimbursement?

Good questions. My experience is that many universities have strict policies governing these kinds of things, such that if you don't actually travel it's against their rules to submit travel reimbursements. So, on that, I'd be careful and forthright with your university about your situation. Hopefully, they'll be understanding. In terms of invited talks, if the in-person visit is canceled, it seems to me that the host should clearly cover non-refundable costs. But these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours?

Contributing to journal special issues?

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

Are journal special issues worth anything?

I have just seen a call for papers for a special issue of a journal. I have a paper in preparation that would fit exactly into this special issue. However, the journal is somewhat lower ranked than I would optimally hope to publish in (I know journal rankings are probably mostly bullshit, but I need a job).

So, is there any advantage to publishing in a special issue? And is this advantage big enough to accept say a 10 ranking drop in journal ranking?

These are good questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think where you place your paper really matters. People read and cite my work that is published in Philosophy of Science and Synthese more than they read and cite my work published in more obscure journals. Further, journal ranking matters because it is one "short cut" people use in deciding which of the many new papers in their area they should read.

This seems to me a common view, but I'm not so sure about it. Some of my most-cited pieces are in relatively obscure journals. Also, it may be worth considering what the special issue as a whole looks like. For example, I was recently invited to contribute to a special issue in a journal that I hadn't heard of before, but it was an attractive invitation not only because I had a piece that I really wanted to write on the topic, but also because the special issue editor and other contributors are excellent, well-known philosophers. So, even though it's a journal that I hadn't heard of, I expect it will probably get read by people interested in the topic. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Importing commentator feedback into a paper?

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

I am wondering what the proper thing to do is in the following situation. A person was assigned as a commentator on my paper at a conference, and in their comments they summarized the main argument of my paper in premise form. The form was implicit in my argument, but now that I am revising the paper, I would like to include the argument in premise form. What is the right thing to do around using either their summary, or maybe a slightly altered version. Should I state in a footnote something like 'thanks to x for suggesting the following formulation'? Should I do that even if I change it somewhat? Or should I just thank them at the end in the acknowledgements and in the places where they suggested a given objection to a part of my argument (I will do both of these either way, of course)? The main thing that is confusing me is that the argument was there already in the original, and so a thing of my making, but not explicitly in premise form, and so a thing of their making. But then if I had gone through the trouble of making it more explicit, then I would have likely arrived at something very similar to their end product. So, what to do?

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

I think it would be nice to thank x for specifically that. Maybe at the argument, add a footnote like "this argument was explicitly formulated first in x's helpful comments." This does not imply that you wouldn't be able to formulate yourself.

I think things are a bit more complicated than this. Even though the argument the commentator placed into premise-conclusion is of your making, the particular formulation of it in premise-conclusion form is (as the OP notes) of their making. So, I think simply taking it and importing it into the paper, even with minor alterations and an acknowledgment, may be a bit dicey. Personally, I think the safe thing to do here would be to simply email the commentator to ask them whether they are okay with you using it, noting that you would of course acknowledge them in the paper for suggesting it. This not only seems to me to be called for as a matter of professional courtesy. You also never know: perhaps if you don't ask, the person could get upset and lodge some kind of research misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) allegation. This may seem unlikely (and unreasonable), but why chance it when you can just ask them instead before going forward?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

 

New paper in Social Theory and Practice: 'Educational Justice and School Boosting'

This is just a quick note that I have a new paper forthcoming in Social Theory and Practice, "Educational Justice and School Boosting." Here's the abstract:

School boosters are tax-exempt organizations that engage in fundraising efforts to provide public schools with supplementary resources. This paper argues that prevailing forms of school boosting are defeasibly unjust. Section 1 shows that inequalities in public education funding in the United States violate John Rawls’s two principles of domestic justice. Section 2 argues that prevailing forms of school boosting exacerbate and plausibly perpetuate these injustices. Section 3 then contends that boosting thereby defeasibly violates Rawlsian principles of nonideal theory for rectifying injustice. Thus, boosting should be presumptively either made illegal or substantially reformed. Finally, Section 4 responds to potential objections.

Deciding whether to review a paper?

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

I'm wondering how to decide whether to referee a paper. I just got my first request, and from what I can gather from the abstract, this doesn't seem like an editorial call I'm particularly qualified to make. Would appreciate any thoughts.

This is a great query. Another reader (an editor) submitted the following reply:

Do not agree to referee a paper you believe you are not qualified to referee. Referees are to give their expert opinion - if you are not an expert, then your opinion is irrelevant.

I think this seems right as far as it goes (if a bit blunt!), but I'm curious whether we might be able to give the OP more helpful positive advice. How do you decide whether to review a paper? 

How often to meet with committee members?

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

I don’t meet a lot with my committee members and they’re quite hands-off but I know some people that meet theirs very regularly. I feel like I’m falling behind a lot, and I want to meet them more but I’m slow at putting out work to show them. So I’m wondering how often did you meet with your supervisor and other committee members, and how often do those on committees want us to meet?

This is an excellent question, and I'm curious what readers' answers are. Although it's obviously been a while since I've been in grad school, my sense is that one of the most serious and common errors that grad students make is to avoid meeting consistently enough with their committee members, or at least with their dissertation supervisor. Let me explain.

Thanking too many people in a paper?

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

Perhaps this is a silly or trivial question, but I've been wondering about it since a thread came up a few weeks ago. My practice has always been to basically acknowledge anyone who gave me feedback on a paper, even if it was just a brief conversation that gave me something to think about. For that reason my acknowledgements section in my papers is usually pretty long—now that I think about it, probably considerably longer than most papers I read. I always included everyone just since on the other side, it always gives me a nice feeling to see my name in an acknowledgements section and I assumed it was costless for me to just include people. But it occurred to me that perhaps not only is this not the done thing, but maybe it makes it look like my papers are more 'crowdsourced' than they are, which isn't a good look.

This may not be a huge issue, but still, I think it's worth discussing, as readers may recall that we discussed paper acknowledgments about a month ago. In response, a UK postdoc submitted the following comment:

To be honest, I doubt that anyone will try to draw any conclusions about your paper from the acknowledgements section. They could just as well conclude the opposite: that you are well-connected, that many people are interested in your work, or indeed that you are very generous with your gratitude!

What do you all think?

How do you work during summer?

It's been a while since I've asked the Cocoon a question of my own, but I've been struggling a bit with what my summer work schedule and routine should look like, so here goes: how do you work during summer breaks from teaching? For example, how many hours would you say that you spend on average per day working? How does your typical summer work day break down (in terms of reading, writing, etc.)? How many days per week do you work? And how much time do you take off during summer "for vacation" (or rest and relaxation)? In addition to hearing your answers, it might be great to hear what stage of your career you are in and what kind of institution you are at!

Providing multiple arguments for a premise?

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

Let's say I'm writing a paper where I defend a claim P. P is not the main thesis of the paper but a premise in the main argument. I often find myself giving two or three independent arguments for P, each of which I take to be sufficient. In my mind, this makes a stronger case for P. Even if you don't find one argument compelling, you might find the other ones compelling.

But then what often happens is that referees object to *one* of these arguments for P, and the paper gets rejected. This makes me question this strategy of giving more than one argument for some claim. I wonder if others had a similar experience or have thoughts about this strategy.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

A few points. 1. I would take out any arguments that are weak, even if they support the premise. A weak argument weakens the paper even if not the argument. 2. If all the arguments are strong, you could try nipping this in the bud by being explicit: 'For good measure I will offer three arguments for P, although I think even argument 1 is strong enough' or something. 3. Put the strongest arguments first and last. 4. It might be that the referees reject the paper for other reasons but give you this feedback anyway. That they said what's wrong with this argument doesn't mean that this is why it's being rejected.

These seem like nice suggestions, but I'm curious what others think. Having published a lot, I think that I learned one potentially helpful rule of thumb a while ago: the more you say in a paper, the more likely it is that referees will find something to object to and reject the paper--so, whenever possible, say less. I learned this rule of thumb more or less by having the kinds of experiences the OP reports here. As they note, when they give three arguments for P, it seems like there's always a referee who has a problem with one of them. So, giving more arguments may not be helpful. Maybe the best thing to do is to give one argument, and make sure that it's as convincing as possible.

On that note, here's another rule of thumb that I remember someone telling me at some point: if you have a good argument, more arguments aren't necessary. After all, a sound argument is a sound argument. So, if you have one really good one, why not just give that one and let the others go?

Finally, here's a third rule of thumb that I've learned: don't make stronger claims in a paper than you need to. For the OP: do you really need an argument for P, if P is a premise? Would it be at all possible to simply write in the paper that you're assuming P, that P seems plausible (or should seem plausible to your interlocutors), and then tell your reader that you're going to show that something really cool/important follows? In my experience, this can be good enough, and it obviates the need to actually defend P!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Spring sounds

Where do philosophers read?

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

Recently, I found myself wondering not just how or when other philosophers read, but where they read. My dissertation supervisor once told me he did all of his reading in bed. I know plenty of folks who read at their desks. Personally, if there is something that I need to read, yet know that it is sitting on my desktop as a PDF and I haven't printed it out yet, then I'm not inclined to read it that day. I don't think I absorb material from the screen, sitting at my desk, as well as I do from the printed page sitting on my couch or in the park. But maybe others have good reasons why reading from the screen at the desk works for them.

So, I'm wondering: Where do you read and why is that your preferred spot?

This is a fun little question. While I sometimes read books on the couch and e-copies of articles on my computer in my home office, I normally tend to read outside at the park that I take my dog to, where I alternate reading at table or walking around. I also sometimes read while taking walks around the neighborhood (while, yes, trying to avoid walking into things, sometimes unsuccessfully!). Walking around with my head buried in a book probably looks a bit strange, but whatever. I spend so much time sedentary in front of my computer writing that it's nice to get up and get moving, and I tend to think better while walking anyway. Finally, I do sometimes read in bed, but I normally reserve that time for intellectually lighter things, such as novels or historical biographies, as I don't like to get my mind too active on philosophical problems at night (I have a sleep disorder which makes it hard enough to sleep as it is!).

Anyway, these are just my reading habits. What are yours, and why?

Moving on from your dissertation?

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

Is it usual/acceptable to switch to another research area for a grad student after finishing their thesis? Is it a good idea to mention it in one's research statement?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks. My take here may be a bit controversial. I think that while one should of course try to publish material from one's dissertation, it can be really good to move onto another area after finishing the dissertation. Indeed, I think that focusing too much on similar stuff as dissertation after finishing it can be a bit of a trap, for several reasons.

Online teaching & alt-ac certifications?

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

Is this a certification that is meaningful? Does anyone know anything about it?

https://yougotclass.org/register.cfm?action=add&certificate=16

I have to confess that I don't know much about this kind of thing. It might be good to hear from readers, including which kinds of certifications might be helpful for obtaining 'alt-ac' jobs in industries outside of the academy. Given how expensive these kinds of certifications appear to be, it might be worth hearing whether any of them are worth it, and if so, precisely which kinds. Alternatively, are there good free or low-cost options available that early-career academics should consider instead?

How can we help you? (June 2022)

Now that it's been a little 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.

When to submit to journals in grad school?

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

I'm sure you get questions like this all the time so feel free to direct me to an answer if one already exists. But does anyone have a good metric for when a paper is ready to submit for publication as an early to mid stages grad student - when someone tells you you might get a publication out of it? It's accepted at any conference? It's accepted at an APA? You just feel good enough about it!? I assume none of these things are necessary, but do people take any to be sufficient?

These are excellent questions. I feel like we have discussed these issues sometime before, but if we have I can't quite track them down. My sense is that the best thing to do here is probably to have a few faculty in one's grad program read the paper to see whether they think it is ready. What do you all think?

Spring sounds

Publishing in a book series?

A reader writes in:

I have a question that seems to not have been asked before, and for which it is hard to get good advice...Here it is:

For your first monograph, is a series 'less prestigious' than a standalone publication with the same publisher?

I've had my book under review with a publisher for a while now. A few days ago, I got notice that the second reviewer just never got back to the editor anymore, did not answer emails anymore etc. So now the editor decided to instead send the manuscript to the editors of a series with the same publisher (without asking me first). I did not expect that change of course.

Spontaneously, I think I'd rather send my manuscript to a different publisher, than to have it 'relegated' to a series. But am I overreacting? In my training, I was told to be careful in choosing the publisher of my book (it's my first book). The prestige of the publisher can make quite a difference for an early career researcher, they said. And I did not wait so long with publishing my book just to have it part of a series, is my thought.

What do you think, am I right in assuming that a series is 'less prestigious' than a standalone publication with the same publisher?

And: Is that even legitimate what the editor does - or would I have a right that he looks for a new second reviewer for the original plan to have the book published as a standalone publication? He kind of seemed to imply 'either series or not at all', but I'm not sure whether he'd really stick to that if I pushed on that. It's not my fault the second reviewer was a no-show.

These are excellent questions, and to be honest, I'm not sure what the answers to most of them are. I certainly don't think I would think less of a book published in a series, but then again, my viewpoint may not be very representative and maybe it depends on the press and series? In terms of whether what the editor did was legitimate, it does seem a bit odd to me for the editor not to have asked first whether you'd be willing to publish in the series, etc. But I guess my basic thought is this: if it is an otherwise good press, why care? As the common saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I'd prefer to know that my book is coming out with a good press rather than turn them down and risk a worse outcome with other presses. And honestly, at the end of the day, isn't it the quality of your work that really matters? Then again, this may just reflect my own values and tolerance for risk. 

What do you all think?

Alt-ac careers podcast: 'Off Campus.'

A reader wrote in to draw my attention to a cool new podcast, Off Campus., featuring interviews with academics who left the academy for alternative ('alt-ac') careers. Here's the full podcast description:

Each episode features a guest who has completed substantive postgraduate education in the humanities and who currently works in an alt-ac career. By listening to their stories, this podcast aims to shed light on life beyond the academe, what scholarship can do in the broader world, as well as how graduate training in the humanities helps or fails to help us prepare for the path off campus. Listen to the entire podcast here.

There are three episodes up so far, and it looks to be a great series that many of this blog's readers might find helpful!

Tips/steps for getting a job outside of the US?

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

I would like to know more about the first steps in a philosophy career outside the USA, especially in Europe but within analytic philosophy. Almost all online info that I’ve found was about the US. My biggest questions are:

1. Is the field so competitive, that after the PhD one will usually find temporary positions which are geographically distant?
2. Is it typical for someone to move a lot in the first years of their career (between different countries or even hemispheres)?
3. Is job security low, and is there a real risk of becoming unemployed and not being able to find another position?
4. What other difficulties are there, if any?
5. In order for one to advance, must there be a free position (for example, a free lecturer position)? Or can someone advance just by performing well and by publishing?
6. Again, concerning the job markets outside the US: is it easier to find an academic position if one specializes in applied ethics?
7. How difficult would it be to find a non-academic job in fields such as business ethics, ethics of technology or bioethics? Is the level of competition very high or is training in the relevant field required?

This is a lot of questions, but they are all good ones, and it would be great to hear some answers from people in the know, such as US PhDs who have gotten jobs outside of the US (particularly Europe) and people who serve on search committees abroad.

What do you all think? If people from abroad do chime in with tips, it would be great to hear which country you are in, as this might lend greater context to your tips/insights!

Online, competency based schools & the academic job market

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

I am an early-career philosopher who has obtained temporary full-time positions at a liberal arts college and an R1 state school. I have an interview at an online, competency-based learning school. The ability to work online, obtain a non-temporary position, and solve a two-body problem is attractive, but I admit it is not the kind of position I had in mind for my career. Does anyone have any insight as to whether departments devalue having work experience at such an institution, should I later decide to try to make the move "back" to "traditional" schools?

This is an interesting question, and I'm not at all sure what the answer is. I guess I'd be curious to hear more about what the school is like, how akin to university teaching the opportunity is, whether it would leave any time to publish, and whether it is secure full-time employment with good opportunities for advancement (if, for example, one stayed in the position long-term). While I do wonder how search committees might see this, it could be a really good opportunity all-things-considered, and many universities seem to me to value online teaching experience these days (particularly post-COVID). Do any readers have any tips or insights here, particularly (but not only) search committee members?

New paper in Synthese: 'Panpsychism and AI Consciousness'

(Update: a read-only preprint can be viewed here)

 

This is just a quick note that I have a new paper with Corey J. Maley (University of Kansas), 'Panpsychism and A.I. Consciousness', out in Synthese. We use the distinction between digital and analog computing to argue that if panpsychism about consciousness is true, then digital A.I. may be incapable of realizing any kind of coherent first-personal experience--and that this also challenges Giuilo Tononi's Integrated Information Theory of consciousness.

 

Our argument also informs a partner paper that my former student Micah Summers (Florida State University) and I have forthcoming in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 'Two New Doubts About Simulation Hypotheses', where we argue that if panpsychism or panqualityism about consciousness is true, then (contra Chalmers) virtual realities aren't fully real, and (contra Bostrom) the probability that we live in a simulation is immeasurably small.