The Philosophers' Cocoon

Using notes while interviewing?

In our October “how can we help you?” thread, MT asks:

Is it inappropriate for a job applicant to look at prepared notes to answer questions during an in-person interview?

This is a great question. I did this sometimes did this in interviews and know other people who did too—and in my experience it can seem fairly obvious on the hiring side whether someone is glancing at notes or not. I don’t think it is “inappropriate”, but what I am much less sure about is whether it’s a good idea. Another reader submitted the following reply:

Having been on the other side of the table, I know some colleagues are dismayed when candidates read notes, etc., even for talks. It strikes some as contrived, and suggests that candidate is either excessively nervous or does not have a handle on what they are talking about. But if you are consulting your notes in order to get some fact right in answering a question, then go ahead and do it, as long as you can find the fact. That said, some of us are human (too human :)), and we are just looking for a decent person who is qualified for the job - and much of this can be discerned from a c.v., a few published papers, and a coverletter. Personally, I am a bit sceptical about letters from supervisors, etc., due to inflation. How many young Wittgensteins did Hilary Putnam teach!? Where are they now?!

I am entirely on this person’s side. I don’t see what’s so bad about referring to notes. Interviews are difficult, unnatural, pressure-filled situations—so much so that it can be easy to forget something important or even simply blank out. Notes can be really helpful, then. But, as this reader points out, some of their colleagues seem to look down on those who use notes. So, what to do? Is using notes too much of a risk? I’m not sure.

It might be good to hear from other search committee members to get their take. In your experience, is it okay if a candidate appears to glance at notes, or is it a big “no-no”?

Publishing in special issues of lower-ranked journals, or not all?

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

If you have an article/paper/chapter that you are never going to publish elsewhere, is it better to publish it in a special issue of a lower-ranking journal than not publishing it at all? I've heard mixed advice on this.

For context, I'm thinking of special issues of journals most people haven't heard of, but that semi well-known philosophers have published in, or will also be publishing in in the special issue.

I'm thinking well-known philosophers being in the special issue (or in previous issues) kind of "legitimizes" the journal, but when looking at a CV, you don't get to see that, which can potentially be seen as a negative by search committees.

This question is also applicable to "non-elite" edited books (e.g., not Cambridge Companions).

This is a good question. My attitude on this is: if you think it's good work, publish it. There are several reasons why I think this:

1. Empirical evidence suggests that search committees actually look favorably on a CV with 'weak' publications, provided the candidate also has good publications. 
2. My own informal data collection on the job market years ago coheres with this, as did my own experience as a job candidate--particularly for jobs at 'teaching schools', which in my experience care far less about where you publish and more about how consistently you do. In fact, nothing in my experience as a job candidate or thereafter supported the advice that I too was given in grad school to "avoid publishing in bad journals." The more publications in lower-ranked journals I got, the more interviews I got. They also helped me to get tenure, and since getting tenure, I've been able to publish more consistently in better journals.
3. In addition to probably helping rather than hurting job candidates, publishing in lower-ranked journals can build confidence. They certainly did for me. It feels good to get work out there rather than have one's hard work stuck unpublished in a computer folder.
4. Recent evidence suggests that articles in lower-ranked journals are cited quite a bit, which can only help on the market and in a tenure and/or promotion case. Here again, this coheres with my experience. Some of my most-cited work is in lower-ranked journals.
5. It's your damn work! If you think it's good, get it out there. If it is good, then good, openminded philosophers will notice and not care about where it's published. :)

But, of course, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

When to move on from grad program letters?

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

When is it OK (or even a good idea) to stop using recommendation letters from your PhD advisor in job applications? My former advisor is great, we have a good relationship, and I have every reason to think their letters for me are strong. But as a postdoc who's several years out from their PhD, it's starting to feel weird to rely on the testimony of someone who's sort of professionally obligated to say nice things about me. (I have good letters from others outside my PhD program I could use instead.)

On the other hand, I've heard it said that search committees might interpret it as a sign of bad blood or other weird dynamics if a pre-TT person doesn't submit a letter from their advisor. That's a false impression I'd like to avoid giving.

This is a good question, and I think it probably pertains not only to your grad advisor but also to other well-known people in your grad program (such as the rest of your dissertation committee).

My honest answer is: I'm not sure. I continued to use letters from my advisor and dissertation committee for the entire seven or so years that I was on the tenure-track market--one rationale being that it would indeed probably look weird not to have letters by them (hiring committees might wonder, "Do they no longer support him?"). On the other hand, recognizing that it would probably also look weird to only have letters by my committee, I eventually expanded my batch of letters to include three or four outside letters. The only issue with that was that many jobs only allow 3 letters, so I often found myself having to choose which ones to include (and hope that the hiring committee would see in my CV that I had other recommenders as well).

Anyway, I'm not sure what to advise. It would be good to hear from others 'in the know' here, particularly search committee members!

Typepad problems

This is just a quick note that Typepad's user interface has been having problems today, making it impossible to login, moderate, and post. Things seem to be working okay for the moment, but if you have submit a comment and it takes a long time to appear, this is what is going on!

Editing half-baked drafts into publishable work?

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

People say most of the work of writing a publishable paper comes out in the editing process. Let's say you have a first draft. Can you advise on the way to edit a half-baked piece of writing into a polished work of philosophy? Sometimes it's easy to get "stuck in your head" or overly perfectionistic to the point that you give up on the draft altogether. Thanks.

This is a great question, and a couple of other readers submitted replies to weigh in. An Easter Coaster writes:

James, I would do the Mumford method, https://sites.google.com/site/stephendmumford/the-mumford-method with intellectual peers you respect.

I find this an interesting suggestion, because I basically do everything Mumford says not to do! I mostly just draft papers from beginning to end, working out my ideas on paper but using the drafting of the paper's introductory paragraph as more or less the paper's "outline" so that I at least know where I am headed. Then, after a half-baked version is done, I basically go through the paper from the very beginning again and again day after day, progressively refining the ideas and writing from beginning to end. Because I always start from the beginning each day, the early parts of the paper get polished more quickly, but over a period of time the whole thing ends up polished. This seems to work well for me at least, but if you haven't tried Mumford's method, it seems probably worth a shot!

Another reader writes:

I found that making it into a talk helps. Talks are different from papers, but the process of making a paper into a talk really helps myself rethink each argumentative step in the paper. If I can't comfortably say something to an imaginary audience, or find myself being unsure about the transition from one point to another, then I know I need to revise something or rethink the order of presentation.

I've found this to be helpful too, though I normally only do it if I have a talk to give! One nice thing about it is that if you use PowerPoint for talks (like I do), then the size of a PowerPoint slide constrains how much stuff you can cram into a slide. I've found that this is helpful, in that it can encourage you to break each step in the argument down to a clear, manageable number of points (which can also be helpful in deciding where to place paragraph breaks when writing). I'll also just ad that actually giving talks (at conferences) can be really helpful in terms of turning a half-baked draft into a polished piece, as audience feedback can be really helpful in determining what you need to fix/polish.

But these are just a few quick thoughts. What are yours? How do you turn half-baked drafts into polished, publishable work? Any specific tips for the OP?

Moving away from one's dissertation area on the market?

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

I'm a senior grad student finishing up my thesis. I'm finding that there's not much more to say within my thesis research area, and I've also recently found new interest in a different and less studied area of philosophy. Would there be problems when it comes to trying to get a job that I no longer want to work on my original area of specialization and want to switch tracks on to a new topic that would require me to start almost from scratch?

This seems to me like it would be probably be a big mistake for a grad student just heading out on the market. Although I moved into a number of different research areas myself while on the market--and it seemed to help me on the market in due time--it also took me a number of years to do so. I also didn't give up on my dissertation project, but instead took time to publish articles based on it while publishing in different areas.

My worry is that if the OP simply moves away from their dissertation, they will look they either can't stick with a project or like their dissertation project was not a fruitful one. Hiring committees want a clear sense of who you are and why you're likely to publish well (e.g. for tenure, etc.), and for someone coming out of grad school a dissertation is supposed to be a major piece of this picture. Again, I don't think there would be anything wrong with the OP beginning to branch out into other areas--but abandoning one's dissertation area for a new area altogether seems to me to be incredibly risky. Then again, if the new research program is super, who knows?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Cover letters for junior vs. senior jobs?

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

What, if any, differences should there be between cover letters for associate professor positions and assistant professor positions?

I'm not sure - I'd be curious to hear answers from people in the know!

When to let your school know of a potential lateral move?

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

Suppose you are in a TT position and you are shortlisted for another. Assuming that you would remain in your current school if they offered you more, when should you talk with the head of your department? Once you have been shortlisted (offering not to go to the interview)? Once you have been selected?

Good questions. My sense is that you should only let your department chair/school know once you have an actual outside offer in hand. Up until that point, you don't actually have any bargaining power, and if you go to your department head any earlier, there's a risk that you could alienate people at your university but end up stuck there anyway (if, for example, they know that you want to leave but you don't get any offers). In fact, I was always told that you should only let an employer know about an outside offer if you would be willing to accept the offer and actually leave--as there is always some risk that if you let your employer know, your employer will say (in essence), "Goodbye and good luck!" And indeed, I know of some universities that basically don't make counteroffers in cases like these to retain people. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Should job applicants always submit teaching letters?

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

A question about teaching letters (i.e. letters of recommendation speaking to your teaching abilities). I've not seen any job ad specifically asking for a teaching letter, but for something like 3 letters of recommendation. Is it just expected that applicants submit a teaching letters along with their other letters?

I'm very curious to hear what other readers, but my impression is that in general, yes, applicants are standardly expected to submit at least one teaching letter, and that it would look very strange not to. Now, perhaps there are some exceptions to this (postdoc positions without teaching expectations, etc.), but in most jobs one will be expected to teach--and my experience is that some search committee members think that teaching letters provide vital information about what a job applicant is actually like in the classroom. After all, student evaluations can be misleading, and--absent teaching letters by other faculty describing the applicant's performance in the classroom--all that a hiring committee otherwise has to go on is the applicant's own teaching materials.

So, I think that in most (if not all) cases, it would be a huge mistake not to include a teaching letter when applying for jobs. However, when I think back to my time on the job market, I also recall that this can generate something of a conundrum. Suppose that one has, say, 5 letters in total--maybe 4 'research' letters and 1 'teaching letter.' In my experience, many job application portals only permit an applicant to upload three letters. This means that an applicant in the position just described has to (somehow!) send their teaching letter along with only 2 research letters. But, how in the world is one supposed to decide which research letters to send? Obviously, one might worry that leaving out not one but two of one's research letters might put one at a disadvantage (at least compared to how competitive one might be if one were able to send all of one's letters). So, this might lead one to wonder: should I perhaps leave out my teaching letter so that I can at least submit one more of my research letters?

Perhaps this is the situation the OP is in--I don't know. But what should applicants do in these kinds of situations? Is it possible to ask search committee chairs to submit additional letters? Or, perhaps, if the job is at an R1, might it be advisable to ask the search chair whether it would be better to submit 3 research letters (leaving out the teaching letter)? I'm curious to hear what readers in the know think!

Petitioning an editor to reconsider a verdict?

A reader wrote in recently with the following kind of question, which I paraphrase (with their consent) to preserve their anonymity:

If you submit a paper to a journal, the referees provide mixed verdicts (one positive, one negative) and your paper is rejected, does it ever make sense to petition an editor to reconsider their decision, particularly if you think the negative report is flimsy, unfair, etc.? Have any readers tried this? If so, did your petition work?

We actually discussed this issue a few years ago, and the few comments there were illuminating. But I think it might be helpful to hear from more readers, as well as perhaps from some editors!

 

'Cross-training' opportunity in philosophy & psychological sciences (Templeton grant @Baylor)

The following opportunity has been brought to my attention:

Thanks to a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation, we are pleased to announce a Request for Proposals for cross-training opportunities with the psychological sciences, run by Dr. Devan Stahl (PI), Dr. Natalie Carnes, Dr. Anne Jeffrey, Dr. Sarah Schnitker, Dr. JoAnn Tsang.. Those working in any discipline that engages theological inquiry are welcome to apply (moral theology, philosophy, aesthetics, etc.). This program will help successful applicants build supportive and collaborative interpersonal relationships with other scholars interested in the psychological sciences interested in working on research of interest to theologians. 

In addition to one funded year of cross training, successful applicants will then have the opportunity to apply for an additional $45,000 of salary funding for additional training and $5,000-40,000 for a collaborative empirical study with a psychology lab in subsequent years. 

If you or a colleague is interested in exploring issues relevant to Christian theology and philosophy, especially virtue, suffering and vulnerability, and religious aesthetics please consider applying. 

Applications are due February 1, 2023. For more information on this project, and for the details of the funding request, please see the attached PDF and visit our website: https://www.baylor.edu/ethics/index.php?id=986085

Questions should be directed to crosstraining@baylor.edu.

How to become a journal editor?

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

How to become a journal editor? Is the correct answer: "become famous and be invited"? Is the more detailed answer: publish in the journal, review for the journal, guest-edit for the journal, get invited to serve the editorial board, get invited to become AE and eventually get invited to become the EiC?

I have the luck of being invited to the editorial board of my favourite journal (after publishing, reviewing and editing special issues for the journal - and other journals). I have met the EiC, and the line of communication is open. Can I simply express my interest to the editor(s) - perhaps after serving the journal well from the board position? I guess it is the EiC who nominates associate editors, but when it comes to nominating EiC, does, for instance, the publisher have an opinion/veto etc.? I think the discussion on this might be useful for others as well - given the large number of submissions any decent journal receives, it would be good if more people were willing to become editors.

These are excellent questions, and I'd love to hear from readers in the know.

Journals & conflict of interest declarations

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

I recently submitted a paper to Phil Studies, which was sent back by Springer's editorial office because I didn't include a conflict of interest statement *in the blinded manuscript*.

I have never been required to do this before, and it seems quite obvious that this potentially violates the manuscript's anonymity. For example, my research is funded by a scholarship that is only awarded once every year, so it is very easy to deduce my identity.

Has anyone heard of such requirements before? I just cannot quite comprehend that this is the policy at Springer journals, but maybe I'm missing something.

I have to confess that I've puzzled over this too, as it has happened to me too. Another reader submitted the following reply:

Once one of my manuscripts was bounced back for the same reason, but then all they wanted me to write down was a line that essentially said, "Here is my statement on conflicts of interest. There aren't any". So, it did not violate anonymity, but it did feel silly.

This seems right (it's what I've done too), but it still raises the questions: (1) Why are some journals now doing this?, and (2) is there any (justified) point to it?

Should job candidates update their letters?

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

I'm on the job market for the second time this year, and I'm wondering if I should ask all of my letter writers to update their letters. My advisor is updating his to reflect new publications and awards, but do the others need to? I'm especially curious if it's recommended to ask the writer of the teaching letter of rec to update their letter, since I've taught several new classes and won a teaching award since last year.

Good question. I think an updated teaching letter might help. However, my sense is that the most important thing in a teaching letter tends to be the letter-writer providing a detailed account of a teaching observation--that is, of their experience of you actually teaching in the classroom. This, in my experience, is the real value of teaching letters: they describe what the rest of a candidate's teaching portfolio cannot--what someone else's experience of their classroom performance is like.

Consequently, if the author of the OP's teaching letter has anything to add in that regard since last year (i.e. if they have observed you teach since last year), then updating the teaching letter might make a lot of sense. However, I'm not sure that updating it otherwise will really make a difference (i.e. simply because you've won a teaching award and taught more courses). Then again, updating the letter probably can't hurt--and it could help, right?

Similarly, in terms of whether candidates should update all of their letters each year, again I'm not sure. But I suppose it probably can't hurt, and could help--particularly if you've accomplished things that might lead to stronger letters. So why not ask? 

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What do you all think? It might be helpful to hear from search committee members!

Explaining your work to non-philosophers?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Recent Grad asks:

How do you explain your work to non-philosophers in small talks or non-academic interviews? I recently went from philosophy grad school to a non-academic job market, where potential employers and colleagues love to ask me to explain the research I did. My work was quite theoretical (some issues in epistemology and meta-ethics), and I don't know a good way to explain my work to them in a short conversation. Most people either have a hard time understanding the topics or don't see why they are meaningful. But I HAVE TO make an interesting conversation that makes them happy and satisfied!

I feel tempted to pretend that my research was in an area that they might find more interesting, perhaps political philosophy or ethics, but I'm also reluctant to do so - after all, I spent several years of my life studying the theoretical issues (sometimes even meta-theoretical issues).

I would appreciate any advice!

This is a great question. We had some helpful advice for philosophers seeking non-academic jobs in our Alt-Ac Transition Tips and Alt-Ac Workshop. But I wonder whether any readers might be able to help with the OP's question specifically?

Good questions for job applicants to ask?

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

Could those who have served on hiring committees say what are some important questions they would expect job applicants to ask the hiring committee members during an interview?

Good question! ;) I suspect this is something that many job-applicants have puzzled over, as indeed I did when I was an applicant. Any search committee members care to weigh in on the kinds of questions that might come across well (or poorly)?

How are pieces in pop culture volumes viewed?

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

How do people (especially those on hiring committees, tenure committees, etc.) view publications in special volumes on pop cultural topics? E.g., Philosophy and Dragons, The Ethics of Middle-earth? Is there any professional value? Does it leave a negative impression?

Good questions. My sense is that the answers to them may depend a lot on the kind of college or university in question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I was editing a volume for a leading press, and one of the referees objected to the inclusion of a paper by an author of one of these popular pieces - this is merely a correlation. They never explicitly mentioned the publications. But I doubt this helped the person.

It's honestly a bit shocking to me that someone would object to including an author in an edited volume simply because the author published a pop culture piece. Then again, the longer that I've been in academia, the fewer things surprise me. There are always naysayers, and I have little doubt that some people may look down on these kinds of publications. On the other hand, I know someone at a teaching-focused university whose pop culture piece was one of the main things their tenure committee focused on in favor of tenure. They loved it, as apparently did the university's administrators. 

I'm curious to hear what other people think, particularly people who have served on hiring or tenure committees. I've written two pieces for pop culture volumes, and frankly I don't care what anyone thinks of it! I doubt they've had much (if any) "professional value" for me, but I've enjoyed writing them tremendously and think philosophy as a discipline can only benefit from this kind of stuff.

Moderating note for this week

This is just a quick note that I am out of the country this week in a much later time zone. As a result, comments may take some time to appear, particularly if they are submitted later in the day, US-time. Many thanks in advance for your patience! 

How do search committees handle unresponsive references?

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

In cases where job applications just ask for the contact details of reference writers, rather than require them to upload their letter: what happens when a reference is slow or even fails to respond when they are eventually contacted? I have a very unresponsive reference and if it's a matter of them uploading their letter by a certain deadline I can pester them until they've done it, but if they will be contacted by the search committee at some unknown time there is less I can do. Would the search committee in such a case tell the candidate that they cannot get hold of one of their references, so that I could then try to contact them myself? Or does it just mean that they won't have the reference letter and which potentially harms the application.

Two readers submitted similar follow-ups. A postdoc writes:

Interfolio is great for this situation. For each application, you can use an email generated by Interfolio and connected to your reference, so an Interfolio employee can upload this letter on behalf of your reference. See: https://product-help.interfolio.com/en_US/managing-letters-and-requests/upload-a-confidential-letter-to-an-online-application-system

And a previous job candidate of many years writes:

if you are using interfolio, supply the interfolio email address for your referees instead of their personal emails. (Everyone should be doing this anyway!) Then, so long as the letter gets uploaded to interfolio, interfolio will automatically send it in response. (You should also put your references' actual email addresses somewhere prominent, e.g. your c.v., in case anything goes wrong.) I advise my students to list references on a cv with first a line that says "to request reference: INSERT INTERFOLIO EMAIL" and then a second line with their actual email. Some HR people and departments don't understand that interfolio has this function, so they may tell you that you can't use it if you ask. That's annoying since in typical cases they are wrong--interfolio can do a lot of things!--but I guess in that case you just need to hope for the best. (Though I would still make sure the interfolio addresses are listed on your cv in case they decide to try.)

This is how I handled the issue too. But, supposing the OP hasn't done this, how would you answer their questions? That is, how do search committees handle this kind of situation?

Do search committees see voluntary demographic info?

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

Is it really the case that search committees do not have access to the "voluntary self-identification" of race, gender, etc? I know there are other ways of ascertaining this information, but I wonder how much of the confidentiality of this information is BS.

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I worked at a university in the US - faculty members NEVER have access to the voluntary self-identification information on race, gender, etc. From my experience, it works in your favour to file out the form in the USA if you are from a protected class. Someone's status as a veteran, for example, may affect their prospects of moving forward in a search.

Any other search committee members care to weigh in?

A case for medium-termism

There has been a lot of discussion of ‘longtermism’ recently—in TIME, The New York Times, and social media. Some people think longtermism is great. Others think it’s dangerous. I have concerns about how it is likely to be misused too. But mostly, I just think it’s philosophically mistaken.

The idea that we should care more about the long term sounds great, inspiring even—and I think it’s true, at least with a bit of moderation. But, on that note, I think something a lot less sexy sounding—medium-termism—is more defensible. More defensible, ironically enough, from a long-term perspective!

Longtermism gives moral priority to the long-term future. One major idea is that the number that people that might exist in the future could be vastly greater than the number of people living now. We might colonize other planets, or even create vast numbers of digital people in simulations who could live happy lives—happier lives, perhaps, than us.

So, the thought is, the future matters more from moral point-of-view than the present or near-future (i.e. the medium-term). Morally speaking, every person matters equally. But there are vastly more possible future people than people who live today or have lived in the past. So, the future should matter to us more than the present, the short-term, or even the medium term.

Never mind that digital people probably aren’t possible (consciousness appears to be fundamentally analog, not digital). But setting this aside, to see what I think is wrong with longtermism, imagine applying an analogous line of reasoning to your own life as an individual.

When to upload to PhilPapers?

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

When is the right time to put a paper on philpapers? When it is accepted? When it is published? Thanks!

These are good questions that I imagine other early career readers might wonder about. Another reader submitted the following reply:

You should post the basic information about an article mon PhilPapers, including the abstract, when the paper is formally accepted. But you should check the publication agreement you signed in order to determine when and what you post, if you plan to post a copy of the paper. Incidentally, people will often contact you for a copy of your paper, even if you do not post it - provided you provide an abstract.

This sounds right, but one issue I’ve had is that some publishing agreements only let you post a “pre-peer-review” version of your paper on preprint server—that is, the version of your paper when you initially sent it to the journal, before any revisions. I wouldn’t want to post that version of my paper because it’s not the final version, so sometimes I’m not sure what to do other than link to the published version along on the journal’s website.

What do you all think/do?

Proofing problems in academic publishing

This is, in the grand scheme of things, a rather minor problem (assuming that it is one). Still, I want to discuss it because I think it is a problem, and--in part because I am an author that it has happened to--I am curious what, if anything, can be done about it. What's the problem, exactly? A decline in the quality of proofing in academic publishing.

As an example of what I have in mind, I came across this paper via social media today, which was published last week in Earth-Science Reviews:

Seriously! This journal published an article on its website without recognizing that the 'title' is a nonsensical snippet of an editorial comment relating to the paper's formatting.

Obviously, there's a sense in which this is pretty funny. But there's another sense in which it's not. The paper is someone's hard work, and this isn't just any out of the way journal: it's published by Elsevier, a major publishing company with a revenue of $2.6 billion that is home to many well-respected journals, including Cognition.

Becoming competitive for lateral moves?

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

Given the structure of the market these days, it seems almost impossible to wait for the right fit when applying for one's first job. My question is slightly different, however: what ought one do at one's first job to be appealing to jobs where one wants to lateral? Is there anything unique that would be beneficial (travel, presentations, networking) that applies less for seeking the first job than for seeking the lateral to the right fit?

I know this is a touchy conversation, but it's also a very real and necessary one.

These are good questions, and I confess that don't know the answers. It would be great to hear from people who have made lateral moves, as well as from people who have been on the hiring side of things!

Should research statements be interconnected?

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

Say you have two separate research projects, one in each of your areas of specialization. From the hiring committee side, do you want to see how these two projects are connected, even if the narrative the persons tells to do so seems a bit, shall we say, fluffed up? I think this is especially tricky for someone who justifiably claims an AOS in a historical area + a standard area (epistemology, ethics). If I wrote a dissertation on Spinoza theory of action and also work on forgiveness, should I really be trying to say something about their connection?

Where I am coming from is that I've seen research statements written as what amounts to a standalone essay on one's research that brings in past and future projects, and I've seen research statements that begin with a basic overview paragraph and then just describe papers and monographs on their own, leaving it to the reader to find the connections. I could see the person I describe above opting for the latter, but then someone thinking: What's the connection between this ethics stuff and the Spinoza?

It just seems right to me that not all of one's research need be so connected. Our actual philosophical interests often don't often fall into AOS categories, and when they don't, why bother trying to find some story that unifies them instead of just saying: I like X; and I like Y?

But if the answer is that hiring committees like that, then I'm willing to play ball.

These are good questions, and my answer is: I'm not sure. My sense is that search committees probably care more about how interesting they find your research and how fruitful and well-developed your research program(s) are (does it look likely that you will be able to publish consistently beyond your dissertation and a few papers?). But maybe some people do want to see interconnections between different research programs. I don't know. What do you all think? It would be great to hear from some hiring committee members!

Why three reviewers?

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

I have submitted a paper to a special issue of Synthese, and it is now under review of the third reviewer. Is it normal to get a paper reviewed by more than two reviewers (in my case, three) in a special issue? Does this mean that there are conflicting suggestions from the first two reviewers?

Another reader, "ref", responded:

Yes, there probably was a split verdict, but one was promising enough to warrant a 3rd opinion

This seems probable to me, but I wonder whether journals sometimes commission three reviewers even without a split verdict. Any editors care to weigh in?

Updating apps for jobs interviewed for before?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a non-TT faculty member asks:

I got into the final stage interview last round somewhere. I plan to apply for that place again for virtually the same position. Should I highlight in the cover letter the differences in my publication, teaching experience, research proposal etc.?

Good question. I wouldn't highlight the differences, at least not in the sense of explicitly saying things like "I published X, Y, and Z since interviewing for your position last year." Instead, I would just update your materials (and cover letter) to reflect your current accomplishments, as you would for any other job. Chances are, if you interviewed or were a finalist for the department's position previously, they think very highly of you (the only caveat being that if your on-campus interview did not go well, they might have been turned off). You never know whether you'll be interviewed again, as every applicant pool is different. But I think, all things being equal, if you're a better candidate than you were before, that should come across in your materials regardless.

Then again, this is just my reaction. What's your? It would be great to hear from search committee members!

What is a 'short writing sample'?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a philosopher on the job market asks:

What is a 'short writing sample?'

I've seen a couple of jobs ads posted where what is requested is a 'short writing sample'. What does that mean? Does it mean under 20 pages? Under 10? Any guesses from those with experience?

I have a conference paper that I've presented once and that I am revising into something larger, and I'm wondering if that would be appropriate (I think it might be of interest for this particular job too). But then I always assumed, rightly I think, that conference papers should not be used as writing samples.

I have to confess that when I was on the market, I wondered about this too. I also found it rather frustrating, as I've always thought that most of my best work is pretty long. So, sometimes I wondered whether I should just submit an abridged version of an article. But that also seemed to me to be risky, so I never quite knew what to do here.

Another reader submitted the following reply to the OP:

It probably varies. I'd just ask the person listed in the ad. If you have only one paper that qualifies as even close to short, send it.

Fair enough, but given how common these types of ads can be, it might be helpful to get a general picture from search committees about what they have in mind when they ask for a 'short' sample. Any search committee members willing to chime in?

Competing for jobs w/o solo teaching experience?

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

Can my publication record and overall fit for the job outweigh a lack of solo teaching experience? I have plenty of teaching assistant experience, but have no solo experience yet. I'm nearing the end of my PhD program and have found a job to apply for that's perfect for me.

This is a good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I would imagine that this very much depends on the kind of job you're applying to. Postdoc? Yes, your publication record and fit can probably outweigh your lack of teaching experience. TT position at an R1? Possibly. TT position in a teaching-focused institution? Almost certainly not.

This reply seems broadly right to me, though perhaps a bit overstated. Insofar as R1 departments care most about research, I have to imagine that a stellar researcher who's a good fit for a position would be very competitive. As for jobs at teaching-focused schools, lack of solo teaching experience is definitely a negative. Hiring committees not only want to know whether you can teach well on your own. They also want to know whether you can do so with a full course load, as it's one thing to teach one course well at a time, another thing entirely to teach 3 or 4 courses well at the same time (as in a job with a 3/3 or 4/4 teaching load). Insofar as you'll be going up against other job candidates who do have solo teaching experience (and a strong record of solo teaching), being competitive for a job at a teaching school is likely to be an uphill battle. Still, it's not impossible, and if you are a stellar candidate who knocks the committee's socks off in various ways, then you very well might be competitive--at least to get an interview, and if the interview goes well, an on-campus, etc. Anything, as they say, is possible. So why not apply?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be good to hear from search committee members, as well as from current or previous job candidates who went on the market without solo teaching experience!

Applying to jobs just after starting a TT job?

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

Is it frowned upon to have a new tenure-track position, and to be applying out to a different one? For various reasons, it is already clear that this place is not a good fit for my family. But it feels bad to be applying out, especially since the department invested in me and may not get a replacement line.

Good question. Two readers submitted helpful replies. One reader writes:

You do what you gotta do. If your family is terribly unhappy, then you have got to look into other options. Of course the people who hired you will be disappointed ... but they have their lives, and you have yours.

And Bill Vanderburgh adds:

It may be smart to keep your search confidential until you get an on-campus interview. But a job is just a job: you owe no special responsibilities beyond doing what you are paid to do, and you can quit anytime for any reason you like. Moving on from a tenure-track job is not unusual. Sure it costs the university something, but that is not your problem--it is just an ordinary cost of running a university. You certainly aren't required to commit your family to indefinite misery just because you accepted a job. If there is something the university could reasonably do to make the situation better (a job for your spouse, online teaching so you can live a bit farther from campus, or something like that), it might be worth asking the dean. But don't make it sound like an ultimatum (do this or I'll leave) unless you have an offer already in hand.

I agree. It may stink to the department that hired you to lose you, but no one is entitled to have you work for them! Would it be 'frowned upon' if the department you are in found out you're applying out? Almost certainly. But you are under no obligation to let them know, and I do not know of any cases of departments being 'tipped off' that one of their members is applying elsewhere. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear from people who have been in the OP's position!

The wagon has three wheels: Reimagining philosophy of action from a working class perspective

This is a guest post by Deborah Nelson

Bio: Deborah Nelson received a Master’s Degree in Philosophy from Brandeis University in 2014 and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from UCR in September 2022.  Her dissertation examined the philosophy of action literature for class-centrism and proposed advancing this literature by balancing the current focus on stability with flexibility in order to address increasing complexity in agents’ lives. She now works as an Instructional Designer at XCITE, UCR’s center for teaching and learning.

--

There’s a story my family likes to relay about my father as a child that has had a formative impact on how I approach claims about knowledge, rationality, and the evaluation thereof.  The one-sentence summary of the story is that, when he was five years old, my dad took an IQ test and only got one question wrong.  The more interesting facet of this story, though, is revealed by examining that one question.

The test question displayed a picture of a wagon with only three wheels and asked what was wrong with the wagon.  It just so happened that there was a three-wheeled wagon in regular use in my father’s household, which still functioned perfectly well, so he could not identify the problem with the wagon.  Needless to say, when I learned this story at a young age, it gave me early ideas about the ways that experience can affect how people perceive and understand the world, and the discussions in recent years of problems with IQ testing, as well as other standardized tests, have only added fuel to this fire.  These intellectual proclivities have clearly inspired my research interests and I just recently defended a dissertation at UCR which reflects them.

In my early days in philosophy, I was excited to learn that there is a whole subdiscipline dedicated to how people reason about which actions to take, but became less enthused as I learned that the concerns within it did not resemble my experiences.  Within the philosophy of action, the concerns seem to reflect that of people who enjoy economic advantage.  The agents described (directly or indirectly) as ideals in this literature are self-complete entities, who consistently resist temptation, retain stable intentions and characters, and have life-defining projects and plans, etc.  This focus seems, to my working-class-inspired mind, to ignore some central concerns and ideals for which my background prepared me.  

For the present, however, I don’t plan to criticize the current state of the literature.  Not only does it take a significant amount of space to argue for the structural biases that would inform this kind of gap between theory and experience, I just defended a whole dissertation on this topic.  Instead, I want to explore what taking up the perspectives of economically disadvantaged agents could add to the dialectic.  To that end, I want to propose three concerns which would likely garner more attention were the philosophy of action literature written by people whose backgrounds more resemble my own.  In doing so, I am not implying that the current literature could not take up these norms, but I am suggesting that were they to be taken up in a more substantial way, it would help to make that literature more salient to economically disadvantaged agents.

1. Flexibility

One of the more prominent ideals in the existing literature is that of stability; reasoners should keep their intentions and plans stable, display stable traits and characters, and must resist giving into temptation. 

How can we help you? (October 2022)

Now that it's been 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:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask 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.

'Black Nihilism and Antiblack Racism' (APA blog)

The APA Blog has a nice discussion of my colleague Devon Johnson's recent book, Black Nihilism and Antiblack Racism. Having read the book, I can confirm that it's a fascinating and worthwhile read. Chapter 2 in particular struck me as one of the more original and thought-provoking pieces of philosophy that I've read in a long while. Do check it out!