The Philosophers' Cocoon

Call for editor for Springer Global Encyclopedia of Territorial Rights (Guest post by Kevin W. Gray)

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing in my capacity as General Editor of the Springer Global Encyclopedia of Territorial Rights. We are looking to add an editor for the theory section to the project.

The aim of the Encyclopedia is to provide a comprehensive treatment of every major issue in territorial rights in the world today and every significant topic in the theory of territorial rights. The previous Section Editor was unable to continue with the project and we are looking for nominations (including self-nominations) of individuals interested in the project. We welcome nominations from scholars at every stage of their careers.

The Theory Section Editor or Editors will have a unique opportunity to shape the project by soliciting articles from scholars in the field. There are approximately 160 entries in the subsection for which authors will have to be solicited. Ideally, this is an excellent opportunity for a scholar or scholars to contribute to a large undertaking that hopes to be a central reference work in the field for many years to come.

Complete information about the project is available here: https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-3-319-68846-6.

Any interested academics are asked to send a short letter (which could be included in the body of an email) and a CV to [email protected]. In that letter, please describe your interest in the project and how you would proceed to recruit authors. We also welcome nominations from small groups of individuals who wish to serve as co-editors, particularly where such group nominations increase the geographical diversity of the project or adds other diverse perspectives to the Encyclopedia.

I hope to name the person or persons chosen shortly so that articles can be solicited during spring 2023. Most of the other sections of the Encyclopedia are nearing completion so getting the section finished will be a priority.

Best regards,

Kevin W. Gray, JD, PhD
[email protected]
www.kevinwgray.com

Adjuncting in grad school & the job market

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

I'm on the market for the first time. I have a good bit of teaching experience, but more and more I'm adjuncting at local colleges and not where I'm earning my PhD. Two questions. (1) How should one list adjuncting positions? I have a 'Teaching Experience' section of my cv that lists the courses and institutions I've taught at. But would it be good to also list 'adjunct instructor' under an 'Employment' section? My worry with this is that it'll just look cheesy or forced. (2) Will having adjuncted at a handful of schools hurt my prospects for a permanent position? My thought is that some search committees might look at my cv and think, 'Oh, nice PhD, nice publications, but this is just some professional adjunct.'

Fair questions, and I'm not entirely sure what the answers are for the job market as a whole. But I will say this: having worked and hired many times at a teaching-focused institution, I think the OP's experience adjuncting while in grad school will only help them (and may even help them significantly) when applying for positions at schools like mine.

In my experience, one of the biggest problems that new job candidates who are ABD or just out of grad school can have for jobs like these is simply not having enough solo teaching experience (particularly experience teaching multiple classes at the same time, which is much more difficult than just teaching one, as one typically does in grad school). The OP's experience adjuncting is likely to not only demonstrate greater experience in teaching, but also suggest to hiring committees that they value teaching (as they have chosen to pursue teaching opportunities rather than focus solely or primarily on research). Both of these things are likely to look good to hiring committees at teaching-focused institutions. So, if I were the OP and applying to jobs at SLACs or community colleges, I would by all means list their adjunct work under Employment, but list Employment beneath Education--as that will highlight the fact that they are still in grad school and adjuncting at the same time (which, again, I think is likely to look great for teaching-focused jobs).

What the OP should do for jobs at research institutions, on the other hand, is not as obvious to me. Should they list their adjunct work under 'Employment', or simply indicate it in the teaching experience section of the CV? I tend to think that CVs should be as perspicuous as possible (and that since adjunct work is employment, it should be listed as such), but then again, maybe that would "send the wrong message" to hiring committees at research institutions? I have no idea (maybe teaching experience will look good to them too!).

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Anyone else with suitable experience with these matters (particularly those who have served on search committees) care to weigh in?

Working at an R1 with an MA (but no PhD) program?

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

I'd be really curious to hear from those who teach at R1s without doctoral programs. In particular, I feel like the vast majority of scholars I know (and hear about) are at schools with PhD programs or those with no graduate students at all. I'd love to know the ways in which having a Masters program is and is not similar to having a PhD program and is and is not similar to not having grad students at all.

[A]nything that people might offer on teaching with a masters program (as compared to other setups) would be most appreciated!

Interesting query--any readers have any helpful insights?

Dealing with a demoralizing graduate advisor?

An anonymous reader ("grad student was wondering") writes in:

I have a difficult relationship with my advisor where I feel pretty demoralized after every meeting with them. Their style is quite harsh and it’s often unclear to me what is of value in my work (they do not ever explicitly give me positive feedback). To be clear, they provide excellent feedback but it can be really difficult to receive it. It makes it hard to feel motivated to continue working on my dissertation. What advice do people have for being motivated to work in spite of this and 2) doing something to mitigate the situation. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I'm so sorry to hear this reader is grappling with this, and hope we can help. I've had some friends deal with similar situations--advisors who regularly reduced them or other students to tears, or who were so harsh that their PhD students routinely dropped out and rarely graduated. It sure would be nice if programs more to prevent this kind of thing from happening as often as it apparently does--but while I've grappled with the more general problem that the vast majority of feedback one tends to get in academic philosophy is negative, I've never quite had to grapple with this kind of situation first-hand. So unfortunately, I'm probably not the best person to offer advice here.

But what about you, my fellow Cocooners? Do/did any of you have a harsh, demoralizing PhD advisor? If so, how did you handle it? Any helpful advice?

Holiday break and encouragement

This is just a quick note that aside from any time-sensitive queries in our December "how can we help you?" thread (which I'd be happy to put up for discussion if there are any new ones), I plan to mostly take next week off for the holidays.

Readers should of course continue to feel free to post to our job market discussion and reporting threads (which I will continue to moderate), and if you'd like to catch up on some cool new work in philosophy, do visit New Work in Philosophy or its YouTube Channel and playlist. Also, if you have any recent or forthcoming publications you'd like to discuss, Barry Maguire and I are always looking for new contributions to NWP--just email either of us at [email protected] or [email protected].

Finally, I just wanted to give all of the job-marketeers out there a word of support and encouragement. I know this is a particularly stressful time of the year if you're on the philosophy job-market. I weathered many job-market seasons, some of which went better than others, and during some of which I had received no interviews by this point. 

I know how emotionally exhausting the market can be, and how difficult it can be to deal with all of it either on your own and/or around family, or hearing how other job candidates are doing. But regardless of how your job search is going, and as hard as it may be, try to keep your head up and be kind to yourself. A lot can still happen. I didn't receive my first Visiting Assistant Professor job until late in the spring, and only received an interview for my second VAP the next year in March--and believe it or not, I've known many people over the years who received interviews for full-time jobs as late as the summer for jobs beginning in the fall. Anything can happen--my thoughts and hopes are with you all! 

Is being an international job-candidate a disadvantage?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an Australian PhD asks:

Just out of curiosity. I applied for many jobs. My estimation is that more than half of the jobs I applied for are in North America. Three years on the job market and I've been through 17 interviews. 5 are for North American jobs. (All first round, no final round compared to all other interviews being for final rounds.) So basically my interview rate for North American jobs are much lower than that of for Uk, European, Australian, New Zealand, and Middle Eastern jobs. Is this a common experience for those who got their degrees not in North America?

Fair question, though I have to say that this person's three years on the job market seem pretty spectacular to me (17 interviews is quite a lot!). It would be great to hear from other job candidates, as well as from search committee members. Is being an international candidate a disadvantage on the US market?

When to turn down interviews?

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

I hesitate to ask this because it understandably might be upsetting for job candidates, but: does anyone who has had a job market season where they got a lot of interviews have advice about when, if ever before accepting an offer, to start declining first round interviews (or fly outs)? I don't want to take up spots that might have allowed someone else to get a foot in a door (this is especially relevant for fly outs, but seems to matter for first-rounds too), but also it's hard to reason about how much risk to take on.

I can see the arguments for just doing everything that you get offered until you have an actual signed offer, because the risk is so great. But I do have a lot of interviews this season and am starting to wonder if I should start selectively declining ones that are for jobs that it is harder for me to see myself in. In addition to making space for other candidates who might have just missed the cut, while knowing how very lucky I am and understanding what a (surely unfair) gift this is, it is also exhausting (especially the fly out stage) for me as well.

This is a fair question, and I appreciate the OP's desire to be considerate of other candidates. As someone who struggled on the job market for years before having two very good years my last two years on the market, here are a few quick thoughts...

'Ineffective altruism' blog (by David Thorstad)

David Thorstad (Global Priorities Institute, University of Oxford) draws my attention to his new blog, "Ineffective altruism", which advances doubts about effective altruism and longtermism.

As someone who shares many of these concerns (and more), I welcome the turning of a more critical eye toward these movements. To be clear, I very much support altruism and long-term moral thinking. I just happen to think that the prudent way to do the most good in the long-term is to treat people fairly here and now, and that this involves not concentrating wealth in the hands of supposed altruists to distribute (since this is all too likely to happen).

Instead, doing the most good that we can, or so I think, involves reforming the domestic, international, and the global socio-economic-political domains in fair ways so that all people enjoy similar rights, opportunities, and a fair division of wealth, so that we can work together (fairly!) to combat existential risks and not dominate, exploit, or (yes, rip off) each other.

Peer review and special journal issues: should early-career people publish in them?

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

When a journal does a topical special issue volume with guest editors, do those editors tend to do R&Rs like an ordinary journal submission, or are they more likely to simply accept or reject? I realize this will probably differ depending on the SI in question, but I am just trying to get a sense of what the process is like before I submit to one for the first time. Do acceptances/rejections tend to happen faster than the usual rate at that journal? Or are they slower/the same?

Relatedly, as an early career person with a real need for more publications, how do special issue pubs look on a CV to search committees? I take it that they aren't as highly valued as ordinary journal publications, but how much lower are we talking? Is it even worth submitting to them if you're early career with minimal publications?

These are all excellent questions. I don't know all that much about exactly how much the peer-review process for special journal issues differs from standard journal submissions, including whether acceptances/rejections tend to happen more quickly for the former. However, I do know that R&Rs happen (I've had some myself), and my (admittedly anecdotal) sense is that when it comes to invited submissions to special issues or edited volumes, there may be some presumption in favor of publication (whereas there is no such presumption for normal, non-invited submissions), and of course the editor for the special issue will know who you are, so the peer-review process won't be triple-anonymized.

In terms of how publications in special issues look to search committees, this is a tough one. A big part of the problem is that a search committee really doesn't know exactly what (or how rigorous) the peer-review process was. My sense is that (rightly or wrongly) some people may suspect that inclusion in a special issue may be at least as much about having good professional connections as it is about the quality of one's work--and this concern might be especially salient if it's an early-career person (and job candidate) who hasn't otherwise published much via the standard in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, I've definitely heard this kind of concern voiced before: that it's hard to know what to make of a candidate with a bunch of invited/special publications but few (or no) standard journal publications.

So, my sense (though it could be wrong) is that if you've published fairly well in peer-reviewed journals already the standard way, then publishing in special issues is probably just fine (and perhaps even a positive)--but that if you have "minimal publications" (like OP states), then submitting to special issues may not be the best way to go. It may make more sense to build up your CV with standard journal publications first.

Then again, perhaps a lot depends on the quality of the journal (e.g. is a special issue of Mind?), and perhaps I'm wrong and  special issue publications look good to some search committees (perhaps at institutions where perceived reputation matters?). Anyway, not sure. What do you all think? It would be great to hear more both about the publication process for special issues, as well as how search committees perceive/weigh such publications.

Philosophy on dying social media platforms

"I'm working through a line of thought, a feeling and an instinct. Not an original one but not one I've fully internalized or understood yet. But the way that a need to profit runs counter to the value of the internet. A need for money broke Twitter, long before the billionaire decided to do... whatever it is he's doing with it. Twitter has been aging, I think, into obsolescence for a very long time. Because the internet is evolving and shifting away from what it once was." -- DongWon Song, Literary agent

For a while now since Twitter's takeover by Musk, its users have been sensing the ship sink, not sure when or how to jump ship. One reason for this is that each social media platform has its own affordances and structures, and this importantly structures our engagement with them. I take the notion of affordances from Gibson's affordance theory (explainer here). Briefly, affordances are the way our environment shapes to behave in a certain way. The environment offers us promises (positive affordances) and threats (negative affordances). A simple example is a couch, which invites us to engage us to sit in it in a certain way, different from a hard chair without a cushion. You'll slouch in the couch due to its affordances, in a way you would never in a chair. In a similar vein, Twitter encourages a different sort of engagement compared to TikTok or Instagram, or Facebook. 

In the same way, different social media shape our engagement with others. They allow us interactions that aren't possible or a lot harder to realize in other environments. 

How does the death spiral of one or more social media platforms impact philosophy? The slow death of Twitter is not a new phenomenon. DongWon Song's observations resonate with a lot of its users. Like them, I have sensed the decline already a while ago, long before Musk bought the platform. For example, Twitter's own research had noticed that its algorithms substantially favor right-wing politicians and news outlets. 

Just speaking from my own user experience, I had noticed over the past few months that small philosophy accounts with maybe a few hundred followers that I enjoy following had become obscured by the algorithm. I went to check if they were still there. They were. I just didn't see them anymore.  So already months ago, I changed my viewing preferences so Twitter would show me the latest tweets, as more and more the same duplicate stories began to show up. I hoped this would give me again that sense of engagement and serendipitous discovery I had before. But to no avail. The platform feels hollowed out, impersonal. The capacity for thoughtful philosophical discussion dries up. 

Fashion advice for campus visits?

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

Maybe this has been asked before and I'm just having trouble finding it on the blog, but I would love some fashion advice about what to wear for a fly-out as a lady.

We actually had a discussion thread on dressing for campus-visits back in 2021, where someone linked to this thread on advice for women candidates. But I know norms are constantly changing, and if anyone has any helpful tips (particularly past job candidates and members of hiring committees!), please do feel free to weigh in!

New Work in Philosophy YouTube Channel

Barry Maguire and I extend our sincere thanks to everyone for supporting New Work in Philosophy's recent launch. It’s been amazing to see the creativity in the pieces that our first batch of authors put together, and we are grateful for the positive response that we’ve received from readers.

We are going to take a short break for the holidays, before returning with new posts in the New Year. In the meantime, we’re delighted to announce the launch of NWP’s official YouTube Channel and playlist.

We hope that this can help to give the broader public a better sense of what philosophers nowadays are actually up to.

This Channel will feature all of NWP’s video contributions in a single venue that is easy to follow and share. We’re also happy to draw attention to other philosophy channels. So, if you know any you’d like to recommend, do let us know.

As always, if you are a philosopher with published work that you’d like to share, or would like to highlight someone else’s work, we’d like to once again encourage you to pitch a post. Your post could be anything: an accessible video introduction, a blog-style post, a prezi-based discussion, animation, etc. And it doesn't need to be a summary of the paper. It could be a broader pitch that motivates the point of the paper in the larger context of a new project, a McSweeney's parody of your own writing style, etc. The more interesting, the better. We also encourage submissions by established (or somewhat established) philosophers that discuss new work by less established philosophers.

NWP already has over 700 subscribers and is consistently receiving between 2,000-3,000 visits per weekday—so if you’d to share your work or highlight the work of someone else you think warrants more attention, just email us a pitch at [email protected] or [email protected].

Happy holidays, and hope to see you all at NWP in the New Year!

Some thoughts on gatekeeping

Gatekeeping has a bad rap. Still, though we loathe it, academics do it all the time. Our institutions depend on the well functioning of various gatekeeping mechanisms--mechanisms that help discern what should be funded or published, and what doesn't.

For instance, I am associate editor for journals Ergo and for Journal of Analytic Theology. In addition, I review for journals and for academic book presses (e.g., Cambridge, Oxford, MIT, Routledge, and Mohrbeck Sie, where I am in the editorial board). I have been, and am currently, a reviewer for several grant agencies including the National Endowment for the Humanities and the British Academy. I help decision small grants and prizes for the APA Public Philosophy committee. Also, I regularly review the research of academics who come up for tenure and promotion. Until last year, I was on a committee for grad admissions at SLU, and presently I am on two search committees for jobs searches. 

So, a fair amount of my time is spent evaluating other people's work and trying to discern its quality. But how do we go about being gatekeepers? I think, inevitably, we end up being perhaps a little more conservative than we like, but we do have the power to shape the discipline. How the field advances depends on the quiet, often uncompensated labor of referees, editors, and other evaluators. 

When I got my first tenure and promotion file to review, I wondered how to adjudicate these and how to communicate to the committee if (fortunately  not the case for my first one) if I felt the file was a little thin, or if it plainly did not meet the criteria set out by the institution. I spoke about it at a conference over dinner to someone who has been an evaluator for many tenure and committee reviews. 

"Some people," this professor said over wine and quiche, "Feel somewhat squeamish about giving a negative evaluation. They'll resort to saying something bland or they try to talk up what they believe is insufficient."

"So," I asked "How about you?"

"Well I am not squeamish," he replied "I am part of academia, and tenure and promotion is part of that institution. I value tenure and the academic freedom it affords, but tenure depends on the procedure of the tenure and promotion process. While in most cases, the body of research presents a clear case in favor of tenure, it sometimes doesn't, and the committee needs to know that. I need to be honest and diligent in my assessments."

I often think back of this reply and how it can be generalized. When people violate this implicit norm/social contract, problems might arise.

Publishing a translation in grad school?

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

I work in medieval philosophy. My original training was as a classicist and I love doing translations of philosophical texts. I'm an early PhD, currently teaching fulltime but unassociated with an academic institution, with only only one publication. Both that publication and my dissertation are on the texts I want to translate for publication.

Given my CV, do I have a shot at successfully pitching a translation to a publisher, or should I wait until I've published more?

Is there a chance that a journal could be interested in publishing an article-length translation?

(I'm aware that starting a book/translation project may be a less efficient use of my time than writing articles. That's an important consideration but not what I'm asking about at the moment.)

Fair questions, and I have no idea what the answers are, as I don't work in historical areas or on translations. Anyone who does have any helpful insights to share?

Best epaper tablet for philosophy?

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

I know there was a similar thread on here a few months ago, but since (I believe) there have been some updates released since then, I was wondering whether I could try to crowdsource some current opinions from Remarkable, Supernote, and Boox users? The internet is awash with opinions as to which of these devices is the best, but any and all insight I can glean from other academic philosophers is especially helpful before I pull the plug.

The main thing I'm hoping to use a device like this for is to annotate PDFs and create tags to easily find them for when I'm writing. My research thus far (including the last thread on here) has led me away from the Remarkable, but I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on the Supernote A6 vs. one of the Boox NoteAir2 models? Or is the Remarkable worth looking into again after all?

I've never touched one of these things, so I have no idea! Any readers have any helpful tips/insights for the OP?

When a journal can't find reviewers?

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

I have a paper that's been under review at a journal for about five months, and not a single reviewer has been found so far. Judging by the updates on the website, it seems that the editor has gone through maybe 3 or 4 reviewers during these five months. This is a well regarded generalist journal.

In my (admittedly short) experience I haven't seen something like this. I'm wondering whether that's a bad sign and I should just withdraw my paper and submit it elsewhere.

I'm curious how the OP knows that no reviewers have been found (in my experience, journal submission portals don't tell you that sort of thing). In any case, if I were in the OP's position and I knew that there were no reviewers after five months, I think I would definitely withdraw and submit to another journal. 

What do you all think?

Writing good grad school recommendation letters?

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

Question(s) about writing a letter of recommendation for a student applying to philosophy graduate programs:
1. How long is your letter? 2 pages single-spaced?
2. How detailed should it be? For instance, should one spend a paragraph explaining the student's thesis?
3. What do you typically highlight?

These are all excellent questions. I've written a fair number of recommendation letters and had fairly decent success at having students accepted into good programs. I'd say my typical letter is about 2 pages, though in one case I wrote a 5 page letter about a student that I felt really strongly about. In terms of how detailed, I think that depends, but I typically try to highlight what is interesting and original about their work as well as relevant personal qualities (such as diligence, ability to handle setbacks, feedback, engage others philosophically in conversation, etc.) that seem relevant to me to likely success in a grad program.

At my university, philosophy majors don't typically write theses, but if the student wrote some excellent papers (including an independent study paper), then of course I'll discuss one or two of those. I also try to make the overall strength of my recommendation clear (e.g. "they have my highest recommendation"), and also say something about how they compare to other students (e.g. "this is the best student that I've had in 20 years of teaching", "they are one of the 10 best students that I've had", "they are in the top 10% of students that I've had", etc.)--as I've heard many times that grad admissions committees look for this sort of thing.

Anyway, these are just some things I do. It would be great to hear from other letter writers, as well as from grad school admissions committee members on the kinds of things they look for in a good letter!

What to do with an accepted book chapter when the book falls through?

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

One of my papers was accepted as a book chapter. But book project failed as the publishing house closed down.
Should I still list this acceptance in my CV, and if so how should I represent it?

Unfortunately, I think the answer here is plainly "no", and the paper should now simply be represented like any other work in progress. As another reader submitted in a follow-up comment:

Do not list it. It counts for nothing and will look desperate. I assume the press cannot be that impressive anyway, if they went under. The thing to do now is send it to a good journal.

I don't want to infer anything about the press (COVID seems to have impacted even the most notable academic presses pretty severely), but I otherwise I agree with this follow-up. It sucks for sure that this happened to the OP, but they should simply try to publish the paper elsewhere. Anyone have different thoughts?

Norms for acknowledgments?

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

I'm still in grad school and want to submit a paper to journals. There is a place where I'd like to acknowledge in a footnote a committee member's help with specific phrasing. Should I just acknowledge them in a specific footnote or in the general acknowledgement section? My work has also benefitted a lot from discussions with them in general as well as with other committee members, but I don't remember where so will have to just acknowledge them generally. Would it be bad to just cite one in a specific footnote without the others?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I wouldn't give it more than 1/2 a second's thought. Thank them together in the acknowledgements, individually, both, neither, whatever.

Maybe so, but I think it might be interesting to hear from others. I've always been a bit uncertain about how to best acknowledge people in papers, and wonder if there are any particular norms or best practices that people think exist here. What do you all think?

Data Analysis of the PGR (by Frank Saunders Jr.)

Frank Saunders Jr. (Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Yonsei University UIC) writes in:

I wanted to share a project that I thought readers of the blog might enjoy: interactive dashboard visualizations of the 2021-2022 PGR results. I've created a total of 10 dashboards that can all be found along with explanations on my website here. I hope that prospective students and other interested readers might find the PGR data a bit more navigable and potentially useful in this form rather than in table form alone. In particular, the visualizations make it very easy to compare a school’s overall score with its score within an area of philosophy.

[T]he visualizations are now part of a bigger project I’m working on, Data Analysis of the Philosophical Gourmet Report (PGR), which includes creating a relational database for all public PGR data from 2006 onward, creating new visualizations of different data points, and offering analyses. This project is still in its early stages, so I’d be very keen to learn what sorts of data points or analyses readers would be most interested in seeing studied or visualised. 

Tips/norms for solving a two-body problem?

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

I am sure that this has been discussed here before, but what are the norms about going on the job market in order to solve a two-body problem? Do you raise that issue in a cover letter? In the interview process? After an offer? What do you say when people ask why you are looking for another job?

These are excellent questions. We actually have had a couple of threads on this before, but I think it's always helpful to receive more information and answers to these types of questions.

Anyone with any experience in these matters have any helpful tips? It would be great to hear both from people on the hiring side of things, as well as from candidates who were able to navigate a two-body problem successfully.

In Defense of Boring and Derivative Philosophy (by J. Dmitri Gallow)

This is a guest post by J Dmitri Gallow. Dmitri thinks about the metaphysics of causation and chance, rational choice, and formal epistemology. He is a senior research fellow at the Dianoia Institute of Philosophy at ACU. This post has also appeared in Daily Nous. 

I often hear papers, talks, or projects dismissed as "boring" or "derivative"—contrasted with philosophy that's "novel" or "insightful." This dismissive attitude is usually directed at (a) work that's conservative, rather than radical (in a sense I'll explain below), and (b) work that's normal, rather than revolutionary (in the sense of Thomas Kuhn). I think the dismissive attitude underestimates the value of normal conservative philosophy. Below, I'll introduce these distinctions and defend normal conservative—and therefore, boring and derivative—philosophy.

As I understand philosophy, it's an attempt to answer the question "How should we think about X?" for values of X where the question isn't answerable by empirical investigation or demonstrative proof. We're often led to philosophy by puzzles in which our unreflective ways of thinking about X are contradictory. For instance, we're inclined to say that losing a single hair won't make you bald, but we're also inclined to say that some people become bald by losing one hair at a time. Once we notice that these things can't both be true at once, we're driven to philosophise; we attempt to resolve the puzzle by revising some of our pre-theoretic ways of thinking about things.

Reputational effects of a university's social/political/theological leanings?

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

If you accept a position at a school that, for political, social, or theological reasons, has a reputation for being a certain way, does the stench of their leanings follow you for the rest of your career, if you were to eventually apply elsewhere? Would people assume that you shared their leanings?

These are interesting questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers.

On the one hand, I suspect that there is probably a natural tendency to associate a candidate with the kind of places they've worked at. For example, in his recent post on his five years on the job-market, Jeremy Davis (University of Georgia) notes that once he was hired into non-TT jobs at a military college, most of his interviews were at other military institutions.

On the other hand, I also suspect that the nature of one's work can probably outweigh such associations. For example, if someone looking at your CV and research statement finds that your publications and research program don't really fall in line with the leanings of the institution you worked out, they might very well infer that you probably don't share the place's leanings.

But all of this is really just speculation on my part. It would be great to hear from search committee members, as well as from people who have worked for a time at places whose social/political/theological leanings they didn't exactly share. What evidence is there (one way or another) that an institution's leanings will "follow a job candidate around"?

Asking editors to exclude particular reviewers?

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

I think my papers keep getting sent to, and rejected by, a few senior philosophers from my discipline who don't have a high opinion of my work (not entirely for scholarly reasons, I suspect).

How usual/acceptable is it to ask editors at a journal to exclude one/set-of philosophers from reviewing your article? Would it put the article at a disadvantage?

Interesting questions. I know that a few journals explicitly ask authors to recommend reviewers as well as reviewers the author would like to avoid. I've submitted to a few journals like these over the years, and they tend to require some explanation by the author. But what about journals that don't have this feature? Most journals, in my experience, have a "comments to editor" box where you can write a short cover letter to the editor(s) upon submission. So, I suppose if you were a submitting author, you could mention something to the effect of what the OP mentions above.

But is this at all appropriate? How would editors respond? I'm not sure. I guess if the OP sincerely thinks certain people are rejecting their work "not entirely for scholarly reasons" (such as personal or political reasons), then they could mention such potential conflicts of interest in their cover letter. But again, I'm not sure how advisable this is. 

Anyone have any helpful insights here? It would be great to hear from authors, but obviously, it would be very helpful to hear from journal editors.

Tips for applying to full-time NTT "teaching positions"?

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

I love teaching philosophy, but I'm not too fired up about going on the job market in search of a TT job. Where I'm getting my PhD, we have "Lecturers" (pure adjuncts) and "Instructors," who have longer-term contracts and get somewhat better pay. Instructors are NTT and have no research expectations; they are on the faculty, though, and I believe they have service duties. Does anyone have a sense of how common this intermediate category is across the board? I get the sense that some large departments have folks in this category, and some don't. Also, any tips on getting such a job, besides general advice for applying to any teaching-focused position?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks. My sense is that an increasing number of colleges and universities do indeed have these types of renewable full-time, non-TT positions. In fact, my university is one of them.

Here's a bit of context: for a number of years, members of our Faculty Senate pushed for the creation of more full-time positions, out of concern about reliance on adjunct labor. Then, a handful of years ago, they finally passed a resolution to create these types of positions--with the support of the university's administration. While the change has by no means eliminated reliance on adjunct labor, it has significantly reduced it (cutting my department's reliance on adjuncts by close to 30%). And my sense is that these changes are becoming more common at other colleges and universities too, as over the past several years I've seen what appear to be far more jobs like "Teaching Assistant Professors" on PhilJobs.

The reasons why these positions are becoming more common are, I think, complex and not without costs (viz. potentially shifting the overall balance of full-time TT vs. non-TT positions)--but, on the whole, I think it is good that more full-time academic jobs with benefits and prospects for relatively secure employment are being created, as the adjunctification of higher education is an ongoing moral scandal that should be fought in whatever ways are available.

Do other readers share my sense of these matters, and/or have any tips for the OP on how to successfully apply for such positions? Given that my department is doing a search for one of these positions right now, out of fairness to applicants, I won't share any tips openly here right now (though I may share some anonymously). But I am curious to hear the inside scoop from search committee members that might help the OP!

Commuting a distance to work?

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

I was lucky to secure a tenured position a few years ago. I really like the department, and feel privileged to have a permanent position, but am unhappy about the place and really miss the place I used to live. I’ve tried to come to terms with the new place for two years, but it’s clear to me that this is not gonna happen.

I’m considering approaching the head of dept and ask whether commuting would be okay, but worry that this might backfire. My department does not look favorably at commuting, since they worry that faculty will only show up for their teaching and not contribute to the departmental life. I also don’t have a partner, children or any other "formal" reason that would effectively explain my commute to colleges. I just feel miserable. It’s obviously a personal concern, so I am not sure how (or whether) to ask the head of dept about this.

It's not exactly clear how far the OP is thinking of commuting (it might be helpful to know!), but I take it that it would be a serious distance such that they might be poorly positioned to take part in many departmental or university functions above and beyond teaching. Bearing this in mind, another reader submitted the following reply:

First, you can do what you want, within the law. So commute if that is what you want and need. The idea that you would check this with your department is crazy. Second, I would resent having a colleague commuting. I worked in a small department where two colleagues commuted, and I was expected to do all sorts of inconvenient service work because I lived locally. There was no recognition of this, and no compensation. So expect your colleagues to resent you.

For the most part, I think this response is probably right--though I suppose that if one were to (say) move to a different state and fly in once a week just to teach, then (potential legal issues aside) it might be a bad idea not to tell anybody (as hiding something like this might be reasonably considered disrespectful by others).

What does everyone else think? It would be good to hear, in particular, from other people who have commuted to work or had faculty in their department do so. How did it go? Did it work out okay, or give rise to serious problems?

Teaching in the era of ChatGPT?

Like many of us, I saw the news the other day that the newest natural language AI models, such as ChatGPT, are increasingly able to create grammatical and sophisticated responses to a wide variety of prompts. And, in fact, the other night a family member showed me an example in real time: a believable four-paragraph essay composed in just seconds.

Now, of course, there is already debate about whether this means that "the college essay is dead", or whether AI still can't compose sufficiently good content to enable rampant academic cheating (at least not for good grades). But, I guess that, given what I've seen so far, I'm leaning toward the former camp. These are still relatively early days, and the pace at which AI is improving is astonishing. 

So, what does this mean for us as instructors? I have to confess that I've already given some thought to giving my pedagogy a vast overhaul, perhaps moving away from at-home assignments to handwritten in-class ones. But, for all that, I'm deeply ensure what to do, or whether to pursue any dramatic changes at all. Are any readers giving thought to these matters? If so, what do you plan to do and why? Any clever ideas for new pedagogies to perhaps experiment with?

I'm also curious what these developments mean for university-level general education curricula. At many universities, general education programs increasingly focus on "high impact practices" such as writing and presentations. Will universities need to radically rethink their general education curricula and learning outcomes?

Engaging with philosophical work outside of philosophy?

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

Occasionally, I found other disciplines like animal studies or nursing or jurisprudence also discuss some very general philosophical questions like "what is conceptual analysis". And they do refer to lots of philosophers' work in their papers. My question is whether discussing these works by non-philosophers (not just referring but devoting two or even more paragraphs to discussing their views, putting them on a par with other prominent philosophers) is proper. From time to time, I found some interesting views from their works or their works offer a clearer and more careful literature review.

Another reader responded:

I sure hope it's acceptable to discuss works by "non-philosophers." Why wouldn't it be? Even if we accept the sanctity of disciplinary boundaries (which I think is a mistake), it does not seem justified to limit who's views you discuss based solely on which academic hat they wear. I work in philosophy of science and I hope (*hope*, mind you) that scientists at least occasionally read and take up my work as they have taken up the work of other philosophers of science. I often use a specific scientist's professed views as a foil to philosopher's, and this has allowed me to give a richer exposition of potential viewpoints/arguments/etc than would have been available had I only focused on philosophers. Maybe philosophy of science is somewhat unique in this regard as we are often debating and engaging with the work of historians of science, HPSers, and STS folks. But I'd argue that other sub-disciplines of philosophy should also consider viewpoints and arguments from other disciplines (if this don't do this already -- someone from another sub-discipline of philosophy would know better).

I'm curious to see arguments which push in the other direction. If enough academic philosophers think we should only consider/discuss other philosophers' views, then maybe there is a prudent reason to focus only on other philosophers' views. However, this way of thinking has it's own problems...

I too am curious whether there are other arguments that point in the other direction. I routinely engage with work in other disciplines, and am inclined to think that philosophy is better for it when we do--though I do wonder whether some philosophers might hold it against you in publishing. Some moral philosophers, for example, are pretty adamant that they think empirical work is irrelevant to normative and metaethics. But, I don't think this is any reason not to engage with other disciplines. If you think it's relevant and interesting, I say: engage away!

New post and features at 'New Work in Philosophy'

This is just a quick note that New Work in Philosophy has a new post up today by Berislav Marušić (University of Edinburgh). Do check it out!

Also, thanks to some helpful feedback that we received on NWP's launch yesterday, we have rolled out a new feature and point of emphasis:

1. In addition to posting contributions by authors on their own work and the work of others (e.g. book/article reviews), we encourage submissions by established (or somewhat established) philosophers that discuss/recommend new work by less/un-established philosophers who aren’t their colleagues or students. We also continue to encourage posts by or about the work of junior philosophers and underrepresented groups in the profession more generally.

2. We encourage readers to draw our attention to other Substack pages with professional philosophical content. Substack has a nifty “recommend” feature, so we will now feature an “Other Philosophy Substacks” button on this site’s top navigation bar. Recommendations will also go out to subscribers in a Substack Recommendation Digest (which can be unsubscribed from if you only want to receive notifications of original NWP posts).

Both new policies are intended to advance NWP’s aim of being an anti-elitist forum that highlights exciting new work by diverse philosophers at a wide variety of institutions, career stages, and employment situations.

So, if you'd like to pitch a piece about your own work, work by someone else that you would like to recommend or discuss, or another philosophy Substack, just let me know!

"Pay me for my expertise"--on the issue of honoraria for talks by academics

Every few years (months?) discussion surfaces on what a "fair" remuneration is for academics who give a talk. For instance, today on Twitter Jennifer van Alstyne argued that PhD holders should charge a minimum of $3500 for a one-hour talk. This struck many as unrealistic. Very few academics other than, say, Yuval Harari, will be able to command large honoraria. Many very stellar folk are willing to come and talk for a modest honorarium. 

In defense of the claim that our speaking fees should be higher than they are we often see a variation of the justice argument: van Alstyne writes, "PhDs have varied salaries. Only a small % of professors are tenured. Do you think an adjunct professor should be happy with their 'salary'? That they don't deserve to be paid for a speaking engagement? That's wild to me. All professors deserve to be paid for their expertise." 

We also often see the time compensation argument: $3500 is not as excessive as it first appears if we see the speaking engagement as a whole in terms of specialized academic labor.  A one-hour talk involves a lot more work than just one hour. I estimate (fairly accurately, as I have kept time diaries in the past)  if I write a talk from scratch and it is on a new topic it takes me about 10-14 hours to do so (I am not counting the amount of prep reading as this is usually preceding the talk, as it usually relates to things I'm working on). There is the inconvenience of travel. Moreover, you will also socialize, sometimes talk to the grad students (in colloquium talks), go to dinner after etc (this is usually pleasant and not a chore, but still part of the professional broader time commitment of giving a talk).

Finally, there is the argument of proper remuneration for expertise by minorities. Oftentimes, minorities such as Indigenous, Black, trans, and disabled scholars are expected to give free advice and free consulting. This is unjust. It is only normal and proper we should be properly compensated for our labor.

Ultimately, I think those three arguments do not work.

Introducing 'New Work in Philosophy: A multimedia newsletter'

I am excited to announce that Barry Maguire (University of Edinburgh) and I launched a Substack newsletter today, New Work in Philosophy.

The site aims to improve the dissemination and discussion of new published work in the field by featuring short, accessible posts (blog posts, short videos, prezi presentations, argument maps, etc.) about new books and articles in philosophy. The site also encourages professional discussion of posts modeled on a conference Q&A period (for the site's unique commenting and moderation policy, see here).

While we have commissioned a series of posts to launch the site, our aim is for the site to be an anti-elitist institution. We welcome unsolicited submissions from any professional philosopher (PhD students or beyond) or anyone who has previously published or presented philosophy in legitimate peer-reviewed venues.

We also particularly encourage submissions from junior philosophers and underrepresented groups in the profession, as well as postdocs, VAPs, and full or part-time faculty from a diverse variety of institutions.

The site's first four posts are now up:

1. An 8-minute video and lightboard presentation by Mark Schroeder (USC) on his paper, "Attributive Silencing."

2. A short blog post and 7-minute lecture by Wendy Salkin (Stanford University) on her paper "Democracy Within, Justice Without: The Duties of Informal Political Representatives" (Noûs, 2021).

3. A blog post by Sukaina Hirji (University of Pennsylvania) on her new paper, "Outrage and the Bounds of Empathy" (Philosophers Imprint, 2022).

4. A blog post by Farbod Akhlaghi (Christ's College, University of Cambridge) on his paper, "Non-Realist Cognitivism, Truthmaking, and Ontological Cheating" (Ethics, 2022).

If you would like to pitch a post, just email [email protected] or [email protected]. 

Your pitch could be anything: just a couple of sentences, a longer blog-style post, a video of any length, an argument map, a few powerpoint slides with commentary. Your pitch doesn't need to be an actual summary of your work. It could be a broader pitch that simply motivates the point of the paper in the larger context of a new project, or a zestier pitch that says more loosely what you hope the takeaway will be.

If you would like to subscribe to the newsletter, you can do so here, and the site's Twitter page is here if you'd like to follow. I also highly recommend downloading the Substack app from the App Store for ease of access.

Are hiring departments still doing Zoom "flyouts"?

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

Are hiring departments conducting finalist interviews face-to-face or via Zoom this year? Or, rather, are any departments conducting finalist (day+ long, short-listed candidates) interviews via Zoom?

I ask because my department is considering doing 4-5 finalist interviews via Zoom, then flying out the candidate(s) to whom we make offers. The thinking is that we can conduct more finalist interviews, with less department stress and expense, this way. Normally, we are limited to 2 on-campus interviews.

Interesting questions, and I'd be curious to hear the answers. Personally, I'm inclined to think that face-to-face on campus visits are superior for various reasons (performing over Zoom is very different than performing in person, candidates who visit campus can spend more unscripted time with students, faculty, and staff, etc.). But I can of course understand various rationales for holding finalist interviews by Zoom, including the one the OP mentions.

Anyway, I'm curious too. What are departments doing for finalists these days, and why?

Boilerplate journal rejection language?

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

Recently got desk-rejected by Ethics after waiting 4 months. The comment " I am afraid, however, that it is inappropriate for the journal." is boilerplate right?

Interesting question. I'm not sure this is boilerplate. I took a look at a couple of desk-rejects that I received from the same journal, and didn't see this kind of language. Curious to hear what others think!

Asking editors for referee clarifications?

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

I'm working on revising an R&R, but for one comment by a reviewer, I'm finding it difficult to understand exactly what the reviewer's concern is. Part of the issue is that the comment is full of typos and incomplete sentences. But that aside, my question is more general: Is it ever alright to ask the journal's managing editor to reach out to the reviewer on your behalf in order to ask the reviewer a question of clarification?

This is an interesting question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. I've never approached editors with a query like this, and wonder whether any readers have (and what editors and referees might think if approached in this way). Anyone have any helpful experiences/tips to share?