The Philosophers' Cocoon

Do on-campus visits hinge on the job talk?

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

I've heard that, at some departments, almost the entire decision as to whether to hire a candidate hinges on the job talk. I imagine this is especially true in cases in which the entire department votes and many professors are only acquainted with the candidate via the job talk.

Does this echo others' experience? I'm not trying to put additional pressure on my own job talk, but it's good to know if that's the truth of the matter.

This doesn't echo my experience at a liberal arts university, but I suspect it might be true at (some?) research universities.

Do any readers have any helpful experiences or insights to share? 

Tips for applying to grad school after years in industry?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a prospective graduate student asks:

I'm thinking about going back to school after taking several years to pursue a career in software engineering. I'm not sure what to put in my application materials. I'm working on rewriting one of my old papers, and I've been doing a lot of reading to re-familiarize myself with the field. How do I explain the gap, and am I at a disadvantage because of it? Any advice for people looking to re-enter academia in general?

Great questions. I suspect that a career in software engineering would be attractive to many people on admissions committees, what with the rise of generative AI. But this is just speculation and I'm not very well-situated to give advice here, as I've never served on a grad admissions committee.

Do any readers with more experience here have any tips to share?

The loss of Twitter for the philosophical community

A lot of philosophy twitter accounts have gone dormant (like mine) or have now disappeared.

What are we losing with the philosophical Twitter community? 

I always liked the prickliness of Twitter and the resistance to a kind of conformity mindset I often encounter on FB and other places. However, the loss of important functionality on the site which is now X (such as the removal of headlines and circles), the prioritizing of blue tick accounts that have little of interest to say, and the increasing vitriol, as well as the fact that I was recently banned without explanation or ability to appeal, have led me to largely check out from it. 

I got a lot out of Twitter and am very grateful for the community I was able to build there, and the connections. As I became curious about what other philosophers got out of Twitter, I put some testimonies I collected, with their permission.

Many are philosophers who are on the path to an alt-ac career, such as Lynn Chiu: 

Thanks to Twitter, or what it used to be, I was able to sustain my social identity as an academic philosopher after I quit my postdoc. The "flatness" of Twitter enabled me to constantly find comrades and collaborators hidden in little niches across all disciplines, eventually bootstrapping a new philosophical path without losing my identity and colleagues. I know that this is not the experience many have with Twitter. I was lucky to have just enough of the right kind of followers to have fun, honest, and open interactions without attracting its dark side or fanning my ego. Now that Twitter is no longer Twitter, but X-- a site with a vision I never signed up for-- I am forced to leave this platform and rethink what it is to be a philosopher in practice, to philosophize in the real world, and to build academic communities. @drlynnchiu

In a similar vein, many philosophers who are self-described "on the margin of academia" and who do not follow a traditional path, found connection on Twitter: 

As a philosopher and researcher who is on the margin of academia, due to not pursuing the traditional PhD route, and due to being « first-generation », Twitter was absolutely vital for me as a window into the world of academic philosophy. At a crucial moment where I needed to « find my people » in order to know I could pursue philosophy, Twitter allowed me to coordinate with other academics in a way that my atypical profile wouldn’t have allowed otherwise. How important this was to my philosophical thinking is hard to understate : without those conversations, I would have had no way to *think together*, no feedback, no way to experience the productive « disconcertment » one experiences when one talks to a *colleague* and yet still struggles to be understood.--Pierrick Simon

There have always been a fair number of grad students on Twitter. Some of them have gathered large following, but there are also several smaller accounts of grad students and also people who are/were thinking of applying to grad school, such as this anonymous grad student: 

I was one of very few philosophy undergraduate majors at my old institution, and those that I did know in person were interested in philosophy for law school purposes. Pre-Elon Twitter was not only the first place where I found fellow philosophy students, but it also was a place that allowed me to get in contact with graduate students and academics at institutions that was thinking about applying to for graduate school. I miss that community deeply.—anonymous grad student

Finally, there are also quite some traditional academic philosophers, including professors with tenure (like me!) who enjoyed Twitter and got a lot of intellectual engagement out of it. Vernon Cisney describes (aka "Deleuze Clues") describes the experience as follows: 

Before I logged onto Twitter, I had scrupulously avoided entanglements with the world of social media. Never jumped onto Friendster, Myspace, or Second Life, and, despite its endurance, I’ve never launched a Facebook account. I don’t understand Flickr or Tumblr, and I’ve repeatedly had my children explain to me the differences between Instagram and Pinterest. I think there may have been a Vine in there at some point. Social media has just never seemed like my thing.

In May 2018, I decided to take the plunge and create a social media presence in an effort to expand my academic network; for whatever reason, Twitter seemed the platform for me. At the time, I was infrequently contributing to a blog and having difficulty directing traffic to it, and Twitter’s format seemed a useful mode of announcement.

Five years later, as it is dying, it is clear that Twitter has extended my philosophical and intellectual life in ways I could never have imagined. Without mentioning names (because I know I will inadvertently leave people out), I would like to briefly list a few. It has put me in touch with countless academics in and around my areas of interest, allowing me to foster relationships that have been further nurtured at conferences and beyond. More than a few of these relationships have led to professional collaborations and resulted in publications.

Responding to a referee after a journal rejection?

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

Is there ever a point to replying to referee feedback (on a rejection) when it is mistaken? To be clear, I have no interest in questioning the rejection with the journal/editor and am submitting the manuscript elsewhere.

Briefly: had a paper rejected for a combination of reasons, one of which the editor mentioned basing the decision on specifically and which was IMO not accurate. Specifically, the referee indicated I should have consulted and used a particular example from an author's other work rather than the example I did use, when these examples are identical. The same referee also indicated that I don't engage with well-known theory X, which would be a great point except that (1) that theory and area is not germane to the topic of my paper and (2) the architect of theory X is very clear in print that the topic of my paper would not 'apply' to the theory. The comments were not particularly detailed, although two of the same referee's other comments were somewhat helpful for revision.

Is this sort of thing just par for the course?

Good question! I don't think there's any point in responding in a case like this. As another reader put it in a submitted response comment:

I would just drop it, and move on. Neither the referee nor the editor want to continue in such a discussion. The only reason to pursue it, is if you are contesting the decision of the editor. But this is most often futile. (I did successfully push back on an editor once, who rejected an R&R ... the paper has now been cited over 200 times).

Peer-review is what it is, and there will always be mistakes in the process. Way back in the day when papers were sent to journals by snail mail, my graduate advisor said he always had an addressed envelope with the next journal he would send the paper to after a rejection--and that unless the reviewers from the previous journal had really good points that needed addressing, he would just send it to the next journal without any revisions. This has always seemed to me like sensible advice. As Richard Yetter Chappell notes here, there are always objections that can be raised to just about any argument, so if you keep addressing every objection reviewers have, your paper will just grow continually longer and more unwieldy. 

So, these are my thoughts: don't waste time responding to "mistaken" referees. Instead, give referee reports a read, decide for yourself whether any revisions are necessary before submitting to a new journal, and go from there! I guess I'll just add one thing, which is that if more than one reviewer makes the same "mistake", maybe you should preemptively address it so that they future reviewers won't make the same one.

What do you all think?

Search committees moving to flyouts without notifying non-selected candidates?

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

It's now happened to me multiple times that I have a first round interview, the school moves on to fly outs, and I hear nothing about it. (I know there is a related, but distinct, issue of a school sending out rejections to some, interview invites to others, and nothing to a third group.)

If you've already interviewed me, I think I deserve your consideration! Also, if you've already interviewed me, it can't be the case that it would be *such* a burden to notify me that you've moved on with other candidates. Lastly, you wouldn't have to tell me that I have no chance to get the job; you could just do me the favor of telling me that you've invited others for a campus visit.

Am I missing something? Is it too much to think that those who have taken the time to interview with schools deserve some sort of timely notice, as opposed to months of silence and inferences?

Fair questions, and I remember how frustrating this was as a job candidate. A couple of readers submitted responses. One writes:

I think it is not an unreasonable expectation to have, but also one thats unlikely to be regularly met. I have had similar experiences and my sense is that programs do not want to close a door unnecessarily (by informing folks they're flying other candidates out) and so they just do not say anything rather than make it harder in the event they want to return to you as a candidate after all (if such dreams exist). That being said, there are places I applied to in the last two cycles (no interview) which never sent a PFO or boiler plate notice when the season was over. I get that admin stuff is tough with so many applicants and institutional requirements, and that often that falls to the college and not the department, but it kind of sucks to spend time customizing job docs and then never be told they've filled the post.

And another:

I am sorry for your experience, and glad that you vented it out. Maybe it's unhelpful, but: while I believe departments can do better, I also understand *why* they are doing that (e.g., logistic complexity, timeline problems, unwillingness for bearing bad news, overwhelmed by work etc). In the short term, I would recommend just getting used to taking silence as a No, or rather, paying no attention until a Yes. This applies not only to the interview case, but also to fly-outs, and heck even after a verbal offer (there could be weeks before a formal approval). It's a long uphill battle. Also, everyone feels different. For some people, it is mentally easier to have no news than bad news. I was one of these (and got quite annoyed by how one department phrased their rejection).

It would be great to hear from other readers, both job-candidates and search committee members. Should search committees do better, or are there good reasons for this kind of practice? Are search committees required at some places not to notify people they are out of the running until the search is complete?

Three new papers in JESP, Hypatia, and Social Theory & Practice

These three papers have been on PhilPapers for a while, but have recently been published in print, if anyone's interested. Hope some of you find them of interest!

Allies Against Oppression: Intersectional Feminism, Critical Race Theory, and Rawlsian Liberalism. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 26 (2): 221-266. 2023.

Abstract: Liberalism is often claimed to be at odds with feminism and critical race theory (CRT). This article argues, to the contrary, that Rawlsian liberalism supports the central commitments of both. Section 1 argues that Rawlsian liberalism supports intersectional feminism. Section 2 argues that the same is true of CRT. Section 3 then uses Young’s ‘Five Faces of Oppression’—a classic work widely utilized in feminism and CRT to understand and contest many varieties of oppression—to illustrate how Rawlsian liberalism supports diverse feminist and CRT projects, and why it may be critical to achieve solidarity between feminism, CRT, and Rawlsian liberalism. Finally, Section 4 responds to five objections.

Educational Justice and School Boosting. Social Theory and Practice 50 (1): 1-31. 2024. (preprint available here)

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

This final paper refutes Alex Byrne's and Kathleen Stock's transexclusionary definition of "woman":

Trans Women, Cis Women, Alien Women, and Robot Women Are Women: They Are All (Simply) Adults Gendered Female. Hypatia 38 (2): 373-389. 2023. (preprint here).

Abstract: Alex Byrne contends that women are (simply) adult human females, claiming that this thesis has considerably greater initial appeal than the justified true belief (JTB) theory of knowledge. This paper refutes Byrne’s thesis in the same way the JTB theory of knowledge is widely thought to have been refuted: through simple counterexamples. Lessons are drawn. One lesson is that women need not be human. A second lesson is that biology and physical phenotypes are both irrelevant to whether someone is a woman, and indeed, female in a gendered sense. A third lesson is that trans women, cis women, alien women, and robot women are all women because to be a woman is to be an adult gendered female. This paper does not purport to settle complex normative questions of ethics or justice, including whether the ordinary meaning of “woman” ought to be retained or changed—though I do note plausible implications for these debates. This paper does purport to settle what the ordinary meaning of “woman” is, and in that regard contribute to important conceptual ground-clearing regarding what constitutes an ameliorative or revisionary definition of “woman.”

Including conference commentaries on a CV?

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

Is it typical to include conference commentary on a CV? Should it be listed along with other conference presentations but with the clarification that it was just commentary?

One reader submitted the following reply:

I googled "philosophy CV," and that got me the cv of Kyla Ebels-Duggan (whose work is fantastic). She takes a common tack: listing the comments in a subsection. https://philosophy.northwestern.edu/documents/cv-resume/ebels-duggan-kyla/keb-current-cv-august-2018.pdf

What do the rest of you think?

How can we help you? (December 2023)

Now that it's been a couple of months since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new thread.

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 (including in the age of A.I.)
• 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.

Against squeezing too much orange juice from few oranges

I'm reading an enthralling book on the Somerville Quartet of female Oxford philosophers, Metaphysical Animals by Clare Mac Cumhail and Rachael Wiseman. It led me to look again at the work of GEM Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch, and Mary Midgley. Prior to this book, I only knew Midgley's work reasonably well, because of her influence in the literature on science and religion (see here for a brief interview with me on her work in El Pais, and here for a recent scholarly paper that engages her thinking.)

I did know Anscombe's paper "Modern moral philosophy" (1958). It is 20 pages long and was published in Philosophy. I assigned the paper long ago on an intro to philosophy course (in 2015) in large part because I was looking for gender diversity.  Though my motives were external to the paper's merits, something happened that often happens when you try to diversify. I got utterly struck by how remarkable and rich and prescient this paper is. I've often come to think that one of the greatest things we gain from diversity is a gain of quality. My appreciation for this paper has only grown over the years as I've learned more about the history of philosophy in the 19-20th century, and the views Anscombe was pushing back against. 

One thing that struck me in re-reading it is how it would be hard to publish a paper with this scope today. What GEM Anscombe accomplishes in one paper, and a mere 20 pages at that, is to set out an ambitious agenda for what moral philosophy should be at the time she was writing.

Nowadays, to satisfy productivity requirements to get tenure, or even a job, a philosopher would write three papers at least, or a book. The opening paragraph gives you a flavor of the scope: 

I will begin by stating three theses which I present in this paper. The first is that it is not profitable for us at present to do moral philosophy; that it should be laid aside at any rate until we have an adequate philosophy of psychology, in which we are conspicuously lacking. The second is that the concepts of obligation, and duty — moral obligation and moral duty, that is to say — and of what is morally right and wrong, and of the moral sense of ‘ought’, ought to be jettisoned if this is psychologically possible; because they are survivals, or derivatives from survivals, from an earlier conception of ethics which no longer generally survives, and are only harmful without it. My third thesis is that the differences between the well- known English writers on moral philosophy from Sidgwick to the present day are of little importance.

Naming professors in grad school applications?

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

What are the potential benefits and harms of naming professors in grad applications? I am considering naming one or two since (1) I genuinely really want to work with them, and (2) I assume naming them increases the chance that (if my application is not initially cut) one of these professors will read my application (and hopefully they'll like what they see and perhaps root for me during decision discussions, etc.). Is this naive? And, separately, if you (on an admissions committee) have expertise in the AOI an applicant lists, and they don't mention you, do you lose interest in that applicant/favor other applicants who do mention you as their favored faculty? Any other related considerations would also be helpful. Thanks.

Good questions. Any readers who have served on grad admissions committees care to weigh in?

How to get on the colloquium talk circuit?

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

Suppose you've got a brand new book coming out, or a spicy new article, and you'd like to do some colloquium talks. How do you get into that circuit?

Excellent question! Do any readers have any helpful tips or other insights?

A job market dilemma: continue on or divest?

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

I'm having motivation problems. This is my 4th year on the job market and it looks as though, once again, I'm not going to get any traction whatsoever this year.

The thing is, I'm currently in the 1st year of a postdoc position that's part of a grant that I wrote for a 2 year project. So, I'm quite lucky in that I'm employed with another year and half to keep doing research and few other responsibilities.

However, given my complete lack of success on the job market (besides the postdoc position I've been in), I have no reason to think that accruing further publications is going to do much for my chances of landing a TT position. I've got what I think is a very strong publication record - it's comparable to what many people have who've gotten tenure. Yet, like so many others, it doesn't seem to have made the slightest difference in getting a job. Sadly, this is probably due, in part, to having gotten my PhD from a unranked department.

At this point, I'm basically counting on the fact that I'm going to go back into a construction gig once this postdoc is up. Given that I've written the grant, there's little penalty attached to being less productive for the remainder of it. Add to this, I have a wife and a toddler who I could spend more time with while I've got job flexibility, I'm finding it very hard to motivate/justify continuing to invest myself in what seems to be a almost certain dead end. How much time/emotional energy should I continue to invest?

I'm really sorry to hear that this reader is going through this. I went through something similar myself during my years on the market, and I deeply empathize: I remember all too well how hard it was for me to continue on, and to wonder what else I could/should be doing.

A couple of readers submitted follow-up comments. One reader wrote in:

I'm in similar shoes. My advice? Explore all your career alternatives now so that you don't have to go back to construction (unless that's your next preference). It's what I'm doing. With the dearth of entry-level tech jobs, I do believe it's hard to get decent white collar work with a philosophy background nowadays. People don't seem to appreciate that enough. Still, I think it's orders of magnitude easier than landing a TT job in philosophy -- especially if you're doing "core" analytic or something like that. It's an uphill battle to get into industry, but at least you have a fighting chance.

And another wrote:

I'm in a similar situation, with a list of short-term postdocs that keeps growing. In Europe, where I'm based, this is perceived as the norm. Postdocs, whether self-funded with a grant or fellowship or offerred by a research group, are what an early-career researcher typically does. To most people here, I look like a *successful* early-career researcher. But I have no idea how I could move to a TT job, for similar reasons as the OP. I heard that getting a really big grant might allow you to negotiate a position in some European countries, but I'm not confident this is a sure route anymore. What my senior mentors keep telling me is that I'm doing fine and just need to wait (persist) long enough. It's tough.

While persistence can of course pay off, few things are as uncertain as the academic job-market--so I think the first reader above probably has a point. If the OP has the time to begin cultivating a better Plan B, they might be in a much better position in a year-and-a-half to secure a more attractive non-academic job if things don't work out. Personally, I wish that I had done this myself!

During my 4th year or so on the market, I received zero interviews, and I didn't know whether to continue on. But I had a relatively stable non-tenure-track position, so each year my spouse and I had difficult discussions on whether I should keep going. Fortunately, after a few more years, I finally began to get more interviews, and ultimately I landed a TT job during my 7th year on the market, the very year my non-TT job was due to run out. If I hadn't gotten a job that year, then I probably would have had to leave academia--and I didn't have any plan B whatsoever, so I had no idea what I would have done instead (which I do recall being pretty terrifying).

So, maybe the thing for the OP to do is to sort of split their energy between academia and cultivating a Plan B? What do you all think? If you agree, any tips for the OP on how to best develop an alternative career plan?

When editors at a triple-anonymized journal know a paper is yours?

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

With triple-blind journals, what happens if the chief editor knows that a submitted paper is yours? I assume they don't pretend not to know, so do they defer to an associate editor, or desk reject, etc? Similarly, what if the relevant associate editor (area specialist) knows the paper is yours? I'd hope there are ways around this problem, but if not then it seems to suggest that we should avoid discussing our work with editors from journals we want to submit to, which seems rather silly.

Interesting questions. While there is presumably no foolproof way of ensuring absolute anonymity in peer-review, even at triple-anonymized journals, I wonder whether such journals have processes in place to at least mitigate this kind of problem. For example, if a managing editor, editor-in-chief, or associate editor realizes they know a paper's author, are they expected to pass on the paper to a different editor for initial review?

I'm curious to hear the inside scoop from any editors willing to weigh in!

Exams or no exams?

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

This is related to the thread about student capacities, but I figured it should probably be its own thread. I am just starting to teach my own courses, and so far have avoided exams. I figured they encourage more rote memorization than anything else, can be pretty stressful, and it seems fine for students to learn one or two topics in depth for their papers and then learn through smaller assignments like reading responses. However, I am starting to worry that students might have pretty major misunderstandings of some core ideas in the class, and several seem to be unable to recall other topics we discussed in class. I'm wondering if I should just accept this as a worthwhile cost to not having exams (or perhaps this would not change even with exams), or whether I should figure out a way to incorporate exams into my syllabi in the future (in a way that isn't just super easy to cheat).

I usually give exams in my courses for this reason (I teach only undergrads), and use other types of assessments (reading responses, term papers, presentations, etc.) for other skills (e.g., argumentation, etc.). I personally tend to find that exams help me to better gauge how students are grasping the course material overall, which students grasp it better than others, and in turn whether there are things I might do to improve student comprehension.

But this is just me. What about you all? Do you exams? Why/why not?

When do/should ABDs go on the market?

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

Reading the recent post about ABD job candidates has really cemented the idea that one should apply when the dissertation is substantially complete. This leads me to question: do most people go on the market for multiple years while in graduate school? Or only their last year?

Good questions. There are of course two issues here: when most people actually go out on the market for the first time, and when they should. Do any readers have any helpful insights to share? When did you go on the market while in grad school? When do you think people should?

Writing a good course evaluation as a student?

A reader writes in:

I'm an American PhD student still in coursework, and as Fall semester comes to a close, it is time for course evaluations. While there has been plenty of discussion on the Cocoon on how to interpret and use student evaluations in teaching profiles, I've seen little guidance anywhere on how to best write a course evaluation. While each individual evaluation is only of marginal significance, I'd still like to do right by our university's early career faculty. Advice on what constitutes a good "glowing" evaluation vs. a good "constructive" evaluation would also be appreciated.

Interesting query. Any suggestions?

Writing productivity tips?

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

I am becoming less efficient in writing as time goes on. When I read productivity advice for academics, the bottom line is usually, "spend more hours of your day writing." But what is "writing" mean? My real problem is not so much about finding hours for research, or about writing itself, it is about the process of translating great ideas into a single (limited) paper. When writing for a conference, I always see so many angles of exploring a theme and I struggle to choose between them. This bogs down my process as I explore all of them simultaneously, and often ends up complicating my writing to the point I publish one dense piece that really would have been better as three separate papers. I am also a really slow reader, and my time tends to get bogged down by researching (often of sources that don't end up helping much in the end but only take more time). So I guess my question is: does anyone have advice for improving the efficiency of the process of transforming an idea into an article or chapter, without sacrificing serious scholarship or rigorous original thought? If you see multiple paths to a question, what intellectual or pragmatic strategies do you use when deciding which one to take? What kind of external or internal limits do you use keep the (temporal) balance of researching new sources and pursuing original thinking vs. writing pieces?

Good questions! Do any readers have any helpful tips? It would be great to hear from everyone, but particularly from people who have grappled successfully with similar issues.

CFP: First Feminist Philosophy of Physics Workshop

Chris Mitsch (University of Pittsburgh) writes in:

We invite submissions from scholars at all career stages to the first Feminist Philosophy of Physics Workshop, to be held on June 20-21, 2024 at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and hybrid on Zoom. We welcome submissions to present talks (20 min or 3 min), to organize panel or workshop discussions, as well as to participate as discussants. We especially welcome submissions from scholars from marginalized groups (including but not limited to trans and queer scholars, scholars of color, disabled scholars), and from scholars at early career stages. We welcome presentations on works in progress, and we welcome submissions from non-philosophers.

Possible topics include but are not limited to: 

• • Perspectives from feminist theory/critical race theory/queer theory in the foundations of physics; 
  • The influence of sociopolitical values in the development of history of physics, foundations of physics, social structures of physics, and/or philosophy of physics (HFSP of physics);
  • Ideas, theories, and perspectives developed by gender and racial minority scholars in the HFSP of physics; 
  • Empirical research into the gender and racial gaps in physics and HFSP of physics publications, and exploring ways to close such gaps;
  • Empirical research into the retention of gender and racial minorities in the HFP of physics, and suggesting ways to make the field more accessible;
  • Exploring pedagogical interventions for possible gender and racial gaps in physics, philosophy of physics, and formal philosophy.

We would be especially interested in a panel on, or workshop discussion of, the work of Evelyn Fox Keller (1936-2023). We would also be interested in a panel on, or workshop discussion of, strategies to make HFSP of physics more welcoming to marginalized scholars in the field.

Unusual delays in peer-review this year?

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

Are other people having huge problems with peer review this year? I keep statistics on my reviews. My average review time in 2020-2022 was 3.2 months. My average review time this year was 7.3 months. I had 2 *very short* referee reports 8 to 11 months after submission, and the editor rejected the paper based on these reviews. I had a desk rejection that took 6 months. One of my papers has been under review for 15 months now. What am I going to tell my promotion committee, "sorry it seems that everyone is busy this year and I can't get decisions on my material"?

Do other readers have similar experiences? If so, do any editors have any inside insights on what might be going on? I've seen some social media discussions where editors discuss how difficult and time consuming it can be to find willing reviewers. Has this suddenly gotten worse? If so, why?

A search committee member on writing samples

A search committee member writes in:

I'm running a search committee right now, and so have just read something like 120 application files.  Here's something I've noticed that might be worth discussing on the blog:

For many of the application files I'm reading, applicants are submitting something published as their writing sample. But in a significant group of those files, this choice doesn't seem to make much sense in the larger context of the file. For instance, there'll be a candidate coming out of their PhD whose dissertation is about one big project, their research statement proposes carrying that project farther, but the writing sample is about something totally unrelated.  If this is your big project, what you expect to do going forward, and all of your letter-writers are talking about it, I want to see what a chunk of that project actually looks like!  Just because you have only one thing published doesn't necessarily mean that's the best thing to send along.

Why is this happening?  I dimly remember getting this kind of advice when I was on the market, along something like the lines that an actually-published piece of writing looks more impressive to committees.  But as a committee member I can read your cv; I know whether you've published things or not. Also I totally get if the published piece is your most polished piece of writing—dissertation chapters may still be in an unfinished state. But beyond that, is there a good reason to send a published piece over a piece that better represents what you do? 

I'm curious whether other search committee members have the same take. As a job-candidate, I would normally send my best piece of work (published or unpublished) from my big research program--but for jobs in other specialty areas that I worked in (e.g., AI ethics, etc.), I'd normally choose to use a writing sample on that. 

Any other search committee members care to weigh in? Update based on first comment: it could be good to hear from job-candidates too, on their rationale for how they choose a writing sample (as this might help search committee members like the OP better understand their choices!)