The Philosophers' Cocoon

Conference presentations: Powerpoints? Handouts? Both? Etc.

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

I'm a graduate student receiving conflicting advice about how to format my conference presentations. The younger faculty at my institution think I should use PowerPoint slides with lots of images and few words. The older faculty think I should walk the audience through a handout, and perhaps use a whiteboard.

The seemingly obvious via media is to give a PowerPoint presentation supplemented by a handout. It's unclear to me why no one has suggested this. Perhaps there's some reason not to mix the two to which I'm not privy.

Does anyone have thoughts about how best to format conference presentations? Better yet, does anyone know whether survey data on this question exists?

Good questions. Personally, I think the right answer is to do what works for you. Some people can give a killer PowerPoint presentation, some people can do great with a handout, and others can give relatively extemporaneous talks. I'd suggest trying a few different things and seeing how they seem to go over, both from your perspective and audience interest and engagement.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Teaching-like impact in alt-ac jobs?

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

This is an alt-ac query. I'm reading through some of the older threads here and I see a lot of people state their dislike for teaching as a reason to leave academy. I currently teach mostly at the gened/intro level with a heavy teaching load, though I do get some upper level stuff and have managed to form relationships with students in the major (I run a reading group, for example). Despite the much less than ideal teaching circumstances, I love teaching and love the tiny impacts that philosophy is able to have on people, especially the many students today who view college as job training and initially hate having to take my class. I'm a VAP who has helped organize several guest speakers and an undergraduate symposium – I say this to make clear that I give a shit about the students, a big one, as it were.

That said, I am thinking about leaving academia. The primary reason is that I don't the current state of academic institutions – in the humanities at least – serves to facilitate real education (perhaps I'm an idealist), let alone good research. Everything from teaching to research is hollowed out by the quantitative. Administrators are hostile towards humanities programs and, I'm sorry to say, academics in secure jobs are too scared to do anything about it. As much as I love what I do, I feel forced into a position where to continue, I have to sacrifice my future, financially, but potentially things like health and other material opportunities. I own nothing and a university lecturer position (seemingly my most realistic hope) will not alter my financial situation in any way.

So my question is – where outside academia might I find ways to impact people in this way? The transfer of ideas, the opening of a mind, even a little, I would like to continue doing this. But most industry jobs seem to lose that dimension and most people who leave for industry seem like they have a 'take it or leave it' relationship to teaching. I suspect I'll continue to 'research' and write regardless of what pays the bills (I do it now and it's technically not part of my job).

I empathize with the OP's plight, and suspect there are many academic philosophers who do. And their question is a good one.

Are there alt-ac jobs where one can make the type of impact we make with students? If so, how can one find of them? 

I am aware of places like Rethink Priorities and various think-tank type jobs which aim to make an impact in terms of transferring ideas, opening minds, and making a difference in the world. But I know very little about this stuff as a relative outsider who has spent my career in academic. So, I think it would be great to hear from people in the alt-ac world.

Do you have any helpful insights to share to the OP and others like them?

'Major revisions' vs. 'minor revisions'

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

I am curious about the difference between "major revision" and "minor revision". I understand that journals might think of them differently. But is there any official policy or is it up to the editors? Is it just a "quantitative" difference about the amount of revisions one is expected to do, or is there any procedural difference in how the editors handle the revised manuscripts?

These are good questions, and it would be great to hear from some editors. I seem to recall that one journal (I can't remember which) equates each type of R&R with a certain type of probability judgment of eventual acceptance (e.g., 70% likely accept for minor revisions, 50%? for major revisions). At least anecdotally, it also seems to me that journals may use different procedures for each type of R&R, with journals sometimes recruiting a third referee for major revisions, versus perhaps only sending minor revisions to one referee (if the other referee recommended acceptance, or some such).

Anyway, it would be great to hear from others, particularly editors. How do you understand the difference between 'minor' vs. 'major' revisions in an R&R, and how (if at all) can editorial/review procedures differ between them?

Do publications before a job count for tenure?

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

Do the papers that one publishes prior to securing a TT job at a particular institution count towards meeting the research expectations for tenure at that institution? For instance, say someone has published 5 articles but hasn't yet secured a TT position. Let's say this person get's a TT position at institution X. Say that the tenure standards at institution X are such that faculty need to publish 6 or 7 articles. Would this person need to publish another 6 or 7 articles, or would their existing publications count? Perhaps this varies by institution, but I'm curious about how widely this varies, and what things look like for different kinds of jobs. Thanks!

My sense is that a lot of institutions only count publications toward tenure and promotion that one has achieved after starting a TT job at the institution. But maybe I'm wrong? So it would be good to hear from readers.

Do publications before starting a TT job at your institution count for tenure and promotion there, or not? When answering, please say what kind of college or university you are at!

Should a recent TT hire focus their research on a single topic?

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

Should I aim at a narrow(er) area of expertise?

I recently secured a tenure-track position, and at this stage of my career, I've observed that most of my colleagues and admired philosophers have a well-defined expertise encapsulated in one or two keywords. However, due to the instability of my career thus far—having moved through different departments and research projects—and my broad range of interests, I find it challenging to focus on the same specific topic for an extended period. I often switch to whatever has recently captured my interest or, more pragmatically, whatever receives funding. While I recognize the benefits of maintaining focus on a single topic, such as deep knowledge, networking, and reputation, I seem to gravitate toward new subjects periodically.

I wonder if others share this experience. How common is it for individuals to stick to the same topic for an extended period in academic and professional settings?

These are excellent questions. My sense is that a lot depends on which kind of institution one's TT job is at. For example, I've heard several times that at some elite R1 universities, the most important determinant of getting tenure is not how many articles one has published, or even how great the venues are, but whether the person is considered a leading thinker on a particular topic--that is, whether they are a "superstar" in a particular area (example: David Chalmers on consciousness). At other R1s, R2s, and elite SLACs, I've heard that as long as you've published a sufficient number of articles in sufficiently good places, you have a good shot at tenure. But, at other types of schools (e.g. "teaching institutions"), you really just need to publish decently, however this is understood at the particular institution (in my experience, different institutions can have substantially different research standards for tenure).

So, if I were Sarah, the first thing I'd want to do is to ask people at her institution (e.g., department chair, dean, etc.)--and indeed, get in writing in an email somewhere (just in case it might help in a tenure appeal later on)--which of the above are expected for tenure at her institution. If the answer is, "you need to be a superstar in a particular area", then I'd say: focus on that. But, if the answer is, "you just need to publish 6 articles in selective peer-reviewed venues", then work on whatever you think is likely to do that!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

How important is "referee-proofing" papers?

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

How important is it to make a paper "perfect" -- i.e., perfectly worded, perfectly organized, "idiot-proofed," etc. -- before submitting it to a top journal? I often spend months revising papers before submitting them, even though this doesn't improve the papers much, simply because I'm worried that the slightest blemishes will earn me rejections.

On the other hand, I've never recieved a rejection based on minutiae, and referees always have opportunities to request small changes. So, it occurs to me that these painstaking revisions may not make any difference to my chances of being accepted.

Thoughts?

Interesting questions. I guess my own sense is that, the more one publishes, the more one may get a sense of the kinds of things that referees can get hung up on, and try to avoid those things. But, as the OP notes, they don't seem to have had any rejections based on minutiae, so maybe referee-proofing isn't all that necessary?

I'm curious to hear from other readers. What's your experience? How much time and effort do you put into getting a paper as "perfect" as can be before submitting?

Dizzying publication rates by PhD students?

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

I know of PhD students who have dizzying numbers of publications (think > 8) and who have not even started their dissertations yet. But judging by their CVs, most superstar professors at elite institutions published little or nothing before finishing their PhDs, and virtually none of them published anything before starting their dissertations.

This suggests one of two things. Either (1) such insane publication rates among PhD students are a new phenomenon, or (2) having an insane number of publications as a PhD student doesn’t predict career success.

I’d love to hear people’s thoughts about this. I’d also like to know whether I should try to be one of these uber-prolific PhD students. (I just started my PhD .)

I'm curious what readers think. I suspect there is some truth to both (1) and (2). Back when I was in grad school in the early 2000s, it seemed pretty uncommon to publish while in grad school. In fact, I remember hearing many people say that they were actively dissuaded from it by grad faculty, the rationales being that grad students should focus on their dissertation publishing too early might "premature", leading to poorer published work than if the student waited to develop their ideas more. Alas, the hyper-competitive academic job market seems to have rather predictably led to something like a publishing arms-race--though, as the OP notes, it's unclear whether publishing a ton actually predicts success in landing a job.

What do readers think?

Reducing time to degree in grad programs?

A reader brought my attention today to a post at the Blog of the APA entitled, "Reducing Time to Degree in Philosophy Doctoral Programs." The authors, Martin Willard and Gina Helfrich, write:

In today’s dismal market for permanent academic positions, a median TTD of seven years, together with the refusal of many doctoral programs to disclose median TTDs to prospective students, represents a moral failure. Doctoral program faculty generally accept their obligation to assist graduates in obtaining academic positions (although increasingly these positions are not tenure-track). What should be just as obvious is their obligation not to take seven or eight of their matriculants’ critical career development years with academic programs that do not, for most students, lead to permanent employment.

...

Five-year doctoral program TTD medians are both desirable and achievable. Shorter TTD is desirable for the simple but under-appreciated reason that more than 70 percent of doctoral program matriculants will not obtain permanent (tenure track or similar) academic employment, and current trends away from university instruction in the humanities will only make this situation worse. Philosophy Ph.D. programs with long TTD medians therefore hamper the majority of their students’ career trajectories as well as their lifetime salary potential. Shorter TTD is not only desirable, it is achievable: it has already been achieved outside the U.S., and in the U.S. the doctoral programs at UNC, MIT, Princeton, and Yale have achieved a median TTD of six years or less for many of their graduating cohorts. In light of the limited job prospects for philosophy Ph.D.s in the US and Canada, sustained efforts to reduce the TTD for doctoral programs from the current 6.9 year median are, we believe, a moral imperative.

As someone who barely made it through grad school myself, and who grappled hard with the stress of worrying that I'd spent 7+ years in grad school with few career prospects to show for it, I'm definitely sympathetic to this argument. 

What do you all think?

Rigorous teaching standards vs. self-preservation?

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

I have a permanent, non-tt position at a state school. My position is teaching-oriented (4/4 load), and I teach a lot of gen-eds and lower-level classes. The threat of budgetary cuts at my institution concerns me, but I've been assured that my position is secure (I'm on multi-year renewable contracts). In spite of this, I'm still feeling a lot of pressure to maintain high enrollment in my classes and get strong student evals (lest I begin to appear expendable). I'm not cynical enough to think that the latter can only be gotten by compromising standards, but I do sometimes feel like my desire to impose rigorous academic standards and my desire for professional self-preservation are pulling me in opposite directions as a teacher. Does anybody else feel this way? Any tips on how to deal with it?

These are good questions. Recently, Eric Schwitzgebel catalogued some data on grade inflation, and it seems to be a progressive and ongoing issue across the academy. What's to be done? I don't know. It's a collective action problem which, as the OP points out, puts individual instructors in a bind.

How do you all handle these issues, and how well does it work?

Startup packages and research funding for tenure-track positions?

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

Would people hired into a TT position in the last few cycles be willing to anonymously share the details of their initial start-up packages/research funds along with the type of institution they are employed at (e.g., tiny SLAC, highly ranked R1, and so on?). It would be helpful to post what level of research funds (if any) are available to faculty on a yearly basis as well as the details of the startup funds in particular.

I ask because we are approaching job negotiating season for the lucky few, and I think it would be useful for new hires to have some sense of the range of packages currently being offered to philosophers since there might be room for negotiation around these numbers. I don't actually know what my own institution is currently offering new hires, let alone what other institutions are offering, and this makes it challenging for me to be a good advocate for them.

I recognize that such a thread might lead to envy or pain, especially for those who haven't yet secured a TT position, or have a tenure-stream position with no research funds or start-up packages. But I think the downsides of such a thread may be outweighed by the good of giving more people insight into what various types of institutions are currently offering TT philosophers.

For what it's worth (though maybe I'm wrong), I suspect start-up packages and research funds may only really "be a thing" at research institutions. But I'm curious to hear from readers.

If you were recently hired TT, did you get a start-up package? Do you have research funds? If so (or if not!), what kind of institution do you work at? And if you do have a start-up package and/or research funds, what are they like?

How to do interdisciplinary analytic philosophy, appealing to a wider audience?

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

I want to be interdisciplinary, and to appeal to wider audiences, especially in this precarious time for philosophers. But I have a problem whenever I try to do so. As an analytic philosopher, many of my papers so far take the form of, at least in the first part, presenting a problem that should trouble people (often arguing why it should). It might be a problem with existing accounts of X. Or it might be a philosophical puzzle or problem in its own right. More often than not I then offer a solution.

So the reaction I expect – if my audience gets the paper – is either being troubled, for the reasons I urged, or being troubled and then relieved (by my solution), or disagreeing that they should be troubled, or relieved, and so being at least a little troubled about that, instead. Generally, analytic philosophers who get the paper react in one of these ways.

But outside analytic philosophy, I never get any of these reactions. I maybe get well-intentioned feedback along the lines of “Ah, yes, that reminds me of X,” or “You should look at Y,” or “Is your sense of P (which the problem doesn’t turn on) the same as So-and-So’s sense?” They never seem troubled, or relieved, but they also don’t seem to disagree or find the argument underwhelming, trivial, or obvious. This just leaves me frustrated that they’re not playing ball, and my frustration shows, preventing fruitful interaction.

Is it just me? What should I do?

Good questions. I guess I'm inclined to think experiences like these may be good opportunities to see whether the kinds of questions we raise and arguments we give have the kind of interest and appeal to outsiders that they do within our own disciplinary silos--and, if not, to investigate why and (potentially) what to do about it. One of the things I've always admired of the Socratic model of philosophy in Plato's works is how Socrates engages with everyday people in dialogue. And I think there are some trends in this direction in philosophy (including analytic philosophy in particular), viz. "public philosophy." Beyond this, though, I'm not sure.

What do you all think? It would be great to hear from people who have (or haven't) had similar experiences, and what they took away from them!

Listing engagement with your work in a CV?

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

In a CV, should you/ how should you list the engagement of other philosophers with your work? (1) is there a clear/tidy way to note the number of citations that your paper has? (2) how to record more substantive engagement - e.g. a philosopher discusses MyView™ for a page or two, of their entire paper is a response to mine. It seems like peer engagement is good/‘impressive’ but not sure how/if to display it in a CV.

Hmm, I don't know. I have come across CVs where people list venues in which their books have been reviewed, as well as a CV or two in which people list some of their PhilPapers stats (e.g., a paper of theirs that is in 'top 1%' of downloads), but I'm not sure how wise the latter is and don't think I've ever come across a CV that notes the number of citations a paper has.

For my part, I just include a link to my Google Scholar page at the top of my CV. This seems to me to be relatively unobtrusive, while giving a reader who might have any interest in that sort of thing (e.g., in tenure/promotion decisions) an easy way to look it up.

What do you all think, and what do you do in your CV?

 

Listing engagement with your work in a CV?

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

In a CV, should you/ how should you list the engagement of other philosophers with your work? (1) is there a clear/tidy way to note the number of citations that your paper has? (2) how to record more substantive engagement - e.g. a philosopher discusses MyView™ for a page or two, of their entire paper is a response to mine. It seems like peer engagement is good/‘impressive’ but not sure how/if to display it in a CV.

Hmm, I don't know. I have come across CVs where people list venues in which their books have been reviewed, as well as a CV or two in which people list some of their PhilPapers stats (e.g., a paper of theirs that is in 'top 1%' of downloads), but I'm not sure how wise the latter is and don't think I've ever come across a CV that notes the number of citations a paper has.

For my part, I just include a link to my Google Scholar page at the top of my CV. This seems to me to be relatively unobtrusive, while giving a reader who might have any interest in that sort of thing (e.g., in tenure/promotion decisions) an easy way to look it up.

What do you all think, and what do you do in your CV?

 

Publishing a children's philosophy book?

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

Strange request, but I have a manuscript for a young-reader chapter book (potential series, think "Magic Treehouse") that is inspired by famous works in philosophy. I am having trouble finding an outlet or agent to help get it published -- I would love any recommendations for agents, publishers, or any other advice for getting into non-academic (esp. children's books) publishing.

I recognize that the lack of traction might just mean that the book/idea stinks, but I still want to give this a good-faith effort before shrugging the shoulders and moving on. Thanks!

This is perhaps not as strange of a request as it sounds. During my time in the discipline, I've come across a few people who have said they've written books like these, though I don't know if they were published. I do know that my spouse and I have a four-set of baby books on philosophers for our little one, so it does seem like there's some market for this sort of thing. But I have no idea how to advise the OP myself.

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

Handling a problematic supervisor as non-TT faculty?

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

I have a question concerning problematic supervisors at the non-TT faculty level:

I've been non-TT faculty with a 4/4 load at an R1 with a good PhD program for three years now. The person who makes the teaching schedule (who is not the dept. chair) gives me four preps every semester, and almost always different classes. For instance, I had seven *different* preps last academic year and one repeat prep for a total of eight classes over two semesters. Seven preps in an academic year is ridiculous (and maybe borderline abuse? I'm not sure.) I would have asked for different classes, but given the faculty's constantly emphasizing to me the contingency of my employment (e.g., "Your contract is only for one year, after that, who knows..."), I felt I needed to do as I was told to solidify my standing. Instead, I seem to have sent the message that I am here to be exploited.

I've also been designing an online class, which has proven to be a ton of very annoying work, only to be told that I won't be getting any sections of the online class in the future once finished, and will remain teaching all four classes per semester in the classroom. And last, the schedule maker also treats me like a child, talks down to me, and is generally an egotistical jerk. All in all, given the extreme mental load of all these preps and online course design, I feel that the schedule maker has basically attacked me and my career with this unfavorable scheduling.

The whole experience has been awful. I need to get out of here. I also need to talk to my chair. Does anyone have any additional thoughts? Or does anyone else want to share stories of mistreatment as a vulnerable junior faculty member?

Yikes, this is awful treatment, and I'm so sorry the OP is going through it. I guess the first question I'd have is this: do they trust their department chair? If so, then that seems to me like probably the first thing to do. On the other hand, if they don't trust the chair, I'm not sure what they should do besides, as the OP puts it, "get out of here"--though, as we all know, that can be easier said than done given the job market.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Concluding thoughts (Guest post by the Editors of Analysis - 4 of 4)

This is the final of four guest posts by the Editors of Analysis. The Editors' aims have been to "give some guidance to prospective authors and to contribute to public debate about philosophy publishing." In today's post, the editors respond to some of the comments in their first three posts. Many thanks to the Editors for sharing their thoughts on the peer-review process here at the Cocoon.

By Stacie Friend, David Liggins, and Lee Walters

We’re delighted that our posts have generated so much debate. A big thank you to everyone for their comments and questions! The discussion was rich and wide-ranging; we can’t do justice to it all, but here are some thoughts on some of the points raised.

Our first post was about referee reports and whether they should be aimed at helping authors or helping editors. Since a couple of commenters seem to have misinterpreted us, we’ll start by reiterating that our main point was not that lengthy reports aimed at authors take longer for us to read, but that they take longer for referees to write; and we didn’t argue that it’s impermissible to write reports like that, but that writing more, shorter reports would help with the current crisis.

In the comments, “Sometimes reviewer” made the point that it’s important to give comments if recommending a revise-and-resubmit, to help the author change the paper so it gets accepted next time. We agree! Sometimes referee reports need to be long, because the recommendation is complicated: “I recommend that you accept this paper subject to the following changes…” or “I recommend that you ask the author to revise the paper in such-and-such ways”. We like short referee reports, but sometimes reports can be too short to be helpful to an editor.

Good 'alt-ac' elevator pitches for philosophy?

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

What is a good alt-ac 'elevator pitch' for philosophy? I think something like this would be very useful to have in non-academic cover letters and job interviews. That is, how should you describe philosophy to a hiring manager with little to no experience with philosophy? Let's also assume that the hiring manager isn't completely incurious (you wouldn't get a charitable reading of your cover letter or get called in for an interview if that was the case).

Ideally, the pitch should be brief (30 sec./2-10 sentences) and positively reflect the transferrable aspect of philosopher's skillsets. The ideal pitch might also depend on the type of job (i.e., ethics officer vs science policy advisor).

I can only think of one such elevator pitch. That philosophy is about trying to solve deep, difficult problems that cannot be fully answered by reliable methods. Then I would give an example of a problem like this and describe how philosophers try to answer it.

But I'm not sure how appealing this pitch is to hiring managers. I imagine that few non-academic jobs requires you to work on deep, difficult problems with 'unreliable' methods. I would therefore be very interested in ideas from others on how to pitch philosophy in an alt-ac context.

These are good questions, and I'm probably not the best person to ask given that I've spent my career in academia. I guess I'd suggest that the OP check out our Alt-Ac transition-tips and Alt-Ac  Workshop series. But beyond that, it would be great to hear from readers who have experience outside of academia, particularly people who have gotten industry jobs in recent years. 

Do any readers with experience here have any helpful tips or insights?

Reaching out to department chairs to see if they need a VAP?

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

I am ABD in a middling department, planning to defend in the summer. I have 3 years of teaching experience as a primary instructor, but no publications yet. This was my first year on the job market, and my advisor has recommended that at this point I start reaching out to department chairs to ask if they might need a VAP in the fall. I've never heard of such a thing-- my impression was that places looking for a VAP generally advertise and go through a hiring process. Should I follow his advice anyway? And if so, any suggestions for how to pitch the email and cover letter?

The advice the OP relates here indeed seems strange. My sense is that VAPs normally need to be advertised, and are usually advertised in places like HigherEd Jobs and PhilPapers. So I worry that at best, reaching out to department chairs would be a waste of time.

Does anyone see things differently here?

Ted Lasso and Philosophy - out now!

This is just a quick note that Ted Lasso and Philosophy (Wiley-Blackwell) is now out and available on Amazon. I was a big fan of the show, and contributed a chapter entitled "Doing Masculinity Better." If you're a fan of the show too, do check it out!

Tips for mentoring a philosophy club?

In our most newest "how can we help you?" thread

I am a new TT faculty and have been asked to take over the job of mentoring the Philosophy Club. Any advice on how to be an awesome mentor?

Good question. It would be great to hear how faculty mentor these kinds of clubs. What works? What doesn't?

Anyone have any helpful tips to share?

How can we help you? (February 2024)

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! 

Finally, please note the following NEW RULE: in the past, I have allowed people to submit follow-up comments to queries in these threads, and sometimes included those comments in new posts on this thread's queries. Given the number of comments and replies that are submitted, this has become infeasible for me to keep track of. So, please only submit queries in the thread below, not responses to queries already submitted. If you'd like to respond to a query, please wait until I actually post on the person's query myself and comment in that thread instead!

How do editors decide desk-rejections?

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

Publishing question: I am curious as to how journal editors decide whether or not to "desk reject" a manuscript. I have received many such rejections (where a manuscript is rejected without ever being sent to referees). Most times this happens the rejection does not include any feedback or comments from the editor, so I'm left entirely in the dark. On the basis of what are these decisions made? Is the manuscript actually read? Skimmed?

These are excellent questions. It would be great to hear from some editors!

Listing a co-author as a reference?

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

I received my phd 4 years ago. I am still in contact with my supervisor occasionally, but less so when it comes to other external referees. I start feeling that my current colleagues and (external) co-authors know my work a lot better. My favourite co-author is TT. We have published 2 papers together, and have 2 more being drafted. Would it be prudential to list my favourite co-author as my source of reference? Would their earlier career stage make their letters less cool?

Good questions, and have no idea! What do you all think?

How to "go big" philosophically?

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

How to go big?

Kind of building off the previous post. I’ve been revisiting Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, for the first time since freshman year. Comparing what they wrote with what I write/what I see people writing, it seems that they are doing really massive-picture stuff about the fundamentals of metaphysics and epistemology, but that lots of people now are working on really small-picture stuff. I’m increasingly thinking that “division of labor” in philosophy (a) just doesn’t work - unlike the sciences, there’s no point in a “catalogue of monkeys” or finessing the Rawlsian edifice, etc. By its nature, philosophy is concerned with the whole, knitting the cosmic yogurt, and so has to take lofty leave of a lot of details. (b) from an existential point of view/why do this instead of “big money, big cars, big bodyguards”, it seems worth it to go to Descartes-levels of big picture and, probably, make a mess of it, than to have scribed out the 1808th footnote to Rawls (sorry, just don’t like Rawls lol).

So, advise for going big, or thoughts on whether this is the wrong way of looking at it.

Interesting question. Whenever I've heard this discussed, I've encountered widely varying opinions ranging from "just go for it" to "wait until later in your career and build up to it by publishing in the best journals." In the history of philosophy, among those who went big successfully, there seems to me to be wide variations, ranging from Kant (who published his influential works later in life) to people like Parfit, who went pretty big early on in Reasons and Persons.

Anyway, curious to hear what people think. Anyone have any thoughts?

Withdrawing acceptance of a job offer for another job?

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

It has been made clear to me that if one were to commit to a VAP and then receive a TT offer, that it is acceptable to withdraw from the VAP and take the TT offer. What I am curious about is how the calculus runs when it concerns different kinds of non-TT offers. For instance, if someone commits to a 1 year VAP and then receives an offer for a 2 year postdoc, is it acceptable to take the postdoc and withdraw from the VAP or would it be seen negatively given that the postdoc is not a TT job and withdrawal is only acceptable for a TT position? It occurs to me that many of these temporary positions are heterogeneous in terms of teaching load and contract term (1-3 years) so I am curious to hear if there is any consensus on this point given that a junior scholar is, at once, hoping to make the best choice for themself and hoping not to burn bridges in the process.

Good question. I've actually heard people disagree over the ethics of withdrawing from offers one has already accepted, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that job candidates should do what's best for themselves and their career.

But what do you all think? 

Resources for sabbatical funding?

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

Is there a list of resources for junior to mid-career faculty who are looking for (partly) funding a sabbatical/get additional training?

I have in mind something like the British Academy mid-career fellowship, or a Tempelton grant for tenured faculty to get additional training (discontinued a few years ago I believe).

Sometimes one is in the privileged position of being able to take a sabbatical, but coming from a country with low academic salaries it is difficult to organize longer research stays/pay for tuition elsewhere.

Good question. At my university, if one takes a full-year sabbatical, one only gets 50% of one's annual salary. A few years back, I was hoping to take a full year, but it just wasn't financially feasible. While I did see some fellowships at other universities on PhilJobs, I couldn't really apply for them due to my family situation. So, it would be great to hear about any other types of funding sources.

Do any readers have any helpful insights to share?