The Philosophers' Cocoon

Grappling with lack of a sense of belonging to the profession?

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

How common is it to feel the lack of a sense of belonging (to the profession of philosophy)? How do you handle it?

I am a mid-career (tenured but not "senior" if it makes sense) philosopher at a small, non-elite school. My job is teaching-oriented, and teaching takes most of my time. I have published maybe 1 article per year on average. I have had less and less a sense of belonging in recent years. I occasionally saw posts here complaining about the unpaid work (and overwork) in the profession. I feel like, "I am sorry for your experience but, hey, I feel jealous in an odd way!"

For example, I have not received any invitation to give a talk or to attend a workshop anywhere. I receive review requests probably like 2-3 times per year. My department does not have a graduate program, and I never served as an external member for a thesis committee. I have received one book review request (which I declined because I did not have time). When I was at APA meetings, I was not part of any already-established circles, and I usually ended up talking with some graduate students who were similarly lost and awkward.

Maybe this is just a fact for me to accept. I am introvert and I do not like (and almost have never done) self-promoting. I am curious, though, is there any way to create some sense of belonging other than publishing more articles/books as a way to let others know you?

Good questions. I suspect this is pretty common, and I empathize. I've definitely felt it at times, particularly earlier in my career when I didn't know many people in the profession. Also, as an introvert myself, getting to know people isn't my greatest forte. Still, I've found that going to conferences helps, as over time I've been able to make friends in the profession.

I guess that would be my biggest tip: send stuff to conferences and try to get to know people. Other than that, I've always just tried to enjoy my work locally--that is, my research, teaching, and friends and colleagues in my own locale.

What do readers think? How common is a lack of a sense of belonging? If it's something you grapple with, how do you handle it?

Taking days off for special events or conferences?

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

What's the protocol for taking time off for special events like weddings when you're a VAP or lecturer scheduled to teach on those days? Do you just figure out yourself how to handle those missed days (i.e., by pre-recording lectures or having synchronous Zoom lectures) or do you have to run it by your department chair?

While we're on the topic, what's the protocol for taking a few days off to attend or speak at a conference or an invited talk?

I suspect answers to these questions are probably institution-relative. At my institution, we're expected to notify our chair and administrative assistant of days we'll be absent from teaching, and in some cases we're supposed to provide "alternative assignments" (such as posting a lecture, etc.). The best thing to do, I think, is to ask your chair!

What do readers think, and what are the protocols where you are?

CFA: 90s Alternative and Philosophy

Call for Abstracts!

90s Alternative and Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Heart-Shaped Box

Edited by Joshua Heter and Richard Greene

Abstracts are sought for a collection of essays on any philosophical topic related to 90s alternative rock which may also include a number of subgenres (e.g., grunge, indie rock, emo, 3rd wave punk & ska, pop punk, nu metal & rap-rock, brit-pop, shoegaze, industrial, neo-psychedelia, etc.). Potential contributors may want to examine previous volumes from Heter and Greene: Punk Rock and Philosophy: Research and Destroy (2022) and Post-Punk and Philosophy: Rip it Up and Think Again (2024). Abstracts and eventual essays should be written for an educated but non-specialized audience (with an approximate length of 3,000 – 3,500 words). Potential topics include (but are not limited to)…

Good joint philosophy & psych PhD programs?

A reader writes in:

I had a student ask me about joint philosophy and psychology PhD programs today ... She's already been doing a bit of research and knows that Yale and Wash U have programs but I thought there must be other joint degree programs as well as programs where there are strong links between the two departments. Do you have any suggestions?

Good question. I'm not that well clued in, as I knew about Wash U but only remembered Yale when the OP mentioned it. Are there other good joint phil-psych PhD programs?

Do any readers have any helpful tips?

Dealing with a department with issues as a grad student?

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

I'm in a phd program that has recently had a lot of turnover and department issues. While I am done with coursework and have a relatively clear path to finishing my dissertation, I worry about further developments and obstacles that are both unforeseeable (in their specifics) and out of my control as a grad student. Each time there is a new instance of bad news, I go through a new cycle of anxiety about whether it will be viable to finish in the program and whether that particular development will have any bearing on my job prospects.

Does anyone have any advice on how to both a) deal with this kind of anxiety as a grad student and b) try and better identify what kinds of developments I should take seriously as reasons to consider searching for ways to transition out of graduate school? I think (b) is a more pressing issue, as there are plenty of things that decrease the quality of intellectual environment without threatening my ability to finish in my program or decreasing my chances of finding a job. Plus, figuring out (b) will contribute to figuring out (a).

I'm sorry the OP is dealing with this. I had to transfer PhD programs when four of my first program's faculty were hired away by other programs. I was fortunate enough to have it happen early on, so I can only imagine how difficult it must be to see faculty turnover and other stuff happen much later on. Alas, I'm not sure that I have any helpful advice to offer aside from: just focus on finishing and putting yourself in the best position you can to get a job. Maybe also try to keep in good touch with faculty who have been hired away?

What do readers think? It would be great to hear from readers who have grappled with similar situations.

How to go about submitting book proposals?

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

How does one go about submitting a book proposal?

I have heard various tales: folks who got in touch with editors with just a brief paragraph pitch, to garner interest, and then waited to see if the editor wanted more, and then sent more; folks who didn't seek a publisher until a full manuscript draft was written; some who submitted a 10 page or so synopsis + a chapter; and so on.

In general I'd really like to know how people have gone about the early stages of book publication.

Good question! We've discussed book proposals before, but it would be great to hear from readers with experience in getting proposals accepted.

I've had three proposals accepted. In my experience, most publishers have clear directions for submitting proposals on their website, often with forms they want you to fill out on the book's substance, competitors, etc. In none of the cases did I have a full manuscript written first. While I've heard that some people go that route, if it were me I'd worry about putting all the work into a full manuscript without a contract in hand.

What do other readers think? Any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Grappling with responsibility for family relocations?

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

I'm curious if others have advice on some of the difficult feelings that can arise from feeling responsible for family member relocations. I recently got a job (yay!), which led my partner and I to move from a place we really liked to a place that we're still trying to figure out. The only reason we are in this place is because of my job, which is difficult in and of itself, but I find myself also feeling guilty for taking us away from the place we liked, as well as some burden for making our new place good for both of us.

My partner certainly had a say in where I applied for work and, ultimately, in whether we would move or not. There's just no easy way to be married to an academic though! Given how much my partner cares about my well-being, and how supportive they are of my dreams, it was pretty much a no-brainer that I would take the job that I did. So it's not like I feel like I "forced" the move to happen, exactly, but it still kind of feels like it would have been a pretty difficult veto.

Anyway, if you've had these sorts of emotions (or others!), I'd love hear about them, even if you never really found a cure.

I suspect that many academics empathize with the OP--I certainly do, though I'm not sure that I have any helpful advice to offer. Fortunately, my spouse and I are happy where we are now, but the early years definitely weren't easy on either of us moving away from friends and family. 

Do any readers have any tips or experiences to share?

How are Oxford BPhils regarded by American PhD admissions committees?

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

How is the Oxford Bphil regarded by American PhD admissions committees? In particular, how are BPhil grades/marks and transcripts regarded by American PhD admissions committees?

Standard advice for applying to philosophy PhD programs is to get *stellar* grades and straight A's in philosophy, and if not, to do an MA afterwards...and to definitely show no decline in your grade trajectory.

The particularities of the Oxford BPhil makes it hard to interpret this advice because:

1. In theory, marks range from 0-100, with marks above 65 "merit", marks above 70 "low distinction", above 75 "middle distinction" and above 85 "high distinction." In practice, virtually nothing is given a mark above 72, and there is a very high variance in marks...with a "Distinction" awarded for the degree as a whole for any candidate whose five highest essay marks average above a 67 average and whose thesis is marked 70 or higher...

2. People don't talk openly about grades on the BPhil because it has a pretty atomized and zero-sum competition culture...but if a transcript with grades below 70 (or, 75?) is considered blemished, it is difficult to understand how so many BPhil grads seem to get into good to excellent American PhD programs given that average BPhil marks are between 65 and 70 across the cohort, but almost everyone in the BPhil from the US coming with a near perfect transcript, often from unambiguously elite schools. Did we all sort of screw ourselves by incurring this transcript risk on the BPhil?

So, how are BPhil transcripts interpreted by US graduate admissions committees?

What is a Bphil transcript equivalent to an American MA 3.9 (or, whatever the defacto cut-off is before a transcript requires explanation)?

I have no idea, and didn't know about any of the issues the OP mentions. Given how idiosyncratic the BPhil grading system is, I too wonder what admissions committee members make of it.

What do readers think? Does anyone with experience in PhD admissions have any inside insights?

Will publications outside your job's AOS help with tenure?

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

Suppose:
A job advertises for an AOS in ethics, and AOC in epistemology.
My AOSes are broader: Ethics & metaphysics
My AOCs are broader: epistemology & X-phi

Will only publications in ethics (and perhaps epistemology) count towards tenure?
-Will metaphysics count?
-Will x-phi count?
-Will anything outside these fields count?

Great questions. In my department, it would count toward tenure. But I imagine things might be different elsewhere, maybe particularly at R1 programs where one is expected to be a leading figure (and graduate advisor) in the AOS you were hired in?

What do readers think?

How can we help you? (July 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 one.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query. 

As usual, feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching (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, a quick reminder of 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!

Tips for an American PhD in a European postdoc?

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

I got a multiple-yr postdoc in Europe, PhD from the US. It's primarily research based with opportunities to teach once or twice. Since I know relatively little about European postdoctoral positions, can people chime in about their first- or second-hand experiences with European postdoc duties and expectations? I'm interested in the following questions:

(1) Are European postdocs expected to stay in the region outside the regular semesters? For example, during the PhD, I could go wherever I wanted during the summer and do my thing. This is probably normal with VAPs/tt positions. Will I be fine if I want to return to the US during a portion of the summer, for instance, when activity is low and focus on research there? How can I best approach that possibility?

(2) This is my first time as a postdoc, let alone abroad. For the PIs in the audience with postdocs, what're some things postdocs have done that contributed uniquely to the project and to your excellent recommendation of them to colleagues or in letters?

(3) Anything else you might want to add about european research postdocs? I've heard anecdotally about the european postdoc "trap" though I have my concerns about that terminology. What to really avoid?

Great questions, though I'm not well-positioned to provide any helpful answers.

Do any readers with experience have any experiences or insights to share?

Following the Cocoon on PhilPeople's News Feed?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Jakub Mácha wrote:

I used to follow new posts on Cocoon via my PhilPapers/Philpeople news page. However, new posts don't appear there anymore (in contrast to Daily Nous and other blogs). Any thoughts on how to fix this issue?

Hmm...when I log in to PhilPeople, go to "News Feed", and click on "Manage Blogs", The Philosophers' Cocoon still comes up.

Is anyone else having Jakub's problem?

Which generalist journals publish 'pure' philosophy of science?

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

Does anyone have a sense of which generalist journals regularly publish (so to speak) "pure" philosophy of science papers? And why don't more journals do this?

Lots of generalist journals publish stuff that overlaps with philosophy of science, say metaphysics of science or formal epistemology. It's not hard to find somewhere to submit a paper on laws of nature or the metaphysics of QM, or on Sleeping Beauty or whatever.

But it's hard to submit something on the epistemology of measurement or on the epistemology of randomized controlled trials to places outside of the main philosophy of science speciality journals. Synthese and (sometimes) Erkenntnis do this but they have a long tradition of being phil science friendly. Nous and JPhil also seem to do this, but it's hard to get a sense of the rest of where the rest of the top-20 generalist journals stand.

I mean, I once had an entirely non-formal paper from a HPS angle rejected from a regular journal for "being too formal," which journal also regularly publishes highly technical formal epistemology papers. So, what gives? And are there generalist journals which are willing to accept papers on topics in the philosophy of science that don't overlap so clearly w/ formal epistemology and metaphysics?

I have no idea. Do any readers have any helpful insights?

What's Wrong With Rankings 3: Hidden Value Judgments

By Sam Duncan

The thing I object to most strongly in rankings is that I think they all have value judgments baked in and that by using them one is accepting those judgments without thinking about or taking responsibility for a value judgment. Now I won’t lie, I find the values baked into the PGR especially bad ones, but I sincerely believe that this is a problem inherent in any attempt to rank graduate programs in philosophy or education more generally. Consider the way that judgments about what is good philosophy are hidden in the PGR’s supposedly objective and factual ranking. 

The way that specialty rankings are listed and what specialty rankings are listed is especially revealing. Metaethics and moral psychology get their own slot in the “Value Theory” heading and so does philosophy of law. But bioethics, digital ethics, business ethics, and environmental ethics are all rolled into one big ball and listed as “Applied Ethics.” It could be worse for them though. Feminism isn’t even judged to be “Value Theory” but is instead relegated to “Other.” Kant gets an entire slot to himself under “History” while Chinese philosophy and Indian philosophy are also crammed into the “Other” drawer. Indian philosophy doesn’t even get its own proper category in “Other.” Islamic philosophy isn’t listed anywhere. I don’t think anyone could accuse me of lacking sufficient respect for Kant, but that he gets a slot all his own while Zhuangzi, Confucius, Mengzi, and Lao Tzu are all stuffed into a single category that isn’t even counted as proper history of philosophy is indefensible. That the PGR tacitly says that al-Ghazali and ibn-Rushd aren’t even philosophers is so off base I’m literally at a loss for words.

Drawbacks to multiple publications in the same journal?

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

Are there any significant drawbacks to having multiple publications in the same journal?

Having two papers in two different journals could look less impressive than having two in the same journal. But as long as the journals are relatively on par with one another, is it that big of a deal?

I ask because I've got a paper forthcoming in a well-run journal and another paper I know would be a good fit with it. It's tough to find well-run journals these days, and it's even harder to find a well-run journal that would also be a good fit for a polished draft.

Thoughts?

Maybe if most of your publications are in a single journal, that might look weird. But I don't see any issue with two publications in the same journal. It may also depend on which journal we're talking about (would anyone bat an eyelash at multiple publications in Philosophical Review?).

What do you all think?

Suggesting reviewers to journals?

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

I have a somewhat minor question, but I think it could be useful for others. How common/useful/recommended is it to suggest specific reviewers when submitting a paper to a journal?

I've come to learn that it is quite common in other fields. Researchers tend to suggest reviewers they think will be congenial to the paper's argument. And, not always but to a greater degree than I would have expected, these reviewers are actually assigned by the editors.

I've never done that in philosophy, fearing that it would be seen poorly by the editors or that the suggested reviewers may guess that I'm the author (unlikely, given my career stage). But none of these considerations seem to weigh heavily in other fields.

Some journals have made me do this as an author. At best, I find it irksome, as journals can require you to hunt down contact information. At worst, it seems to me a way to potentially corrupt the peer-review process, in that authors are more or less self-selecting who they'd prefer to review their paper (many authors give papers at colloquia, send around papers to colleagues, etc.). So personally, I prefer not to see this done. But, in any case, it would seem strange to me to propose reviewers to journals that don't explicitly request or require it.

What do you all think? Is this a common or useful practice?

How Long Does It Take to Peer Review a Paper?

By Trevor Hedberg

One of the Cocoon’s recent posts concerned a reader inquiry about why it takes some referees longer than 2 weeks to review a paper. This is an understandable question – it’s something I wondered about when I was a graduate student – and the ensuing discussion generated an array of responses. Some argued that it wasn’t excusable to take longer than 2 weeks to review a paper; others argued that taking longer was often justified due to busy schedules and a host of other reasons. I thought it might be worth describing my own approach to refereeing papers, how it has changed as I have moved to new jobs, and why I now rarely complete a referee report within two weeks of acceptance.

When I held postdoctoral positions, I reviewed papers pretty quickly. I would read the paper during an afternoon, think about it for a few days (unless it was of such poor quality that it did not warrant much reflection), and then write up my comments during another afternoon. I also did not receive a ton of referee requests, so I typically just had one article review on my to-do list.

I have not been able to maintain that swift completion time in my current position. The biggest reason why is that the demands of my current post are significantly greater than they were during my postdocs – I teach more classes and have much greater service obligations. There are only so many hours in each week that I can reasonably devote to service without a drop in the quality of my work and an increasing risk of burnout. Some of those hours get consumed by meetings, workshops, and various forms of paperwork. I also do a fair amount of reviewing that does not involve philosophy journals. Last year, for instance, I reviewed hundreds of scholarship applications for the W.A. Franke Honors College and evaluated 52 student writing samples as part of a general education review conducted across the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, and Northern Arizona University.

Best timeline for a postdoc search?

A reader writes in:

Longtime reader, sometime commenter on the Cocoon. I have a question I would love to have you throw out to readers. We are planning to do a search for a 2 year post doc this coming year. What is the ideal timeline for a post-doc search? "Ideal for who"? you ask. Well, that's part of my question. What's best for candidates? What's best for the hiring department? Because I think it matters to the answers: I would say our post-doc is attractive … Should we advertise it on the normal job cycle? Or much later (that is: wait for TT hiring to shake out)?

Good questions. Given that most candidates are presumably looking for a TT job, I guess I'd be inclined to think a later timeline for a postdoc hire is better. Then again, I'm an outsider with respect to the issue, so maybe there are things here I'm missing.

What do readers think?

Dealing with an abusive ex-supervisor?

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

So let’s say I just got done spending a few years ... in a department with a history of corrupt faculty: think sexual harassment scandals, forced retirements, etc. Let’s also say I also suspect that my supervisor ... of abuse. The supervisor oversaw a failed tenure case ... drove another non-TT faculty member ... out of the profession with bad treatment, has never graduated a PhD student, treated ... [those] who tried to work with him in abusive ways, and ... sabotaged a former ... student ... in an especially egregious way. The supervisor found ways to make my life utterly miserable ...

What should I do? The department chair is sympathetic but not buying my account, as the supervisor is well-liked by people outside of our subfield. To be clear, this is a moral and not logistical question: I have a new job, am out of that place. But working with this person leaves me feeling violated, definitely struggling to be productive, and I’m not sure what the right thing to do is.

I'm so sorry that the OP and others involved have suffered through this. Do any readers have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

How to polish a paper 'from 80% to 100%"?

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

Does anyone have advice for how to get papers from 80% finished to 100%? I often find that I have a good idea and write a decent first draft. But I then spend easily double the time polishing, usually still not to satisfaction. Often, I find I have lots of extra things to say, and I never know whether it's appropriate to include them or not, so I dither about that. Does anyone have good strategies foreign more efficient? Thanks in advance.

I'd like to challenge the background assumption here: namely, that authors should even aim at getting a paper to "100%." First, you'll never get there. Second, there's no good reason to try. A paper doesn't have to get to 100% for editors or reviewers to like it, and chances are they'll make you rewrite half the thing anyway in a revise-and-resubmit or two. Your task is not to get to 100%. Your task is to get to something like 90%. If the arguments are good and the paper is fairly well polished, send it out. You can't polish a turd into gold, and gold doesn't need to be perfectly polished to be valuable.

But this is just my reaction, and obviously doesn't answer the reader's query on its own terms. What do you all think? Do you have any helpful tips or experiences to relate? 

Why does it take >2 weeks to review a paper?

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

Well not just out of curiosity, but maybe I need to try to understand my fellow reviewers/academics a bit more. So here I am asking, given that one has accepted the task, why would it take anyone more than two weeks to review a paper? What are your reasons/guesses?

Good questions. Do any readers have any helpful insights to share?