The Philosophers' Cocoon

The in-person conference quandary

This June I went to my first in-person conference in over two years. It was in UMSL, which is in the town I'm currently based in (St Louis), so it was an easy transition. And it was lovely--exhausting but lovely. I also have a couple of more events lined up this fall. After a hiatus of in-person conferencing,  there's a general sense for many academics that "it's endemic now." We can't really expect improvements in vaccine effectiveness or transmission rates, so basically we have to do life under these circumstances. And academic life involves (for many of us) in-person conferences.

But I worry that this creates disparity in opportunities and professional development, exacerbating disparities that already exist in many cases, such as for disabled and chronically ill people. 

I got Covid in late April 2022 after being very cautious for over two years, and was quite sick for several weeks (sicker I thought I would be given that I got the full vaccination and a booster.) For the few weeks after recovery I reckoned I was OK in terms of immunity and went to a few events that I normally still deem to risky, such as a lovely dinner organized by the local Jesuit training center which is associated to SLU. It was a great event and the food was great, but it was also a very poorly ventilated area with so many people.

Norms for travel reimbursement in the COVID era?

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

What are the current norms about COVID and travel reimbursement? For example, suppose one gets invited for an in-person talk and the host promises to pay. But due to COVID, the trip had to be cancelled, the talk had to be given online, and some travel arrangements are unrefundable. Should the host pay? Or, for example, suppose one is traveling using university money, but again the trip had to be cancelled, is it still okay to submit the unrefundable travel costs for reimbursement?

Good questions. My experience is that many universities have strict policies governing these kinds of things, such that if you don't actually travel it's against their rules to submit travel reimbursements. So, on that, I'd be careful and forthright with your university about your situation. Hopefully, they'll be understanding. In terms of invited talks, if the in-person visit is canceled, it seems to me that the host should clearly cover non-refundable costs. But these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours?

Importing commentator feedback into a paper?

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

I am wondering what the proper thing to do is in the following situation. A person was assigned as a commentator on my paper at a conference, and in their comments they summarized the main argument of my paper in premise form. The form was implicit in my argument, but now that I am revising the paper, I would like to include the argument in premise form. What is the right thing to do around using either their summary, or maybe a slightly altered version. Should I state in a footnote something like 'thanks to x for suggesting the following formulation'? Should I do that even if I change it somewhat? Or should I just thank them at the end in the acknowledgements and in the places where they suggested a given objection to a part of my argument (I will do both of these either way, of course)? The main thing that is confusing me is that the argument was there already in the original, and so a thing of my making, but not explicitly in premise form, and so a thing of their making. But then if I had gone through the trouble of making it more explicit, then I would have likely arrived at something very similar to their end product. So, what to do?

This is an excellent question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think it would be nice to thank x for specifically that. Maybe at the argument, add a footnote like "this argument was explicitly formulated first in x's helpful comments." This does not imply that you wouldn't be able to formulate yourself.

I think things are a bit more complicated than this. Even though the argument the commentator placed into premise-conclusion is of your making, the particular formulation of it in premise-conclusion form is (as the OP notes) of their making. So, I think simply taking it and importing it into the paper, even with minor alterations and an acknowledgment, may be a bit dicey. Personally, I think the safe thing to do here would be to simply email the commentator to ask them whether they are okay with you using it, noting that you would of course acknowledge them in the paper for suggesting it. This not only seems to me to be called for as a matter of professional courtesy. You also never know: perhaps if you don't ask, the person could get upset and lodge some kind of research misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) allegation. This may seem unlikely (and unreasonable), but why chance it when you can just ask them instead before going forward?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

 

Conference presentations: deviating from an accepted abstract?

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

I recently had a long abstract (1200 words) accepted to a cool workshop in my area of ethics, and the submission of the actual manuscript deadline for commenting/dissemination is nigh. In thinking through the project (I'm a mid-stage grad student), however, I realized I want to reformulate the central insight. In doing so, I think I make the overall story I try to tell more plausible but maybe lose some of the excitement of the result. The paper as currently conceived would differ somewhat from the abstract I submitted but not incredibly so. Still, I don't want to violate any professional norms or inadvertently and problematically bait-and-switch here.

My paper hasn't yet been sent to a commentator. Any suggestions on how best to proceed here? Should I write up a paper most faithful to my accepted abstract even if I no longer endorse that way of thinking about the issue? Or should I write the different paper I actually think works?

These are good questions. We've discussed before whether it is okay to change your paper after your commentator writes up comments. However, we haven't ever discussed whether it's okay to merely deviate somewhat from the content of an accepted abstract. So, I'm curious what everyone thinks here. Given that the OP is describing a workshop, and the whole point of a workshop is to share and develop one's work, I guess I don't see anything wrong with some deviation here--though I suppose that if one deviated so far from the abstract that it's an entirely different paper, the workshop organizers could potentially get upset. What do you all think?

Presenting a conference paper: deviating from the accepted version?

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

When presenting a paper at a conference (e.g. APA), how much is it acceptable to deviate from the version of the paper that was reviewed and accepted at the conference?

This is a good and important question to answer. One time when I served as a conference commentator, the presenter basically addressed all of the issues that I had raised in the comments that I sent to them, making my commentary useless. It felt like a really underhanded thing to do, put me in a really difficult position as their commentator, and I've heard anecdotally that similar things have occasionally happened to others. I'm not sure whether and how far it is acceptable to deviate from an accepted version of a paper if you don't have a commentator, but it seems to me plainly unacceptable (and unprofessional) to do what I describe above. What do you all think? 

How to improve (online) networking experiences

A commonly heard complaint about virtual conferences and other scholarly gatherings is that the network aspect is missing. When we gather in person, there are many opportunities to informally connect to others. In particular, for junior scholars, attending an in-person conference affords possibilities of fostering professional relationships outside of our immediate work environment. This not only helps them get their name out, but is also a source of picking up on professional trends, and even developing productive collaborations with peers as well as more junior and senior scholars.  

However, there are also problems.  The following tweet by a former community college instructor, currently university instructor, Emily Brier, highlights a major drawback of in-person networking: 

Anybody want to talk about how as an MA student at conferences nobody (and I mean NOBODY) would talk to me, and when I was a CC instructor nobody TT [tenure track]  would talk to me, and how conferences often just reinscribe hierarchy in ways that show why TT folks are itching to go back FTF?

This experience may strike a familiar chord with most people. If you are a grad student, especially from a smaller institution, or from a non-prestigious institution, it is hard to even begin a conversation with others. 

In my experience of many years ago at the APA "Smoker" reception, I mainly stood around with a glass in my hand as people swerved around the room looking to speak to people from the most elite institutions. Eventually, I worked up enough courage to talk to a few others quiet bystanders. I mainly spoke to fellow early career people, which was nice enough. The power of peer mentoring should not be discounted. Still, if networking in the form of informal connection to more senior members of the profession is to be a major aim of face to face conferencing, we fall short of that aim.

Moreover, people who cannot shell out the money, or for other reasons (e.g., disability, illness, caregiving responsibilities) cannot attend an in-person conference also miss out on informal relationships. 

With the 2+1 campaign, the Philosophers for Sustainability (of which I am a member) are petitioning the APA to hold one or two of its divisional meetings per year online. You can read more about the campaign here, the reasons for it, and sign if you agree. One thing we hope to accomplish is to create a white paper on the topic of informal networking and mentorship, and how to do it online. 

For these reasons, I would like to see suggestions by Cocoon readers on what they think could be improved in networking and informal mentorship. What are the ways it could be improved? What platforms, formats, and other ideas do you have to accomplish it? 

--

Many thanks to Colin Marshall, Eugene Chislenko, Jeremy Bendik-Keymer and other members of Philosophers for Sustainability. I post this in a personal capacity, but with support of Philosophers for Sustainability, who are keen to develop a white paper on how to help foster relationships and networking opportunities in formats other than in-person conferencing.

Conferences and professional hierarchies

On Twitter, Emily Brier (Lecturer in Composition, Western Carolina University) writes: 

Anybody want to talk about how as an MA student at conferences nobody (and I mean NOBODY) would talk to me, and when I was a CC instructor nobody TT would talk to me, and how conferences often just reinscribe hierarchy in ways that show why TT folks are itching to go back FTF?

Our own Helen De Cruz followed up:

I have been thinking about this often. FTF conferences are often touted as great networking opportunities, but if you comes from a low-prestige program or are an MA student you're often just being ignored. The APA "smoker" reception is a good example of how this works. When I was a job candidate with a diploma from an obscure European program, I'd just stand around at that reception holding a glass and no-one to talk to. Meanwhile, you had the stars from the top department everyone would flock to. Eventually, I found some other job seekers...And we had great conversations. Still, conferences reinforce hierarchies. The informality of that in between talk results in a lot of people being left out of that talk. How can conferences provide more equitable opportunities for informal networking?

These are good questions. I myself endured a few rather humiliating conference experiences early in my career, and like Helen I would often stand (and sit) around at APAs with no one to talk to. Fortunately, this has changed over time, at least in part (or so it seems to me) because I adopted Helen's own strategy: trying to talk to other early-career people like me who didn't have jobs at fancy places. This is also part of the reason why I created the Cocoon, and in fact I used to hold informal Cocoon get-togethers at APAs I attended to provide a forum for early-career people to come together and get to know each other. I'll be at the Central APA this year, so maybe I'll try to hold a get-together or meet-up of sorts. 

But in any case, do any of you have any suggestions for answering Helen's question? How might conferences provide more equitable opportunities for informal networking?

Undergrad submissions to grad conferences?

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

Hello! I am helping organize a graduate student conference and we've received a submission from an undergraduate. I can't think of a reason to exclude them from the review process (other than the fact that we are branded as a venue for grad student work), but I'd love to hear if other people have thoughts about the benefits of a grad-student-only conference environment. Is it needlessly elitist of us not to consider their work?

Interesting question. On the one hand, as the OP notes, the conference is branded as a forum for grad students to present their work, and I guess admitting an undergraduate might mean one less opportunity for a grad student to present their work--which seems relevant. On the other hand, undergrads can use forums to present their work as well, and some undergrads may very much benefit from presenting at a grad conference. So, I don't know. What do you all think?

Presenting a paper too many times?

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

Lately, I've been wondering about conferences, and to the extent to which it's acceptable to give the same talk at multiple conferences. Obviously, I know that most people present their work at multiple venues, but is there an upper limit to this? I suspect people might look oddly at a CV that had twenty presentations of the same idea.

I haven't reached anything close to that point yet, but I'm an early-career scholar who teaches a 4/4. As such, I haven't gotten a ton of new writing done since March 2020. But I have continued presenting old work, in part to keep my CV up to date and in part because I like attending conferences. In my case, this work remains unpublished, and each time I presented it was to a very [sic] audience. However, I wondering if there are some ideas I should 'retire' at this point because they have had their moment to shine.

This is an interesting question. On the one hand, I'm sort of inclined to say, "Present it as many times as you want!". It's your paper, after all. You may well get good feedback each time, and in any case there are multiple reasons to want to attend conferences, including exposing yourself to new work, etc. On the other, you might get bored presenting it so many times; you might keep getting the same feedback; and you might start "eating into the journal reviewer pool" for the paper (i.e. presenting the paper to people who might be asked to review it for journals)--all of which might be reasons not to keep presenting it.

But I don't know: I routinely see people who present papers tons of times--not just at conferences, but at departmental colloquia, etc. So, I'm not sure whether any of these considerations are decisive. Finally, I guess if you keep presenting the paper, people might start to wonder why you haven't been able to publish it yet. But honestly, how many people out there spend this amount of time thinking about what other people are doing or not doing?

All of this is just a roundabout way of saying: I have no idea! What do you all think?

Designing good PowerPoints?

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

I wondered if anyone in the discipline might be willing to share tips on designing powerpoint presentations. Or maybe even some templates or ideas for color or font schemes. I have always been aesthetically-challenged and while I understand the very basics—like don't fill the slide with a wall of text—I have always felt at a disadvantage here. Perhaps there are even some disciplinary norms specific to philosophy which I am missing. I would really benefit from any and all tips!

Good query! Me? I like to keep things relatively clean and simple. Although I recently started using title slide templates, for the most part I just use solid backgrounds (white or black) and sans serif fonts (e.g. Calibri) for easy reading. I also like to strategically use colored fonts for key terms and phrases to 'pop out'.

As an illustration, here's a copy of the précis I gave of my 2020 book, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality, in an author meets critics session at last year's Eastern APA. I'm not sure if my powerpoint style is everyone's cup of tea, but I've generally received positive feedback. What about you all? Any tips on designing a good PowerPoint? Feel free to share slides of your own to illustrate!

MANCEPT session on prudence & politics

This is just a quick note that I am convening a MANCEPT workshop panel (viz Zoom) next Tuesday through Friday on the topic of Prudence and Politics. Just in case any of you might be interested in sitting in (visitors are welcome), I've pasted all of the relevant details below (please note that there is a modest £15 registration fee for visitors):

Session Description

Considerations of prudence plausibly underlie a number of important political debates. Consider, for example, debates between moderates, progressives, and conservatives about social and political change. Moderates often allege that radical approaches to change are likely to backfire by alienating swing voters in the political center. Conversely, progressives often allege that moderates imprudently set back the cause of justice by playing into the status quo. Finally, Burkean conservatives contend that radical change is unwise because it can have—and has a history of having—catastrophic unintended consequences.

Considerations of prudence also appear to be latent within certain forms of liberal political theory. For example, although John Rawls does not explicitly couch his project in prudential terms, Rawls’ primary concern in Political Liberalism is to provide a theory of justice that can explain how a deeply pluralistic society can remain stable and non-oppressive over time. Similarly, in The Law of Peoples, Rawls provides a theory of international law and practice for how diverse peoples can live peacefully with each other in a reasonably just world.  An idea arguably implicit in both works is that it would be imprudent to pursue any conception of domestic or international justice that cannot be expected to realize reasonably stable and peaceful conditions in a diverse and pluralistic world—or what Rawls telling terms a ‘realistic utopia.’ Finally, prudence looms large in many applied political debates, such as how to deal best with climate change, terrorism, pandemics, and the development of artificial intelligence. For example, is it prudent to wage a ‘war on terror’, or is such a war only likely to produce more terrorists and bloodshed? Would experimenting with technological forms of climate engineering be an imprudent risk? Were COVID lockdowns prudent, or an imprudent form of short-term political thinking?

Tips for first-time commentators?

A reader writes in:

Do you have a post already with advice for a first time commentator?  I've got one coming up at the Eastern APA in January, but I've never done it before.  Not exactly sure what all a good commentary includes. According to the schedule, the presenter only has 20 minutes, and I will have 10 minutes to present the commentary.

How formally do people dress at these things?  I've never been to one, so I really have no basis of comparison.  The colloquia...during my grad school days were pretty informal, but I don't know if that's apples and oranges or not. (Granted, pandemic shifts might make this a moot point if the conference goes remote.)

Good questions! We had a thread on tips for first-time conference presenters about a month ago. However, I don't recall us ever discussing tips for first-time commentators, and in some ways I think it can be trickier to be a good commentator than a good paper presenter. Any tips for the OP on things to do (or not to do)?

My two main recommendations are to (1) briefly but charitably encapsulate whatever parts of the paper you critique or raise questions about, and (2) avoid being overly-aggressive. It's fine, of course, to raise questions, concerns, or objections to a paper. The key, I think, is all in how you do it. A good commentator should come across to the presenter and audience as constructive rather than hostile or seeking to embarrass the author. Also, stick to your allotted time! Finally, in terms of how to dress, conferences differ and so do the styles of conference participants. But at an APA, I'd say that whatever today counts as 'business casual' is the way to go. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

CFP: Southwestern Philosophical Society

Southwestern Philosophical Society 2021 Annual Meeting Call For Papers 

An association of scholars and philosophers founded in 1936, Southwestern Philosophical Society provides a forum for philosophical and scholarly research. While SWPS originally served philosophers in the American Southwest, it has been for many years a national and international society. While SWPS does follow trends and methods that prevail in the world of Anglo-American philosophy, the Society is proud of its pluralism and its tradition of openness where scholars from diverse backgrounds and of all major traditions find their views and philosophical styles taken seriously.

The 2021 meeting of the Southwestern Philosophical Society will be held at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN from Oct. 15-16. All papers accepted and presented at the conference will be published in volume 38, issue 1 of the Southwest Philosophy Review.

Papers on any philosophical topic are welcome. There are multiple benefits to submitting to the Southwestern Philosophical Society:

1. All papers undergo blind peer review from two scholars; 
2. Presented papers will receive a written commentary, published in Volume 38, issue 2; 
3. While the journal owns the copyrights to the journal-formatted article, the author retains copyright over the words. Thus, the author can potentially expand the conference-length article and publish it in another venue.

Tips for a first-time conference presenter?

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

I have my first conference presentation coming up with a dedicated commentator. Any tips for navigating the session will be very much appreciated! What is the general aim of a commentary? What do I say after the commentator finishes? What are some strategies for navigating the Q&A? (Do people like presenting papers? I've been regretting submitting this one for months!)

Congrats to the OP, and great questions! I'm curious to hear how other readers answer, but here are some quick thoughts:

1. Any general tips?: If at all possible, don't read your paper. Instead, either present from a couple-page handout or from a PowerPoint (though if you plan for the latter, make sure the conference has A/V!). Also, try to get your commentary in advance from your commentator--at a minimum, a few days in advance and ideally a week or two before that so that you have time to think through a good response. Then, if at all possible, write out your response, at least in bullet-points. It's generally a good idea to practice your talk so that you see what works and to ensure that your talk fits properly into your allotted time. Also, try to speak fairly slowly and deliberately. Finally, be sure to present the version of the paper that your commentator received. It is extremely bad form to 'revise' your paper and present a different version after they have read the version you submitted.

Potential roles for conference commentators (Guest thread by Jonathan Ichikawa)

Jonathan Ichikawa (University of British Columbia) posted the following thread on Twitter this weekend on roles that commentators can play at conferences. Because it seemed to me to be a really helpful thread, I asked Jonathan if he would allow me to re-post it for discussion here:

This is a thread about potential roles for commentators at conference talks. I would like to remind/emphasize to philosophers that offering objections is only one of the many interesting and valuable things commentators can do.

I think there's some tacit social knowledge of this already. Certainly I've seen some commentators do some useful things besides give objections. But they sometimes act apologetic about it, like they think they're "supposed" to object. Not so! (imo)

And while some of the things I'll list below are sometimes done, there are also some that I never or almost never see people doing in their comments. I'd like to!

(I am agnostic on the applicability of/need for this advice in fields other than philosophy. I don't know those cultures well enough to write a thread about them. Others knowledgable about those fields should feel free to weigh in!)

OK so here's a list of things you can do in your commentary! Some of these are obvious but maybe some of them will be helpful to notice as options.

OBJECTION. "A argues that P; here's why that argument is uncompelling, and/or, here's my argument against P." Everyone knows this one's an option. But it's only one option.

OBJECTION WITH ALTERNATIVE. "A argues that P; but the argument is consistent with Q or P, and I think Q better captures A's motivations here." Better, but still quite negative.

OBJECTION AND REPLY. "One might argue thus against A, but that argument won't work for this reason."

EXIGETICAL CHALLENGE. "A argued against B, saying that P. But here's why I don't think B is really committed against P, I think you may be agreeing after all."

CLARIFICATION. "A said that 'S'. This is actually ambiguous between P and Q; here's what each option would look like, and some advantages and disadvantages for each. Which did A mean?" These are all still pretty standard but I'm just getting going!

STRENGTHEN. "A gave three arguments for P. Here is a fourth. Notice that it is nonredundant, since some ways of resisting As arguments would make resisting this one harder."

HIDDEN VIRTUE. "A's argument for P has unusual virtue V. This is a really good feature for arguments to have! Let me show you how useful V can be for other kinds of arguments, perhaps including arguments in other areas."

ANALOGY (IMPORT). "A's move is in topic X. Topic X is interestingly similar to unrelated topic Y, with parallel ideas and moves happening in each. The analogue of A's move in Y has such-and-such advantages and disadvantages, which may carry over to A's move here."

ANALOGY (EXPORT). "A's move is in topic X, which is parallel to Y. The analogue of A's move in Y would be totally novel there! Here's what that would look like. This would be a good contribution to that literature!"

GO FURTHER. "A argues that P. I think the arguments are good, but actually push much further. We shouldn't just accept P, we should accept stronger claim Q! Or: we should also accept P in these other domains!"

LITERATURE SUGGESTIONS. "Here are some related papers that would interact in interesting ways with A's project."

CONTEXT IMPLICATIONS. "A answers question Q. A didn't discuss this, but here's why Q has been an important question, and how it connects to bigger issues. Let's work out the implications of A's answer for those broader matters."

OK I'll stop listing for now but I might add some more if I think of them. Others should feel free to add your own suggestions too! I have nothing against objections, I just think commentators should be more creative about what the most interesting contribution they can make is!

One thing to say about all of these — one might worry about going off-topic and being self-indulgent. That is a reasonably worry, but the answer to is is to make sure that you're still engaging with the details of the talk itself a lot. This is possible for all of these forms.

What do readers think of Ichikawa's suggestions? Are there any of them you like (or don't like) more than others? Are there any alternatives that you like (or don't like) that he left out? I'll just say briefly that my own preference is that when commentators give objections, they suggest a possible reply or two that might help the author grapple with it: call this Objection with Positive Suggestion(s). This approach generally seems to me more helpful than just raising objections, which (depending on how serious or numerous they are) can seem needlessly hostile. But this is just my perspective. What do you all think?

Online conference ideas for spending spare $ on?

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

I have a question that is likely to be relevant to quite a few current postdocs, but not only to them.

I find myself in a position where I have a reasonably short-term postdoctoral research position which, while it lasts, has a decent amount of money allocated specifically for research event expenses. I had intended to put on a fairly big conference on the topic of my research project which would have cost a fair amount, but since this has been moved online due to the pandemic the funds are going unused (and the participants are no longer getting treated to a nice meal or two and a stay in an interesting place).

I wonder if anyone has any recommendations for fun and/or interesting supplements to online conferences that it would be worth spending some money on, and that participants would be likely to appreciate?

Good question - any ideas from readers?

How many conferences is too many?

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

How many conferences is too many to present one paper at? I'm pumped about this idea and I genuinely want to talk about it with as many people as I can, but I have the suspicion that doing, I don't know, more than 3 or 4 conferences with the same paper seems weird. That's just something I usually don't see on CVs. Should I hold off on submitting this thing if I've already picked 4 conferences, including the APA, until one or more of those 4 rejects me? (I'm a grad student if that changes any answers.)

I think we might have discussed this issue recently, but anyway it's a good question! I'm curious to hear what readers think, especially whether readers think the OP's status as a grad student makes any difference. My initial reaction is that there's nothing wrong per se about presenting a paper at a bunch of conferences, but that it's just that presenting the same paper a bunch of times can get really old and have diminishing returns (i.e. the same audience reactions every time you give it). Then of course there are travel costs (though this isn't an issue right now due to Covid). This is probably the main reason why I don't give the same paper too many times: I want to maximize the 'bang for my buck', as it were. Finally, I guess there's also always a possibility (especially if one is a grad student?) of someone at a conference stealing one's paper idea and presenting at a ton of conferences increasing the probability that this might occur--though I've never been sure what to make of this sort of worry.

But I don't know. What do you all think? Is there anything weird about presenting the same paper a bunch of times? If you were on a search committee, would you care? (I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't, but differences in judgments among search committee members never cease to surprise me!)

Over-submitting to conferences?

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

I'm a graduate student from a third world country with only very little experience in conferencing. With COVID still going nowhere, most (if not all) upcoming student conferences are moved online and I was wondering if it would be appropriate to submit to *all* of them--which is obviously something I wouldn't do in the past--and then choose between conferences if need be. Also, do you think that there is a maximum number of conferences for the same paper to be presented at so that I don't come across as making a big deal out of just one piece of work?

Great questions, and I'm curious to hear readers' answers. I saw a thread on a similar issue on Twitter the other day, and the general consensus seemed to be that it is fine to apply to as many conferences as one likes--the idea being that submitting for a conference is not in itself a commitment to attend. I wouldn't be surprised if some readers think otherwise, holding that one should only apply to conferences on the presupposition that one will attend if accepted. But, for my part, this seems overly restrictive. Many of us (at least in normal times) can't know whether we will be able to attend before submitting, in part because our universities only consider travel funding requests after one is invited. Anyway, I'm curious what readers think.

In terms of the question of whether there's a maximum number of conferences worth presenting one's work at, I don't think there is any limit in principle. But I do think there are some practical reasons to only present a given work several times at most, at least if one is an early career person. First, the more places you present a paper, the more likely it is that potential journal reviewers will know who you are. This could of course be a boon to you if you are at a prestigious program (since there may be biases toward people at such programs), but it could well backfire if you are at lesser-know, less prestigious program. Second, I suspect that the more times you presents a piece of work, there will be diminishing returns: you'll get bored presenting the paper, the same kinds of commentator and Q&A comments, etc. You don't need to get the same feedback over and over again to know which parts of the paper journal reviewers are likely to balk at--so, at some point, usually after a handful of conferences, you'll probably have enough feedback to go on to send the paper out to a journal instead.

But these are just my reactions. What are yours?

Advice on giving good Zoom talks?

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

Wondering if anyone has advice on giving Zoom talks (in my case it's an invited talk rather than a job talk, if that matters). I usually use powerpoint, so the obvious thing would be to share my screen with my slides up on the screen. Alternatively, I could email around (or post a link to) a handout, and talk through that.

Any other suggestions/advice?

Great question! Another reader submitted the following response:

From my experience, you should use powerpoint. Do not present from a handout. If you want to give them an aid, send the paper in advance. I did this recently. It was for an audience whose first language is not English. They really appreciated, and the questions in the Q&A were, as a result, quite sophisticated. Consequently, it was a far better experience than I expected.

I don't know. Until yesterday, I might have agreed with this. But yesterday, I sat in on an Eastern APA session where the author used a handout, which they shared via Zoom's chat function. I thought it went just fine! I opened the handout on one side of my screen while watching the speaker on the other--and I thought it worked just about as well for the speaker as using a PowerPoint. I was able to follow everything well via the handout, and the talk itself was engaging.

In any case, if the OP does use PowerPoint, I would advise not to simply share the presentation via Zoom. My experience here is that if one simply shares a PowerPoint, the slides take up the whole screen (as is standard in PowerPoint's 'present' function), and the speaker is in a little box in the corner, then the presentation can seem less engaging. In my author-meets-critics session at the Eastern APA last week, I did something different that I thought worked well. I saved my PowerPoint slides as a PDF, opened the PDF in one window, selected the 'read mode' function (which make them take up the whole PDF window), and then did 'share screen' via Zoom, placing my PDF/slides on the left-hand side of the screen with my Zoom camera feed taking up the right-hand side of my screen. The advantage here is that the audience can view a large enough version of the PowerPoint to read and see the speaker in a large window at the same time--thus approximating the experience one would have viewing a philosophy talk in person, at least as far as is possible via Zoom.

But these are just my reactions/tips. What are yours?

Bringing some social life to Zoom conferences (guest post by C. Thi Nguyen)

This is a guest post by C. Thi Nguyen, philosophy professor at the University of Utah

OK, I just survived being Program Chair of the American Society for Aesthetics Annual Conference - a huge, 4-track, 3-day conference that had to go virtual. I didn’t know it was going virtual when I volunteered to head it up, and the entire experience was one long grueling flirtation with disaster. But: it went off with barely a hitch. What I really want to talk about, though, is the surprising success of the experimental social Zoom rooms.

So the ASA Annual has always been my favorite conference. The aesthetics gang is this big, goofy, lovable, amiable family of weirdos. (Who does analytic philosophy... about art? My people, that's who.) And when we realized we had to take it virtual, we thought: we had to do something to recreate that wonderful atmosphere. So Aaron Meskin volunteered to spearhead the effort, and we formed a social idea gang (with Jonathan Weinberg and Andrew Kania) and brainstormed all kinds of experimental ideas.

My guiding observation: big social Zoom rooms full of many strange people are fucking awkward. They're weird; it’s much harder to naturally break into small groups; social chat flows awkwardly. So we tried a bunch of things. First, we ran parallel social sessions, to keep the numbers manageable. (For a 300 person conference, we did 3 parallel social Zoom rooms each night, and ended up with 15-20 people in most rooms.) Second, structure.  We had structured activities for most of the Zoom rooms, including:

• Show and Tell Room
• 3 Minute Silly Talk Room
• Talent Show Room
• Joke Room
• Trivia Room

And they worked... insanely well. Tons of people have messaged me saying they were shocked how well those rooms worked, how much community it built, how fun they were. And I suspect that, even though only some of the attendees went to the social rooms, that the spirit from the social rooms carried through the rest of the conference. A lot of the regulars, and a lot of more talkative newcomers, met and commingled and got to know each other, and I think a lot of the spirit carried into the rest of the conference — especially in the chat.

My very favorite was the "3 Minute Silly Talk" room, which I ran with Anne Eaton. Rules were: people just had to make up a talk on some topic - silly, or small, or maybe just float the inchoate beginnings of a new paper. No topic too wild or too small. 3 minutes to talk, enforced with total strictness, followed by 3 minutes of lightning Q&A. And it was... amazing?

Vague aspirations meet sobering reality: How to do conferencing and seminars post-pandemic

I don't know how and when the pandemic will end, but we can be reasonably confident it will end.

And in this not-too-distant future, we can ask: how will we do conferencing and seminars post-pandemic?

Our present way of doing things (well, pre-2020) burns a lot of fossil fuels. An international flight, e.g., from London to Chicago, generates more CO2 than the average person in dozens of countries does in an entire year. Even in countries where lots of people fly (e.g., in the US well over 80% of people have flown at some point in their lives), the majority of people fly relatively little. It's difficult to estimate, but one ballpark figure estimate says the /average American flies fewer than two times a year. Academics fly much above the average in their countries. 

Though minds are focused on the pandemic, and in the US, on the presidential election too, the climate crisis continues unabated. We had, prior to the pandemic, some vague aspirations of how to make conferencing and other academic meetings more sustainable. We debated flying less frequently, maybe holding part of our conferences online. Some of us placed limits on transcontinental flights. 

Some of our aspirations have now met a sobering reality, with a year (and likely more) of severe restrictions on travel and online conferencing. What have we learned about the viability of conferencing online as a carbon-low alternative to flying around to conferences scattered across the globe? 

I asked people on Twitter (almost 1000 responses) how online and in-person conferences compare, and whether respondents think online is a viable alternative to in-person. (Note, Twitter only allows for 4 responses which made it impossible for me to make the poll symmetrical. A symmetrical poll should include "Only online from now on," to balance out "not a viable alternative".) However, given how the poll drops off at "better than in-person" at only 9.3%, I do think it gives some indication of the mood music.

These results, if representative, are sobering. Over 75% of respondents think that either online conferences are not a viable alternative, or that they're acceptable but inferior. Note though, that the most common response, with over 60% of respondents is that they're still acceptable. 

Protocols for attending conferences?

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

I'm finding myself confused about what the protocols surrounding going to conferences are. Who can attend conferences? Under what circumstances should you submit to a conference? Should you ever write an abstract to submit and then write the paper later? Are there different types of conferences?

Great questions! I think it could be good to crowdsource answers to these and other potential questions about conferences. For example, is it okay to submit a paper to a conference if you're unsure whether you'll be able to attend if accepted? Here, it's worth noting many of us work under significant uncertainty about funding. At some universities, you can only apply for conference funding after you receive an acceptance notice--which means that you may be able to afford that conference that costs $1,000+ to attend, but then again you may not. I imagine some would say that you should only apply to conferences you are confident you can attend. But in that case people in the above situation would be pressed to apply to few (if any) conferences, which would be a real problem (conferences are invaluable in all kinds of ways).

Anyway, here's what I propose: readers should feel free to answer the OP's questions and propose and discuss questions of their own in the comments section below. Here are a few of my quick answers:

1. Who can attend conferences?: This depends on the conference. Some conferences are open to the public, and some are for attendees only (e.g. paper presenters, session chairs, and commentators). So, if there's any doubt, I think the thing to do here is to look at the conference webpage and/or ask the organizers. In any case, anyone can submit a paper to a conference, and oftentimes conferences put out calls for commentators. 
2. Under what circumstances can one submit to a conference?: Generally speaking, anytime you have a paper or abstract that satisfies the application requirements. In my years presenting at conferences, I've seen everyone from advanced undergraduates to MA students, PhD students, and independent scholars present at professional conferences. Personally, rare cases aside, I'm not sure that I would advice advanced undergraduates to present at professional conferences, as I've seen a few cases where the presenter seemed clearly overwhelmed--but then again, everything is a learning experience and I'm generally not one to dissuade people from taking a few chances here and there that can be good (if challenging) learning experiences.
3. Should you ever submit an abstract and write the paper later?: Absolutely, as long as you have reasonable confidence that you can successfully complete the paper. I've done this many times. Sometimes, if the abstract doesn't get accepted, I never write the paper. But, in cases where I have gotten acceptance, I've never had trouble writing something up. And indeed, I've found that doing this can be a real boon to one's research. My second book, for example, basically came about this way: I submitted an abstract to an empirical ethics conference in Beirut, it was accepted, I presented the paper, got a good audience reaction, and turned it into a book manuscript. I personally love applying for abstract-submission conferences for this reason: they can often lead to new ideas one might have never developed otherwise!
4. Are there different types of conferences?: Yes, there are many different types:
   1. Generalist conferences: like APA meetings, where specialists of all different types present.
   2. Specialist conferences: where all the papers are in a given area (ethics, metaphysics, etc.).
   3. Themed conferences: which are even narrower, focusing on a specific issue in a specialized area.
   4. Workshops: which typically have more of a roundtable format, where some group of (say) 5-10 scholars present their work to each other (and any observers who drop in) in the same room over the course of the conference. 
   5. Pre-read conferences: where papers are sent out to attendees ahead of time (which is often the case at workshops).
   6. Undergraduate and Graduate conferences: which are just what they sound like!

Anyway, these are just a few of my own quick answers. Feel free to provide answers of you own. And again, if you have questions of your own about conferences to add to the OP's, please feel free to present and discuss them them in the comments section below!

Preparing APA colloquium submissions

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

In light of the just-posted question regarding preparing for an APA symposium talk, I want to ask a similar question but about preparing for an APA colloquium submission. I am a graduate student who has some conference experiences, but those have all been at rather sub-field specific venues, and--more to the point of my question--these have tended to have much longer (up tp 8000 words) or shorter (up to 500 words) word limits. So I find APA's 3000 word limit a bit foreign to navigate. Since I take it philosophers these days rarely *really* write 3000-word papers, what are some of the tips to cut down a paper down to 3000 words *and* make sure it looks polished and well thought-out?

Good question. I don't submit colloquium papers to APA meetings very often and haven't had much success when I have. I have a very difficult time writing papers so short, and I don't particularly have a lot of patience when it comes to shortening longer papers (I basically just chop out entire sections, leaving what I take to be a vastly inferior paper, but that's word counts for you). Anyway, if anyone does have good strategies for doing this, I'd love to hear them too!

Preparing for an APA symposium talk?

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

I've had a lot of experience and success giving colloqiua talks (25-30ish minutes plus Q&A), but recently I was accepted to present some research as a symposium at a future APA. I'd love to get some feedback on the differences, handling material, likely several critics/commenters, and an extended Q&A. Are there things to watch out for or to consider differently than a colloquium talk, especially as a PhD student and not even an early career PhD or experienced faculty?

Great question, and I'm very curious to hear how people answer! One of my first ever talks as a graduate student was an Eastern APA symposium session on some of my nascent dissertation work, and I will say that it was a pretty unique (and intimidating) experience. However, as it was a long time ago now (way back in 2007), my memory of it is a bit fuzzy and so I'm not sure that I'm the best person to ask for advice. Anyone with more recent experience here have any tips to share?   

Submitting to conferences (in the time of COVID) when you're unsure you'll attend?

In our June "how can we help you?" thread, G writes:

I'm curious about how people decide whether to submit to a conference during the time of COVID-19, especially conferences that are planned for in-person meetings. Take the APA meetings for example, esp. the Eastern and Central. I am almost certain that I will not want to travel to big cities like NYC or NOLA next year. But it would be great if (a big IF) I could get a chance to present a paper to others online. Is it okay if I submit to a conference when I know (or am almost certain) that I only want to participate remotely? (It will be bad if this becomes the norm. But was about during the time of COVID-19? I am curious about what others think.)

In response, skyped-out wrote:

I would recommend that you do not submit to a conference if you have no intention of going to it in person. Put casually, it is douchy. Put more professionally, I think it is unlikely you will gain much from the experience. Certainly, if I am at the conference and I have a choice between hearing a person speak, and hearing a recording or skype/zoom talk I would take the former. I spend far too much time on-line now. I do not want any more of it. And at one point I think it looks silly on cvs when people list talks at conferences which they did not REALLY go to. If this is the new reality, and all talks are like this, then, ... But it is not yet the new reality, and I do not want it to be.

I'm not entirely sure about this. I think skyped-out is definitely right for 'normal times' (pre-COVID). Normally, if you're pretty sure you won't be able to attend a conference if accepted, I think you shouldn't submit. But during the COVID pandemic? I mean, things are so uncertain and fluid right now that it is hard to know with any real degree of confidence what will and what will not be safe in 6 months time. I mean, it looks like it may not be safe to travel in January 2021 (when the Eastern is slated), and so G may feel pretty certain now that they would only want to present via Zoom--but who knows? Maybe there will be better treatments for COVID by then that will make travel less of a life-threatening risk. I think it's just hard to say.

So, in this environment, at any rate, I'm not sure there is anything obviously wrong with G's approach. However, one way of perhaps mitigating this issue is to simply ask the organizers prior to submitting, emailing them with something like, "I'd love to attend your conference if it's safe, but since I'm not sure it will be, can I submit anyway and is there any prospect of presenting remotely if I'm accepted and don't feel safe." This seems to me like an upstanding, forthright way to proceed. What do you all think? 

Ways to improve online conferences?

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

In many ways conferences moving online is a great thing for increasing accessibility to junior academics who otherwise might not have been able to afford conference travel. But there are some pitfalls to the new medium that I think we should flag for more senior academics and it may be worth discussing strategies to help mitigate such concerns. In particular, I'm thinking about how Zoom meetings make it much harder to approach speakers and more senior academics during breaks. Some conferences I have attended specifically encourage participants to keep discussions going during the breaks, but this is a recipe for academics who already know one another well to form an 'in group' breakout room that might prove doubly hard for relatively unknown academics to break into. When these groups form in an in-person setting, it is easy enough to hover around and find an opportune moment to join the discussion. In a virtual setting, however, there is an additional epistemic barrier, since one may not even be aware that such discussions are taking place. One concrete step virtual conferences could take is to leave Zoom meeting rooms open after talks and encourage those who wish to continue the discussion not to break out into new Zoom rooms. Simply continuing over email is also relatively exclusionary. Minimally it is worth bringing the concern up so that more senior academics can be aware of the way in which virtual settings can rob junior academics, particularly those of us less likely to ask questions in a large Zoom meeting, of a valuable means of low-stakes participation.

I like this suggestion a lot. It's not only online conferences that can be exclusionary in these kinds of ways. In-person conferences can be similarly exclusive, as in-groups can continue the conversation after talks in ways that others might be interested in but feel excluded from. It's not clear what can be done about the in-person case--aside from encouraging people to include others. But in the online case, this reader's suggestion seems helpful: conference organizers can simply remind people to keep discussions during break going in the original Zoom meeting rather than breakout groups.

I wonder what other things might be done to improve online conferences. I haven't been a part of one that uses Zoom myself, but imagine others have. What works well? What doesn't? 

What's happening to spring/summer 2020 conferences?

I realize lots of things are uncertain now, but I am curious about what is happening to conferences you would normally be speaking at, or that you are (co)organizing that were scheduled for the spring of 2020. I am co-organizing a conference at Saint Louis University for June 22-23 2020 that is going ahead. We will do it as an e-conference. This is not only because it is an externally funded project on a grant that cannot be extended (I asked the funder), but also because we are curious about how feasible it is to do this as an e-conference. 

Still, I was supposed to be a paper respondent in one conference which is now deferred to a later unspecified time, and I'm also speaking at a conference that is being moved to next spring (2021). There is one other conference where the organizers have let us know they are closely monitoring the situation, but it seems unrealistic to me that the conference will go as planned (it takes place in the UK). 

This makes me wonder what is happening to philosophy conferences. What are people doing in response to the impossibility of a conventional conference format in spring 2020? Cancellation, deferral, how many will become e-conferences? 

Norms for conference submissions?

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

Some questions about views on the norms/ethics of applying to conferences:

1. Is it objectionable to apply to conferences which overlap, such that if I'm accepted by both conferences, I'll have to turn one of them down?

2. If it's not objectionable to apply to overlapping conferences, would it be objectionable not to immediately withdraw an application from one of the conferences if I get into the other conference, even if I would prefer to go to the conference I haven't heard from yet and thus prefer to wait until I hear back? I assume that this depends in part on how long it'll be until I hear from the second conference.

Good questions. Anyone have any good answers?

Using video-conferencing in a workshop: the case of Rethinking Formal Methods in Philosophy

I recently attended the workshop Rethinking formal methods in philosophy  (RFMP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. It was organized by Samuel Fletcher and Nathan Lackey. The topic of this conference was unusual and exciting, asking deep metaphilosophical questions about how formal methods might contribute to philosophy, and what place it has in graduate and undergraduate teaching. I came away from this conference feeling energized and with lots of new ideas, and I commend Samuel and Nathan for coming up with this topic and for their organization. 

Here I want to focus on one specific aspect of this conference, namely the extensive use of video conferencing technology and other forms of online augmentation. Three of the invited speakers, Branden Fitelson, Joshua Knobe, and Catarina Dutilh-Novaes, participated with video conferencing technology. The university has a specific room to facilitate this. It not only has the standard technology to stream Skype but also microphones in the ceiling that pick up whenever someone is speaking so the person skyping in can hear questions clearly. These talks worked very smoothly with (except one very minor occasion) no technical glitches. Moreover, the technology also permitted remote participants to sit in on other talks, for example, Joshua Knobe saw my presentation on teaching experimental philosophy for undergraduates.

To give you a sense of how it worked, the image shows Branden Fitelson, Skyping in from what appears to be deep space, and the image at the top (tiny) shows the workshop room. Image credit: Liam Kofi Bright on Twitter. 

In addition to this, Liam Kofi Bright live-tweeted the conference (see here and here), and I also contributed a few twitter threads on some papers (e.g., here).  Moreover, Liam took questions from the Daily Nous initial post on this blog during the roundtable discussion. Overall, technology helped to augment and supplement, and draw in a wider range of people to the discussion than would otherwise be able to participate. For example, following the workshop I asked on Twitter whether philosophy graduate programs should still have a logic requirement and it generated this fascinating discussion. 

In recent discussions I've had with academics, motivated by climate change and the role of flying in it, people have wondered whether we should just stop flying altogether for conferences, or at the very least drastically reduce how often we fly. This prompts the need for more possibilities for remote participation. As Catarina said, "to fly so far for a talk for two days, I can't really justify it anymore." 

Tips on conference logistics?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Mark Z. writes:

I was wondering if you can run a post describing how to run a conference. I want to hold a conference and I am at a new college (just got a TT job) and I know nothing of expenses, financing, logistics, lodging, room reservations, invitations, keynote speakers, timing, reasonable accommodations, etc. Is there anyone out there with good experience doing this that can share? I realize that some of this is college and location specific, but there must be some general best practices. I am also considering piggy-backing off another conference. That sounds easier, are there serious drawbacks?
Any advice would be appreciated.

Although we recently had a helpful guest-post by Alex Grzankowski on how to organize good conferences (in terms of how many talks there should be per day, when they should start and end, etc.), Alex's post didn't address some of Mark Z.'s central concerns: namely, the nitty-gritty logistical details of putting a conference together (viz. expenses, financing, lodging, etc.). Given how difficult it can be to put together a good conference (like many people, I've been to some really well-organized ones, as well as some logistical disasters), I think it might indeed be good to have a thread on this! Anyone have any tips on these matters?

Organizing good conferences (guest post by Alex Grzankowski)

The following is a guest post by Alex Grzankowski (Senior Lecturer - University of London, Birkbeck College):

I organize quite a few events each year and I go to more talks and conferences in a year than I'm comfortable admitting. Presently I'm the organizer of the London Mind Group but I also typically put together a couple of workshops/conferences every year and I help out on the edges with the London Aesthetics Forum. As a result, when I go to other events these days, I really notice the little things that bug me (like not having coffee in the morning or an overpriced conference meal that isn't very good) and sometimes big things that bug me such as having so many talks jammed into a day that the last thing I want to do by the end is think more and talk shop. I'm sure that I build into the events I organize various preferences of my own that aren't widely shared and that there are preferences I miss by not having them myself. And I suspect this is true for other event organizers. I'd be very interested to hear from readers what sorts of things have made for especially good conference/workshop experiences and what have made for bad experiences. I don't have in mind here huge events such as an APA meeting or a summer school that lasts for many days - those raise many of their own issues. I have in mind what seems to me a pretty typical event - a one or two day affair with a handful of speakers. As far as what makes for not so good experiences, I don't have in mind things that ruin events such as a participant who is a jerk or worse. Of course that's very important and knowing who you are inviting matters a lot, but I think it might be helpful to focus on the nuts and bolts of the event as such with an eye towards general conference/workshop input. I'm sure any feedback at all will be helpful for me (and I hope for others!), but below are some of the questions I've been thinking about.

-what time do you think an event should start and end?

-how many talks do you want to attend in a day?

-how many days should a workshop or conference last?

-how long should a talk last?

-how long should Q&A last?

-do you like it when there is a respondent?

-should a conference reception/dinner be on offer?

-how long should a lunch break be?

-how crucial is coffee/tea at the opening of the event?

-is a conference fee acceptable?

-have you been to an event with an unusual format? How was it?