The Philosophers' Cocoon

(Better addressing) why grad students drop out?

On Twitter, our own Helen De Cruz (St. Louis University) asks:

What are the main factors that cause grad students to drop out of programs, and how can these be mitigated? How can programs better support e.g., mental health, wellbeing and other outcomes?

These are both excellent and important questions. My sense is that many grad programs could probably do a lot more to better support struggling grad students, but that these issues are often just not talked about openly. In my experience, a lot of graduate students end up suffering in relative silence, not knowing what to do or who to turn to--and, perhaps in part because they are afraid to speak out, grad programs may not know what they could be doing to help.

Finally, of course, there may in some cases be simply a lack of will. Some grad faculty might not think it is their responsibility to help grad students through personal crises that affect their academic performance and ability to finish the program. Although I strongly disagree with this, it is worth thinking about what might be done to incentivize a more proactive and helpful approach in grad programs--such as, perhaps, the APA (or AAUP?) developing some kind of 'best practices' document or instituting some of kind requirement for programs to be transparent about their dropout rates in order to remain in good standing with the organization (which, insofar as it could reflect poorly on the program, particularly to prospective students, might incentivize programs to do better).

Anyway, I'm not sure--but I think these are very important questions, given how much is at stake in the lives of grad students. So, then, how would you answer Helen's questions? What are the main factors that lead grad students to drop out, and what should programs do better?

Where to put non-standard items on a CV?

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

I have a question concerning where (and if at all) to mention philosophy teaching experiences that fall outside of the academic setting on a CV?

To give a personal example, I was recently given the opportunity to teach an introduction to philosophy to refugees and asylum seekers. Although this teaching experience is not academic, I feel it is worth mentioning on my academic CV. However, I am unsure where exactly to fit it in. Moreover, beyond my specific example, I am sure there are many similar cases of teaching philosophy outside of the university setting.

Very curious to hear what others think about this.

Good question. It's not clear from the above comment whether they taught an entire introduction to philosophy course to refugees and asylum speakers, or just one class. If they taught an entire course, I guess it might be appropriate to list it in their CV under 'Courses Taught' along with all of their other courses. Alternatively, they could list it under 'Service to the Community & Profession' or some such. Regardless, I think teaching service like this is a really great thing to do, reflecting really well on a job candidate. What do you all think? Where and how should these kinds of things be listed on a CV?

What do (and should) grad applicants prioritize?

On Twitter, our own Helen De Cruz (St. Louis University) asks several interesting questions, beginning with the following:

What considerations do philosophy grad students have where to apply/which offer to accept? How important are (relatively speaking) the following factors...Stipend/package, training (e.g., teacher training) placement rate, relative prestige of the dept, professors they really want to work with, specialization, geography (is it a city they'd want to live in), "climate" (welcoming to e.g., women, minorities), research culture.

I think it might be good to hear from readers on two things:

1. Which considerations they did prioritize (or are currently prioritizing) in deciding which programs to apply to and accept admissions offers from.
2. Which considerations people think grad applicants should prioritize, and why.

After all, I expect that some people might have chosen programs for particular reasons, but then in retrospect with they had prioritized other factors instead. What do you all think?

Grad school writing sample tips?

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

I'm a prospective graduate student preparing for the application cycle this fall. I'm hoping to pursue analytic philosophy, but the courses offered at my undergraduate institution were mostly in ancient, medieval, and continental philosophy. My quandary is in choosing a writing sample from the papers I wrote for these courses. In the paper I think might be my strongest, I analyze and interpret a continental thinker through tools drawn from an analytic thinker. My own writing style is very analytic, but I'm concerned that submitting a writing sample on a continental thinker might be a turn off to the analytically-minded programs I'm applying to. Is this a valid concern?

This is a good question, but unfortunately, having not served on grad admissions committees, I'm not very well-placed to know the answer! What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on grad program admissions committees? Also, given that the OP and other similar readers may benefit from other tips about grad program writing samples, please do share any other insights you might have about writing samples that you think prospective students should know!

Reading strategy tips?

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

I work at a teaching-oriented state school, and I usually do not have much time for research. People shared a lot of strategies for writing, such as starting your day with an hour of writing, blocking some time everyday for writing, finding writing peers, etc. I find them very helpful. However, there seems not to be many tips for reading, which is the part of research I am struggling with. For example, I tried to reserve one hour each day for my own research, but it is usually not enough for me even to finish reading one paper, especially when I need to stop and think about some interesting points or arguments. Can people share some tips or suggestions on the "reading" part of research?

This is an excellent query, and I am curious to hear whether readers have any helpful tips. Here are two that immediately occurred to me:

1. Skim first, noting things that need greater attention: For me, one aim of reading is to get a broad picture of what is in the literature. While the details may matter if I need to dig into a piece more carefully, in the first instance I just skim. Along the way, if there are particular parts of a paper that are especially difficult or that I need to think about carefully, I'll usually highlight and make a margin note. I think if you skim an article, it's easy to read an entire article in one hour. Perhaps if you're in the OP's situation, you spend one hour of one day skimming, and then one hour the next day reading and thinking more carefully about a difficult part that you noted on day 1.
2. Write to read: I've heard a lot of really productive people say this, but in general it seems right to me. The most effective way to read for the sake of one's own research (as the OP says) is to actually have an idea that you're writing up. Why? Well, for a couple of reasons. First, spending all of your time reading before you begin writing can turn, in effect, into a procrastination method--as you might continually read and think about new things, but never actually put pen to paper. Second, setting this aside, what you are writing can, in effect, tell you what you need to read (and read particularly carefully). That is, writing can help you winnow down your choices of what to read, and what to focus carefully upon when you do read. 

But these are just two quick tips that I've found helpful. What about you all? Do you have any reading strategies or tips that you think the OP might find helpful?

Non-standard types of reference letters?

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

I am in the dissertation phase of my Ph.D. and will be going on the job market soon. My question is about references, specifically teaching references. Before leaving to pursue my Ph.D., I taught high school for just over a decade. I had a very good relationship with my principal and she was able to see my growth as an educator, directly observe my classroom, and receive feedback from students and parents about my teaching. Moreover, she also knows the positive nature of the relationships I had with my colleagues. My question is this: Would it be prudent to ask for her to write a reference letter for jobs in higher education? I have professors in my current program who would write me a positive teaching recommendation, but they would not be able to write as strong a letter as my former principal. Would a letter from a high school administrator be looked down upon?

To be clear, I have professors who are willing to write recommendations. If I included a reference letter from my former principal, it would be in addition to these.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I would not recommend this. You are expected to have a recent letter on teaching from a peer (a university faculty member). Your former principal is not a university educator, and the fact that they will speak of something some time in the past will raise concerns. For example, people will wonder whether you have alienated everyone at your programme, and cannot get a teaching letter. Or they may think that you will teach undergrads as one might teach students in a US high school.

Unfortunately, I think this is exactly right. One of the main things one needs to do in a job application is demonstrate that one understands the norms of the profession. In this case, the norm is pretty clear: letters of recommendation should as a rule be from members of the higher-education academy (i.e. professors). This in part because people on the hiring side of things may believe that teaching at a university level is vastly different than teaching at a high school level, but also because--when it comes to evaluating university-level teaching--part of what one is evaluating is the instructor's ability to present a particular subject matter (in our case, philosophy!) with accuracy and expertise. This, in general, just isn't the sort of thing that someone without an MA or PhD in philosophy (such as a principal) is presumably in a position to evaluate. On a similar note, I've heard people ask before whether it is a good idea to get a teaching letter from a student. Here again, I think this is the wrong call. It would come across as strange to see letters like that in a teaching portfolio, in part because students aren't experts at philosophy or pedagogy.

More generally, when it comes to job-markets (both academic and non-academic), there exist a variety of standing norms--for better or for worse--and violating the relevant norms is risky for that reason alone. In a more ideal world, perhaps, this wouldn't be an issue. But I think it is an issue in our world, and so, in cases like these, to do what the standing norm is: get teaching letters from (and only from) professors in the academy. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

What is the perceived value of invited pieces?

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

[W]hat is the perceived value of invited contributions to peer-reviewed volumes? My thoughts on this are that, on the one hand, such papers should be greatly valued since they show that the author is good enough/ respected enough to be invited to contribute to the volume. On the other hand, my impression is that the peer-review standards are not that high when it comes to edited volumes compared to regular journals. I have the impression that it is very hard to get rejected once invited to contribute. What are your thoughts on this topic?

I think we may have discussed this before, but these are very good questions that it's probably important for graduate students and job-candidates to get good answers to. What do you all think? For obvious reasons, it might be good to hear from people who have served on search committees or tenure and promotion committees. Having served on both kinds of committees myself, here are a few quick thoughts.

How can we help you? (September 2021)

Now that it's been about month and a half 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:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! 

Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

PhilPapers publication metrics?

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

I am wondering what - if anything - is the use of one's "Publication metrics" on PhilPeople. For those who aren't aware of this feature, PhilPeople provides users with their percentile rankings (Q1, Q2, Q3, top 5%, top 1%, etc.) for their publications, paper downloads, and citations, both overall and in specific subject areas. The rankings are relative to "pro" users, which are users with either a PhD in Philosophy or at least one publication in one of the "Most Popular" journals according to PhilPapers. Using this feature, you might learn that you are in the top 1% of downloads in say, Social Epistemology in the past five years, or that you are in the 90% percentile for publication volume in Value Theory.

I find this feature kind of neat. However, I can't imagine a situation where I would actually tell anyone about my publication metrics - if I did, I am sure it would be seen as being in bad taste. But at the same time, it seems like these metrics would be be useful information for search committees or for tenure and promotion cases: it's a decent way of showing whether or not people are actually engaging with your work, and how engagement with your research compares with others working in a similar area. Publication Metrics on PhilPeople is a bit like one's h-index and citations on Google Scholar, which I have heard of people mentioning for T&P, but PhilPeople has the advantage of being specific to the discipline, or even the sub-discipline. One issue might be that - unlike Google scholar citations and h-index - these metrics aren't public: as far as I can tell, one can only see one's own metrics, not those of others. I'm not sure why PhilPeople doesn't make them public, but doing so would mean that they're worth more than simple navel-gazing.

This is an interesting query. It does seem like these kinds of statistics might be useful in some regards when it comes to hiring or tenure and promotion. After all, the statistics do in essence 'compare you' to other specialists, indicating how much you publish in your field and how interested other people are in reading your work. On the other hand, I wonder how useful hiring or T&P committees might find this kind of information.

In any case, because I'm about as unsure as the OP on all of this, I'll open discussion to all of you: what do you think? Is this kind of PhilPapers information useful in any way above and beyond 'navel-gazing'? If so, how? Do you know of cases where it has been used (e.g. in hiring, etc.)? Should PhilPapers make the information public?

Getting permission to reuse material?

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

I've published a few related papers and some are still under review. I want to write a book where I want to reuse some textual material from these papers. I presume I have to ask for permission to do it. Whom to ask? The journal editor, the publisher? What is the extent of the material that can be reused? One sentence, one paragraph, several pages...? How to deal with papers that are under review? I know that authors address this in the acknowledgement section of their books. But exact rules are not clear to me. Can anyone help?

These are excellent questions, especially given that one could get oneself into a difficult position by going about things the wrong way. One reader submitted the following response to the OP:

Read the publication agreements you signed. For many of the big publishers (Springer, for example), you have the right to include the material in a monograph (a single author book). All you have to do is acknowledge where it was published, says, Phil Studies, and thank the publisher for the right to include material (in whole or in part) in your acknowledgement in the book. Done!

However, in my experience things aren't quite as simple as this. Let me explain.

How many papers do you/should you write?

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

I am starting a TT job in a research heavy institution and have not done my PhD in an elite US program so I have what are likely silly/self-evident questions: how many papers do people work on at the same time? Or, how many papers do people typically write in a year? I am sure it varies tremendously but I wonder if people start one new paper a year and keep working on the ones who are going through review or if they start more projects than that, esp. while being on the TT. Thank you for your help!

These are great questions, especially given that some people are starting new jobs right now. I think there are two important sets of questions here:

1. How many papers do people write in a year, and work on at the same time?
2. How many papers should one write a year at an R1?

Here's my own quick answer to (1). I looked in my paper draft folders last night, and found that I now write, on average, something like 4-5 new papers per year. Because I often end up revising those papers over several years, this means that I often find myself with 10 paper projects at a time. I'll often bounce around between them, revising papers that are already written while beginning new ones. It wasn't always like this, though. Earlier in my career, when I got my first job, I worked much more slowly--on maybe like one or two new papers per year. Why the change? I think there are two explanations: it gets easier to write papers over time, but also, I wasn't publishing enough early in my career, so I had to increase my output.

Questions on teaching letters

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

How bad is it to not have a teaching letter, in R1 positions? While I do teach, and haven't heard any complaints yet, I have almost exclusively done so as sole instructor, and the only senior person at my institution who has actually seen me teach is affiliated in the same research project as me. I worry that if I told her I'm applying elsewhere, she wouldn't take it well.

Connected question: how are letters from non-philosophers received? Are they useless? Say, a letter from a psychology professor who really likes your work on perception?

Good questions! I don't know about the first one, as I don't work at an R1. But, in response to the other questions, I'm inclined to think that a letter from a non-philosopher may be fine. A non-philosopher might not be well-positioned to discuss your understanding of philosophy per se (though if they work on the same research project as you, they might!). However, they can probably speak to a lot other, more general aspects of teaching that hiring committees are likely to care about, which is how you engage with students, run in-class discussions, how clear and well-organized your lectures are, the kinds of assignments you give, and so on.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It could be especially helpful to hear from people who have served on hiring committees. What do you think?

Challenges in making a lateral move?

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

I'm looking for insight into whether there are different challenges for faculty looking to make a "lateral move" from assistant professorship to a more appealing assistant professorship and (as I suspect there are) advice on how to overcome those challenges.

For those questioning the morality of such lateral moves, my current workplace is toxic.

This is a good query, though I'm not sure that I have much insight to offer. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I do not think there are special challenges for lateral moves of the type you describe. I witnessed these at my own former institution (in fact, I helped one get out!). You need to be competitive - that is, you need a good publication record in good journals. And you have to be prepared to get NO CREDIT on the tenure clock for your previous work. You may be able to negotiate something, but do not count on it at all. But if you are in a toxic workplace, you should really look into moving. (in the meantime, keep good records of the ill behaviour, in case you need it). I left a toxic place at a senior level. The key challenge for me was that I was not prepared to make a lateral move with respect to university ranking. I was determined to move up (or move into administration). I was lucky to be able to do the former. Good luck!

This seems right to me. Having served on multiple hiring committees, my sense is that people on the hiring side just want to hire the best person they can get who they think might stay in the job. One small thing, though: search committees can wonder why a candidate is applying for a job (particularly if the candidate is already tenure stream), so my sense is that it can be good to say something in the cover letter. But I'm not entirely sure what is the best kind of thing to say in Julia's case. What do you all think? Do any readers have insights relevant to Julia's situation?

How often should one referee for journals?

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

I'm at the point in my career when I'm just starting to receive fairly frequent requests to referee journal articles, and I'm finding myself really unsure of how many of these I should be doing. Would cocoon readers be willing to share their own approaches to this? How much refereeing do people do? And do people have good rules of thumb for deciding when to say yes and no to referee requests? (E.g., a certain number of reports per month, or a certain number of reports per reports one has received oneself, etc?) This is one of those mysterious parts of the profession where I just have no idea if I'm pulling my weight, doing way more than I should be doing, or roughly getting it right. Thank you, everyone!

Excellent questions! One reader submitted the following response:

At one point, I was refereeing 20 papers a year, and working as an editor for PLOSOne, handling about 6 papers a year (which meant getting referees and making a final decision on papers). Now I am a co-editor on a journal, and I no longer do PLOSOne. So I referee only about 12 papers a year, and only in a select set of journals (the best in my sub-field or very highly regarded general journals). I also review a few book proposals and manuscripts a years for various presses. Without knowing your circumstances, I think if you are doing 12 a year, then that is fine.

Partner hires across disciplines?

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

I am a junior tenure-track faculty member. My partner is a post-doc working in the life sciences. They are searching for TT positions, but they do not want to work at or near my school. Our ideal scenario is that they will get a TT position and also get me a full-time job at the same school--either a TT job or a full-time lecturer position. I would, of course, prefer a TT job, but if the school is a good enough fit for my partner, I would be happy with a full-time NTT position.

If my partner is able to get a job offer, how likely is that scenario? Does anyone have any experience with partner hires across disciplines and fields?

I will add that I am a good job candidate in general--I have several publications, I have secured some research fellowships, lots of teaching experience, I specialize in a field where departments always need teaching. I'm sure that doesn't hurt, but I don't know how much it helps.

Any advice or accounts of personal experience in this arena would be appreciated!

These are excellent questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I am in a similar position, though it is my partner who is the TT in the sciences while I am in a postdoc. In our case, my partner's institution was not accommodating in the least. The philosophy department there refused to hire me except as an adjunct (despite my having a strong cv), mainly because I do a very different kind of philosophy than they are used to. My partner has been forced to seek out external offers in order to get leverage for some kind of retention offer from their institution, which has made things unpleasant for them in their department. Meanwhile, I have generally been unable to do anything about the situation, with all the burden falling on my partner. It has been extremely difficult. I haven't had much success in this area, but my advice would be to refuse any offer of a short-term position for you (e.g. 1-2 years), because when that position expires you won't have any leverage to get something better.

Unfortunately, this response seems right to me. My sense is that non-permanent non-TT positions are probably not a good option. I personally know several cases of people who were lured to universities by a non-TT job for a spouse or partner along with the hope (and encouragement) that it would turn into something more--but unfortunately it never did, and in the end the couple were in a worse position than before. Of course, if the non-TT job is permanent (e.g. a permanent full-time lectureship or teaching professor position), then that may be a different story. But generally speaking, it seems (sadly) that for a couple to have a real hope of getting something good to work out, the couple must have real leverage somehow--usually, as the last comment indicates, a competing offer by another university. Still, even there, my sense is that unless both partners are considered highly desirable candidates, the university may just be willing to let the couple walk, as it were. 

But this is just my sense, and may be overly pessimistic. Do any of you have any helpful experiences or insights to offer? 

How to list items on your CV?

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

I am going on the job market this year, and recently had a paper accepted at a conference that, in practice, publishes all its proceedings in a journal. However, the paper is not yet officially accepted in the journal since it must first go through another round of review, and I doubt the review process will finish before I have to submit my materials. Does anyone know how I should put this on my CV?

I'm glad this reader asked this question, as in my experience these are very important things to get right, but also things that a fairly substantial proportion of job-candidates get wrong. Indeed, based on my own experience and past discussions, it can really irritate (or even offend) people if you list things on your CV incorrectly, particularly if the error makes you look as having a tangible accomplishment that you don't yet have. Errors like these can come across as positively deceptive, which is the last way you want to look to a hiring committee. How then should one list different kinds of things on your CV?

How to think about paper acknowledgments?

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

I am an early career researcher working within the history of philosophy. I am about to write the acknowledgements of a paper that I recently got accepted for publication.

My question is: After having presented the paper twice at the beginning of my phd studies, I ended up changing the thesis of the paper. The interpretative issue that I discuss is still the same, but the solution I propose is completely different. How should I deal with this when writing the acknowledgements?

Needless to say, I will thank everyone who has read previous versions of the paper. But it seems odd listing conferences where the audience have heard me argue for another interpretation. Is it better to leave out any mention of the two conferences? Or should I include them and potentially comment upon this change?

We've never had a discussion of how to acknowledge people before, so this is nice opportunity to examine the issue. Who should one acknowledge in a paper, and why?

How to think about paper acknowledgments?

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

I am an early career researcher working within the history of philosophy. I am about to write the acknowledgements of a paper that I recently got accepted for publication.

My question is: After having presented the paper twice at the beginning of my phd studies, I ended up changing the thesis of the paper. The interpretative issue that I discuss is still the same, but the solution I propose is completely different. How should I deal with this when writing the acknowledgements?

Needless to say, I will thank everyone who has read previous versions of the paper. But it seems odd listing conferences where the audience have heard me argue for another interpretation. Is it better to leave out any mention of the two conferences? Or should I include them and potentially comment upon this change?

We've never had a discussion of how to acknowledge people before, so this is nice opportunity to examine the issue. Who should one acknowledge in a paper, and why?

Should dissertations be cited?

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

I would like to hear people's thoughts on how much credit a dissertation deserves.

Here is what I mean. On the one hand, almost all dissertations contain some original theories, arguments, ideas, etc. While dissertations are not academic publications (in the US), they are "publicized" and publicly accessible (on ProQuest, for example).

On the other hand, since dissertations are not regarded as publications, people usually do not give credit to them. People do not read them unless someone is interested in a topic and happens to know that a person wrote a dissertation about it. And I suspect that few journal reviewers would say that the main argument in a paper is not original because someone has developed a similar theory in their dissertation. Even if you are the first person to develop a theory in your dissertation and your dissertation is publicly defended and officially online, the credit almost entirely goes to the person who publishes it; in some cases, this person would not be you.

It makes me feel that dissertations should deserve more credit. Publishing a dissertation, or chapters of a dissertation, is not making some thoughts and arguments officially public from one's mind; rather, it is a process of changing where it is publicly--from ProQuest to somewhere else.

I know that in some countries dissertations must be published as books when they are finished, I personally believe that is the right way to go. What do you all think?

Another reader submitted the following response: 

I think you are overthinking the notion of credit. There is no central body - not even the APA - who tells people what credit things deserve. Credit, in one sense, is a function of the value others put on something. This is how credit is understood in science, at least by scholars in science studies, broadly construed, including Robert Merton and David Hull, for example. So you do not deserve anything for a PhD but the PhD itself. If there is more of value in it, then send it out to journals. I published 4 articles from my PhD. I got out of it all there was in it. Similarly with citations. If no one is citing your articles it may be because no one finds them of value. I have articles that are often cited (100+ times), and ones that largely neglected. I can like some of the latter more than I like some of the former, what people have valued in my scholarship is what they have cited.

This is an interesting response, in part because I have a different reaction. So I am hoping we can have a good and interesting question on citation and credit-giving practices, and I am curious to hear what everyone else thinks!

Writing a good cover letter without publications

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

I've been reading over Marcus's advice about cover letters. He says to state your accomplishments and fit for the job plainly, without trying to sell yourself or talk yourself up. So my question is: I don't have yet have any legitimate publications. Is describing the papers that I have under review considered "talking myself up"? A couple of them are (I think) close to getting published, given the feedback I've been receiving. But I just haven't sealed the deal yet. Should I talk about this in my cover letter?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Here are my quick reactions:

1. Short descriptions of a couple of your best papers under review is probably a good idea. Given that you don't have publications yet, explaining what your best papers do is probably the best way to interest hiring committees in your candidacy as a researcher.
2. I would not suggest stating which journals the papers are under review at, nor do I think it is a good idea to try to explain how close you think they are to getting published, given the feedback you have received. My sense is that both of these things can come off poorly, as search committees are interested in tangible accomplishments, and anyone can place a paper under review at a journal and get positive informal feedback. The hard part--the part that hiring committees care about the most--is the 'sealing the deal' part (i.e. getting published).

Finally, although some data that I informally collected nine years ago suggested that people can still get hired at research institutions without any publications, my sense is that this may be rapidly changing. The job market is so competitive these days that it seems increasingly difficult to be competitive without publications. So, above all (although they probably know this already), I would suggest to the OP to get a bunch of papers out for review as soon as possible! But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Emailing journals for status updates?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, two readers ask about emailing journals to ask for status updates. Annie writes:

How long should one wait on a paper whose status is 'reviews completed' before pestering the editor, if one should pester them at all?

And a frustrated author writes:

I have a short (~3000 words) paper that has been under review at a journal for 6 months now. The submission website does not give any information about the status of the manuscript. Twice I sent an email to the managing editor and they told me that they will check about the status of the manuscript and will get back to me, and both times they never got back to me. All I want is to get a status update. I don't even know if the paper has been sent out for review. Is there anything I can do? Write to the editor in chief? Just wait it out?

I'm curious to hear what readers think. Should one email editors for status updates? If so, after how long? Have you had good or bad experiences asking for status updates. For instance, does doing so have any unintended consequences, such as leading referees to quickly reject the paper? And what should one do if the managing editor isn't responsive?

Non-TT faculty & university COVID policies

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, concerned non-TT writes:

I'm wondering if we can get a conversation going about vulnerably employed (i.e., non-TT) faculty dealing with university administrators' unethical decision not to enforce COVID vaccination requirements for those on campus for the coming AY.

In countries with access to ample vaccines like the U.S., there is simply no justification for failing to require on-campus vaccinations (aside from reasonable, medically motivated exceptions, of course) other than kowtowing to conservative politicians making education-funding decisions and trying not to alienate parents and students among the wide swath of the population that has failed to understand the meanings of "freedom" and "choice." I take it that there is a strong moral imperative for faculty members to speak out against this wrong decision, but this of course is a very difficult line to walk when one's employment is dependent on the goodwill of administrators and department chairs.

There's also the difficulty of teaching in a mask (which of course I support, annoying though it may be) or on Zoom and garnering good evaluations for the sake of the teaching portfolio and future employment despite the fact that such classes are quite painful for all involved and tend not to be evaluated very highly.

I realize that this isn't really a question, but might be a good topic to discuss and vent about, with thanks for the opportunity to do so here!

These are good issues to discuss, and I'm curious what everyone thinks:

1. Do you agree that there is a strong moral imperative for faculty members to speak out on this?
2. If so, what do you think faculty should do, particularly (but not only non-TT) faculty?

Writing for a political website & the market?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Anonymous US grad writes:

I'm a PhD student who does some freelance writing to supplement my income. I've been offered an opportunity to produce educational philosophy content for a conservative website. I don't personally identify as politically conservative, but I think all audiences have a lot to learn from philosophy, so I'm considering taking the gig. However, I'm wondering if writing for a conservative publication would be a bad career move. I'm going on the market soon. Advice on whether this would look like a negative to hiring committees?

This is an interesting question. My understanding is that there have been some studies indicating that a good proportion of academics report being willing to discriminate in hiring on the basis of perceptions of a candidate's politics. See, for example, this study, which features the following graph:

Percentage of participants ''somewhat'' to ''very'' willing to discriminate in hiring, by academic area. 

It seems to me like the safe thing to do, then--at least as far as the job market is concerned--would be to stay away from contributing to websites that might give search committees an (erroneous?) picture of one's political orientation. Of course, it is a further question whether one should play it safe, and so a lot might depend here on the OP's tolerance for risk, what the website is, and what the OP would write for it. Then there is the question of whether the OP would really want to work with people who would discriminate against them on political bases. Obviously, I can't answer these questions, as I am not the OP. But they seem to me at least some of the relevant issues here.

What do you all think? It might be great to hear from people here who have expressed political views openly or written for conservative venues. Do you think it impacted your ability to get an academic job? It would also be good, I think, to hear from search committee members.

Justifying 'generic' teaching practices?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an Assistant Professor writes:

I'm going up for reappointment. I've been asked to describe the "aims of my teaching practices" in my reappointment narrative. But I think my aims are rather generic and I suspect that various deans and admins with backgrounds in pedagogy will see them as such. Any advice on how to describe what we do as philosophy teachers in a compelling way, without having to read whole books on uni-level pedagogy?

This is an interesting question, and I'm really curious to hear what readers think. At my university, teaching practices and pedagogy vary greatly. Some instructors utilize something like the class 'chalk and talk' lecture and open discussion with students (albeit, no longer with chalk, but rather with whiteboard markers that actually work for something like 15 minutes). Others use much more elaborate methods, including PowerPoint presentations, group activities, in-class debates, student presentations, and so on. Generally speaking (though I'm really not sure), I wouldn't be surprised if Deans and tenure & promotion (T&P) committees have biases in favor of the latter--as the more elaborate and creative the teaching practices, the more it looks like you are working hard an innovating, etc., etc. But I also know, for example, people who have served on T&P committees who teach in a more traditional way, and actually don't like PowerPoint presentations and the like. 

So, I don't know. I guess I sort of want to say to the OP that what they should do is to honestly explain what they do and why--and then, in turn, try to document in some way(s) that what they do enhances student learning. If they teach in a traditional, 'generic' way, why? Do they think it is valuable? Do their students respond well to it? Do they do other things as an instructor that is valuable, such as by giving extensive feedback on student work? I expect that if their student evaluations are strong (yes, I know, student evals are of dubious value), and the OP is generally doing good work (viz. research, service, etc.), then as long as they make a plausible case that they are teaching in a satisfactory (or even meritorious) way, they should be just fine in terms of reappointment. And, of course, if a dean of whomever wants to see any changes, I expect they will say so. This is, at any rate, something like what happens in our annual performance evaluations at my university (as well as in pretenure and tenure decision letters).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? (A final side-note: this may also be a relevant issue for job-candidates who use 'generic' teaching practices, as they presumably need to make a case in their teaching portfolio that departments should hire them!)

Handling pregnancy in a postdoc?

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

I have a one-year postdoc with teaching responsibilities both semesters. I recently learned that I'm pregnant and will be due to give birth about a month before the spring semester ends. I'm super excited! But I don't know exactly how to approach the department/university about this. I don't have a TT and so I can't propose to take the entire semester as "research leave" or something. It's not a huge department and I would find it unfair to ask someone to cover my classes for several weeks. This is complicated by the fact that my spouse lives in a different state several hours away (where I live too when not teaching) and I would much prefer to give birth there. I'd really like to teach my class and I'm hoping I can work something out where I can go online after Spring Break and lecture virtually/have a TA lead in-person discussion sections while I'm gone. But I'm not sure if that's bureaucratically infeasible or just a bad idea. Has anyone been through a similar situation, especially as a postdoc, or been in a department that's had this come up? The university's official policy on maternity leave basically seems to be "work it out with your department," so that's not too much of a help. Thanks so much!!

A great and important question (and a big congrats on the postdoc and soon-to-be new member of your family!). Neither my spouse nor I (obviously) have been a similar position, so unfortunately I'm not the best person to ask here (though I have served as a department chair for several years). That being said, given that the university's policy seems to be "work it out with your department", I guess I'd be inclined to suggest the OP speak to her chair, letting them know just what they wrote above: that they are entirely willing to teach their courses, but that they'd like to teach remotely around and after their due date. See what the chair says. Hopefully, the chair is a good chair, and a reasonable, sympathetic, and accommodating person.

But again, I'm probably not the most well-situated person to give advice here. What do you all think? It would be great to hear from postdocs and faculty who have been in similar situations, as well as from department chairs and others who have been in these situations on the other side of things.

Readers for grad school writing samples?

A reader writes in:

I'm currently putting together materials for a run at Ph.D programs. I've heard from countless sources that the writing sample is the most important part of the application. I plan to have my advisor...look over the writing sample, as it originated out of an assignment for her class. But I also think the more eyes my paper sees and the more critical feedback it receives, the better it will be. It can be terribly difficult to zoom out from one's own work to see what needs improvement.

1). is it appropriate to solicit "external reviewers," for lack of a better term--in other words, faculty at other programs that specialize in the topic at hand, and ask them to read through a draft?

2). If this has been done with any success, how did you go about establishing a working relationship with those people in order to make a request like that?

3). If any of you readers of the blog are willing to network and chat about my writing sample [on Nietzsche and his pregnancy metaphors], I'd welcome that connection.

At present, I only have my aforementioned advisor working in the subject area. All other mentors and colleagues that have volunteered to read through my writing sample work in completely different areas than the topic of the paper.

These are excellent questions, and I don't think we've ever discussed them on the Cocoon before.

Reviewing a bad paper for a journal?

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

For the first time is my (relatively short) career, I have been asked to review a paper that is very bad.

We all know the 'Reviewer 2' meme, and have probably heard of the research about the damaging effects overly that negative reviews can have on people - and I don't want to be that reviewer!

So, I'd love some advice focused specifically on how to write negative journal reviews without being too harsh in the tone. How does one best communicate a negative verdict without going over the line?

This is an excellent question, and I'd love to hear readers' answers. Although sometimes it can be hard to avoid being 'reviewer 2' (particularly if, as in the OP's case, the paper one is reviewing seems really bad), here are a few tips that I have found to be useful:

1. Use neutral, non-inflammatory language: As this comparative study found, something like 30% of reviews of philosophy papers contain inflammatory rhetoric. To avoid doing this as a reviewer, I've found that it can be useful to write one's review and then read through it multiple times to see whether there are any unnecessarily hostile words or phrases that I might replace with more neutral ones. 

2. Focus on detailed, dispassionate commentary rather than 'meta-commentary': Is the paper's argument confused? Instead of just saying it is confused (a meta-commentary), along with perhaps a short toss-off comment on why ("The paper commits all kinds of fallacies"), focus instead on showing the error(s) in question. Say, for example, "On p. 1, the paper claims X. On p. 2, it claims to derive Y from X. Yet Y does not follow. Here's why...". My experience as an author is that when one receives these kinds of explanations, a reviewer report can at least feel fair-minded--whereas if report merely says "the paper is confused", it can come across as unfair and needlessly hostile.

3. Set the paper aside for a week or so: Although as a reviewer one should presumably avoid unnecessary delays in completing one's review, it's amazing in my experience what a bit of 'distance' from a review can do. When you read your own review 'afresh', as it were, things can just pop out at you (like, "Wow...yeah, I should really tone that down").

4. Try to say a few laudatory things: Although it may seem hard to do in cases of especially bad papers, my experience is that papers that pass the desk rejection stage usually have at least some virtues. So, if there are any, mention them, particularly toward the beginning of the review.

5. Remind yourself of reviewer fallibility: I assume you have received referee reports that you thought were unfair, right? Well, those reviewers were presumably someone like you: someone who thought they were reading a 'really bad' paper. For this reason, I think it's helpful to consciously remind oneself of just how fallible we can be as referees. Try reminding yourself of this study, for example, which found a high number of classic (and 15 Nobel prize-winning!) economics papers to be rejected from journals, often for the most spurious of reasons (such as being 'trivial'). Or remind yourself of this story by Jason Stanley. Personally, I've found that reminding myself of how fallible we can be can really help one tone down a review. 

6. Read this discussion of bad reviewers by Michael Huemer: Don't reject a paper simply because you disagree with it, or even ultimately find the argument unconvincing. Your task as a reviewer should not be to expect perfection--especially given that, as we all know from graduate school, even the 'most important' papers in the field are usually flawed (or at least dubious) in all kinds of ways. Ask yourself instead, 'Is the paper interesting enough and good enough to publish, or at least give an R&R to?'

7. Imagine receiving the review yourself: I've heard people say they dread hearing from journals, and I empathize. Like most people I've talked to, I've received my share of harsh, meanspirited reviews. So, before submitting your review, ask yourself what it would be like to receive your review as an author. If your review feels needlessly 'hard to read', try to adjust its tone.

Anyway, these are just a few thoughts. Sometimes they can be admittedly hard to follow through on, particularly when one receives a paper to review that just seems incompetent in some way or other. Chances are, many of us will be 'reviewer 2' at some point in our lives. Nobody's perfect. But it is worth trying to do one's best to avoid it. Anyway, what do you all think? Do you have any good tips for avoiding being reviewer 2? If you do, I'm really curious to hear them!

Doing a postdoc (partially) from afar?

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

I am about to start a prestigious postdoc in a country different from where I currently live and work. I am very excited and want to work on the project. However, I have a spouse, (who has a good job) and our lovely house in a different country than my postdoc. Commuting between the countries is possible (and the salary is not a problem for doing so), but it is not feasible to come to my native country every weekend. How to make a case for working partly from my native country? The job is 90-95 % research which I could do anywhere (I am more productive at the home office than at the university). The PI of the project likes me and my work very much, so I think (s)he would be compliant. For the last 18 months or so, I have worked from my native country (because of COVID) while officially employed by the university in another country - without major problems. Should I approach the PI or the HR before starting, or should I talk to both? Or should I just start the job, go and see how much people spend their time at the office and if no-one is there on Fridays, for instance, can I just use Fridays for travelling my native country without letting anyone know (working on train/plane etc). Could I write on Saturday and Sunday to take two days off the next week? How much do philosophers usually spend their time at the office anyway, or are scholars responsible for letting others know where they are at a given time (workshops, conferences etc)? I am not asking to work fully from another country and I am willing to participate in seminars at the campus, but it just feels stupid to sit at the office writing and thinking when I could do it at home. If I don't have to be at the office every day then why cannot I work from another country (there might be issues with taxation and social securities, pensions etc after spending significant time in another country though)? Have any of you managed to get a permit to work from another country?

As someone with an academic spouse, I very much empathize with Roy. Situations like these can be profoundly difficult, presenting one with a bunch of seemingly suboptimal (and potentially risky) options. Alas, I'm not at all sure what to recommend. One reader submitted the following reply:

It would be a mistake to ask to work from home, unless there are health-related reasons to do so. At least where I am from, post docs are expected to contribute to the culture of the department/centre. You are to be involved in the everyday business of the department, entertaining speakers, and attending talks, etc. Your research job is not just about producing papers.

However, Prof. L submitted a more sympathetic take:

Roy—talk to your PI and get clear on her expectations regarding physical presence. I would not take a wait and see approach or anything like that. Just tell her your situation, make clear you are committed to the project etc. And then also find out the requirements of your visa. No one here can advise you about that, since residency requirements vary by country/visa types. I know in the US, we impose hefty penalties on overseas employment, making employing a person whose citizenship is elsewhere to work “from home” prohibitively expensive. At least, that’s my understanding. But you should ask real-life people who actually know about this stuff, and how it might apply to your particular situation.

All good points. Do any readers have any helpful experiences or tips to share here? It might be good to hear not only from postdocs, but also from PIs who might be in a position to say something about all of this from the host/hiring department side of things.

Extra financial (e.g. research) support?

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

I am wondering about ways to find rather small financial support for people from places with less resources available to them. Say I want to focus on a research project, attend a workshop, or spent a short visit here and there. I might be able to get some support but, due to many factors including differences of currencies and else I cannot solely rely on that. What else I can do? What are the possibilities?

Here’s an example. At times I think whether I can suggest to present a short course or a similar teaching service to finance a visit to that center/department. But not being from Europe, I don’t know the opportunities, possibilities, and the norms. Any advice would be appreciated.

Good questions, and I'm not sure--especially since the OP seems to be in Europe and I have no experience there. However, the thought that immediately occurred to me is: grants. In addition to government or private grants, many universities (at least in the US) also have smaller internal grants one can apply for (e.g. on the order of several thousand dollars or more). Alternatively, if you can give talks at other universities, they may be able to offer you some sort of honorarium. But, in addition to these things, I'm not all that sure what the options or opportunities here are. Any readers have any helpful tips?

How can we help you? (August 2021)

Now that it's been a month 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:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

Where to list summer schools on a CV?

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

Is there any conventional wisdom about where on a CV to list summer schools one participated in and/or presented at?

I'm not sure: maybe under "presentations" or "awards" (if e.g. the summer school had a competitive application procedure). What do you all think?

Handling new-job jitters?

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

I recently was fortunate enough to land an amazing job that I've very excited about. Especially given the current market situation, I feel very lucky. But I also feel more nervous than I ever felt on the job market. It's not really concerns about teaching or publishing (well, at least not beyond the general anxiety I imagine everyone experiences about those things). I'm more worried that I'll say something wrong and all my new colleagues will start to dislike me. Honestly, it feels a lot closer to how I felt on the first day of kindergarten than it does anything else. I'm hoping the feeling will get better with time, but I was wondering if anyone had any tips on how to make the transition to my new department smooth and how to be less nervous talking to people?

Good question! Another reader submitted the following reply:

You made it through the 1st day of kindergarten. You will make it through this one too. Generally, the selection process is so rigorous, the candidate who gets the job will do just fine. You are off to a great start to a wonderful career. (if you want something to worry about, you should be more concerned that the department is dysfunctional - hopefully not, though).

Moving/relocation tips for academics?

On Twitter, Alex Bryant (PhD student, McMaster) writes:

Early career academics: Presumably you have developed a kind of expertise related to moving (including problems common to grad students/academics, like moving books). What have you learned, what do you suggest, and what mistakes could you help others avoid?

Related: One way long-tenured senior people might be out of touch with the state of the profession is just how much of an impact frequent moves has on people who have to move from contract to contract, postdoc to postdoc, rather than picking up lifelong job out of school.

This is a good question that we've never discussed before, as in my experience moving between jobs can indeed have a serious impact on an academic's ability to get work done. The couple of times that I moved (first to UBC, then to Tampa), the summer that I moved was mostly a 'wash' where I wasn't able to get much research done. My experience was that there are just so many things to figure out and daily stressors having to do with it that it can be hard to focus.

Anyway, do any readers have any tips? Also, it might be worth hearing from readers on whether (and how), in their experience, senior academics may be out of touch here.

Applying to philosophy PhD programs w/multiple grad degrees?

In our latest "how can we help you?" thread, Claire writes:

I'm another unusual applicant to PhD programs, and I'm hoping for some advice on how to proceed. I have a PhD in History from Cambridge, with several prestigious scholarships. I also have one BA in Sociology (UCSC), another in History (UCR), a masters in medieval history (Cambridge), and another masters in urban and regional planning (Virginia). I also worked for a while in digital humanities and in cancer research (medical abstracting). I gave up on academia because History just didn't make me passionate enough, and I felt I would get backed into a temporal corner. I'm a broader thinker and needed something that makes my sense of wonder come alive. I now know that philosophy is what does that. I might seem like a perennial student, but the truth is, I've always sought out philosophical issues in each degree, and am currently writing a book that touches on philosophical topics in many ways. Writing this book is actually what got me looking into academic philosophy in the first place.

I want to dive into a PhD in philosophy now, and pursue research (and teaching, if I'm lucky) in the field. But how do I proceed with getting enough official philosophy background and letters of recommendation to be admitted? I have never taken a class in philosophy (but a lot of social theory, and a lot of independent reading). I have maxed out all student loan possibilities, so can't do a third BA or MA. What are my chances of being admitted straight to philosophy programs with my existing profile? Since I gave up on academia after my last PhD, I also haven't been in touch with anyone who might be a letter writer. I'm not sure what they'd think of me asking for one at this point. Any advice? Much appreciated.

Good questions! Amanda submitted the following response:

I think you'd be okay if it were just a history Ph.D., but all the other graduate degrees on top of that will probably work against you. People have a tendency toward "judgeness" in these situations (in my experience) and might see you, as you say, as a "professional student."

I would also be cautious about saying things about finding your passion in philosophy. As sad as it is, the field is full of philosophers who felt that way initially and now look back on that old self with a jaded eye roll. No, not everyone, but many are cynical and bitter, having learned that the profession is not what they hoped.

I'd argue that the best way to increase your odds of achieving your goals is to take a handful of philosophy courses (4-6) in the "core" areas, i.e., epistemology, metaphysics, history, ethics. These should be either upper-division undergrad courses or grad courses. I recommend taking them at a school with either an MA or Ph.D. program in philosophy. In-person is best as that would make it easier to get letters, but online courses would be okay. This would achieve both the goal of showing background in philosophy and getting letters of rec from philosophers. It would be best to find a program that allows people to enroll in one-off courses, but auditing could work with the right personal statement and letters of rec.

A possible alternative path would be to sneak your way into a Phil adjunct teaching position and then sell yourself as self-taught. With all your degrees, you will be able to get by with minimal official training. While in general, there is skepticism of self-teaching, a Ph.D. changes things. Create a syllabus and explain that your other academic work created a familiarization with philosophy. A school that really needs instructors might hire you. However, COVID is going to make things far more difficult than before.

Using old teaching letters when TT?

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

I have a question about acquiring a teaching reference letter. I am a junior TT faculty member, looking to switch to another institution. My last teaching letter was acquired when I was teaching in grad school. However, I am more than several years out now, and I am not comfortable asking any member of my department for a teaching letter for another job (for obvious reasons). How problematic is it to use an outdated teaching letter? Finally, all of my current letters do address teaching in some capacity or another, would it be OK (given my circumstances) to not submit a teaching reference for a job that technically requires one? Could one address this in a cover letter?

Good questions. I'm inclined to think that it is probably fine to use an old teaching letter when applying out of a TT position, as it seems plausible to me that search committee members will think something like, "Oh, they are applying out of a TT position, so they probably can't get a teaching letter from their current place of work." At the same time, I think there may be a better alternative--or rather, a way to supplement your old letter in your application.

At my university (and, I suspect, at many other universities), it is not uncommon for TT faculty to have teaching observations, where another (usually tenured) faculty member sits in on one of your classes to observe your performance. Normally, in my experience, the faculty member who does the observation will write a detailed letter evaluating your performance--which you can then use in your tenure file to help make the case that you are a meritorious teacher. Further, as long as you perform well, these letters are usually positive on the whole--though they may contain some critical feedback or teaching suggestions. 

For these reasons, I think it might be helpful to include a letter or two like this in the OP's job applications, not as reference letter per se, but instead as supplemental materials in their teaching portfolio. I'm not entirely sure about this, though, so what do you all think? Is it okay for a TT faculty member to only include an old teaching letter in their application? If so, should they address this in some way in their cover letter? Should they try to include a teaching observation letter or two in their teaching portfolio?

Getting well-known people to read drafts?

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

[I] often see philosophers thank people for helpful comments on earlier drafts of a published paper. And they are usually thanking the 'big names' in the field. My question is, how do I get these people, the 'big names' in my field, to read drafts of my papers? I assume most of this happens at conferences. But how do I figure out which conferences these people attend so that I can also attend and hopefully get them to comment? Are there certain conferences in a given sub-discipline that most people working in that sub-discipline are likely to attend? How do I find out which conferences those are?

I expect some readers may be puzzled by these questions: why care about getting 'big names' to read paper drafts? It's not as though one has to do that in order to publish effectively, right? Although the OP doesn't say, I expect there may be several reasons why they might care about this: (1) to get better feedback (i.e. from top experts in their area), and/or (2) to get their work noticed. Anyway, regardless of their reasons, the Cocoon is here to help.

How to list affiliation in a non-university job?

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

First, for some context, I recently accepted a job teaching philosophy (along with a few other subjects in the humanities) in a private high school.

Lately I've been considering submitting a few papers I've been working on to journals and conferences. In the process, however, I've been confronted with the question of what to list as my affiliation. Since finishing grad school, I've mostly been using "no affiliation" or "independent philosopher" for this kind of thing. Continuing to use that wouldn't exactly seem accurate now, since I'm now employed at a school. The only apparent alternative, I suppose, is using my new high school as an affiliation--but something about that makes me uneasy, too. Perhaps it's simply the fact that I've never seen anyone do this; to the extent that I can remember philosophers' listed affiliations, they've always been a college or university. Part of me wonders whether the very meaning that most people give to "affiliation" in this context restricts the word to institutions of higher education, such that listing a high school as one's affiliation would be considered a bit like listing, say, Costco (assuming one worked there), or a given elementary school, etc.

If I'm to be honest with myself, I suppose I also sense that there might be a certain stigma to listing a high school as one's affiliation--that others might sense that one isn't a "real" philosopher, that one's work isn't to be taken as seriously, etc. Perhaps that's what's ultimately making me feel uneasy (though arguably I shouldn't be bothered by others' thoughts in this way).

What I wanted to ask, then, was whether anyone has any thoughts on what I should list as my affiliation going forward.

This is an interesting question. My general sense (though it could be wrong) is that the prevailing convention is to list oneself as an 'independent scholar' in cases like this. But, even assuming this is right, whether this is a good convention is another story entirely--as the convention seems to presuppose that an affiliation is only worth listing in a journal if it is a university. Personally, I'd prefer to see 'non-traditional' affiliations (such as high schools, etc.) actually listed in cases like these--as I think it would be very interesting to know where such scholars work! But, on the other hand, I wonder whether (as the OP notes) it might work to the author's disadvantage. First, might journal editors discriminate against authors like the OP? Second, would journal readers? For example, would Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity have gotten the attention it did if Einstein listed 'Swiss Patent Office' as his affiliation? Or would many readers have written it off as a work of an amateur? 

What do readers think? It might be great to hear, in particular, from journal editors and independent scholars. What is the prevailing convention here? Would it hurt a scholar like the OP to list their actual (e.g. high school) affiliation rather than merely listing themselves as an independent scholar? 

Starting v. finishing papers?

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

I have questions about writing papers. Specifically:

how do I finish them?

does everyone else find them as difficult to finish as I do?

It has been five years since my Phd and have managed to publish some stuff that I am happy with. I have never found starting writing particularly onerous, and generally enjoying getting the first 80% down. But, I always find the last 20% –actually getting the thing into a submittable state takes me an enormous amount of time.

Right now, I have a more than 80% of a paper finished –but it has been at this stage for the last month despite me working on it pretty much every day.

I find that a paragraph that I need to fix/alter slightly/rewrite will lead to me needing to fix/alter/slightly/rewrite another part of the paper. And so on...

So, I guess a couple of things could be happening:

1. Many people go through something like this and it is just a normal part of finishing papers.

2. I am doing something wrong. perhaps I need to get ideas more clear in my head before I start writing?

Yeah, I think this is totally normal--or, at least, it's something that I struggle with too. I love drafting new papers. Finishing them, on the other hand, is the tricky part. It takes a ton of polishing, and this in my experience is the least fun and most difficult part to do. You constantly fiddle with things, insert and remove things, second-guess yourself, and so on. I currently have maybe ten papers like this that are 80-90% done, but which I'm finding it difficult to polish into the kind of shape that I'm happy enough with to submit. And what often happens is that I have an idea for a new paper, so I'll begin drafting that up because I find that more enjoyable (this is in part the reason why I have so many papers in the 'polish' stage). 

Maybe the OP and I are outliers in this regard, I don't know--but I suspect not. Any readers care to weigh in? And any tips for the OP to help them get to the finish line more quickly?

How many (outside) letters are optimal?

A reader writes in:

I have a couple of questions about getting job letters from people outside of your graduate program. 

First, when is it a good time to ask someone for a job letter? How well does a potential letter writer need to know you to write a sufficient letter? 

Second, I will likely have at least two external job letters when I go on the market. Is this enough or would more be better? How many letters does one need on the market?

Excellent questions. Here is how I replied:

I don’t think there’s a simple answer to the first question, as in my experience different people can have different standards for how well they think they should know you in order to write a good letter. So, here’s my suggestion: if you have some working relationship with the person and any reason to think the person knows your work and may think well of you as a philosopher, it doesn’t hurt to ask. The worst that can happen is that they say ‘no’—but the best that can happen is that they say ‘yes’ and write a good letter. I’ve had both happen to me, and while it’s disappointing when someone says ‘no’, the only way to get some ‘yes’ answers is to ask.

On the second question, I think two outside letters is more than enough, particularly for someone just coming out of graduate school. Indeed, given that many job application portals limit the number of letters that you can submit, there is such a thing as having ‘too many letters.’ I think four or five letters total (2 or 3 from your grad program, and likewise from outside) is probably optimal.

But these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?

Getting a visiting student post while ABD?

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

I have a question about the process of applying for becoming a visiting student in another university especially when you are in the dissertation phase. I am currently in a PhD program of one of the US universities and I am wondering how can I be a visiting student in another university (in the US) for awhile.

This is an excellent query. I seem to recall a grad student or two that I knew having done this, and it seemed to really be a boon to their career, as they were able to draw on the expertise of people outside of their home department, get good outside recommendation letters, network, and so on. However, I don't know much about the process. Although I could be totally wrong about this, I sort of suspect that you (and/or your dissertation supervisor) just need to approach a person or two at the department or two that you would like to visit to see if their department would be willing to have you.

But again, I am really just speculating here. Do any readers have experience with this? It might be great to hear both about the process of becoming a visiting student at the dissertation stage, and the costs and benefits of doing so! 

When (and how) to try to publish a dissertation?

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

For those who want to try and publish their dissertation as a monograph: what is the best time to start getting in touch with publishers? Once the thesis is starting to take shape, or when it is more or less finished/submitted, or only after the dissertation has passed the defence?

On the one hand, it seems that earlier = better, if only because the same time can otherwise be spent trying to publish individual chapters. On the other hand, the defence itself might provide valuable feedback, and publishers might not want to take a gamble on a dissertation that has not even passed yet!

Relatedly, suppose one plans to revise their dissertation to become more like a monograph, rather than a dissertation (i.e. include a gentler introduction, but leave out long literature reviews): should one do this *before* submitting the manuscript to a publisher, or is it fine to submit the dissertation 'as is' but with a (detailed) note in what ways one intends to change things? (I am thinking here of the initial 'proposal' stage, not the later 'review' stage, for which it seems sensible to submit an as-final-as-possible version).

These are excellent questions, and I am curious to hear what readers think. Here are a few quick thoughts...

Maintaining a (coherent) research program?

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

I'm 5 years post-PhD and have been publishing at a modest rate since then (about 1 article per year), and I'm starting to find it a bit onerous to keep track of my own research program. Now when I'm editing new drafts I find myself always uncovering thorny issues with subtle details of how the new paper fits in with my previous ones. I would love to hear if others have found effective ways to manage and streamline this part of the late-early-career writing process. I feel like I'm always having "Oh shit, I can't say that because..." moments fairly late in the game and then scrambling for a solution. I work in a so-called "core" analytic subfield, in case that's relevant.

Interesting query. I'm nearly 13 years (!) post-PhD now and have published quite a bit, and I haven't really encountered this difficulty. I guess I'm a bit puzzled by the OP's thought that they can't say something in a new paper because of something they have written before. Is their thought that everything they say across different papers must be entirely consistent? If so, I'm not sure that I think one needs to do that! Why not follow the arguments where they lead, publish things that are in tension with each other if that's where the arguments lead, and then perhaps explore and try to resolve those tensions in future work?

Pedagogical literature for philosophy?

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

I'm thinking about applying for a Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (if you don't know about it see here: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/fellowship/fellowship) and for that I need to engage with the pedagogical literature. I've found plenty of literature on teaching at university in general. But I wonder if anyone here has recommendations for pedagogical literature that is specifically relevant to philosophy (or better yet, specifically addressed to philosophy lecturers).

I'm curious to hear recommendations too. I know of the journal Teaching Philosophy, but beyond that I don't have any specific recommendations. I'd love to hear from readers on particular books or articles they recommend!

When/where can one post preprints?

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

I recently had my first journal article accepted for publication. When can I put it on Philpapers and my personal website? Do I have to wait for official approval of the de-anonymized version from the journal? Or can I do so immediately?

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

First, congratulations! Welcome to the club. Second, you should read the contract you signed with the publisher. It is a contract. And you signed it. It is imperative that you learn what you can legally do.

I agree on all counts. Different publishers can have very different policies. Some publishers allow you to post final drafts (non-copyedited, etc.) on non-profit repositories such as PhilPapers immediately upon acceptance. However, others have 'embargo periods' of a year or two post-publication during which you can post a final draft to your website, but which you have to wait to pass before you can post anything to a repository. Other publishers still do not permit any version of a paper to be posted to a repository, but instead only allow you to link to the actual published version at the journal. Finally, many publishers only allow posting drafts to non-profit repositories, but absolutely forbid posting drafts to for-profit sites (such as Academia.edu). 

Long story short, the safe thing to do is to read (and follow) your publishing contract very carefully. Of course, I suspect that not everyone follows such requirements. But personally, I wouldn't risk that. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

CV gaps and the market?

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

I struck out on the job market this year, no surprise. I haven't even been able to secure adjuncting gigs for the fall. And I have not had any luck finding employment outside of the faculty track, either. If I go back on the market, how bad will it look that I have no affiliation and no employment for the upcoming academic year? Will that lower my chances even further?

Good questions. It's not clear from the reader's comment whether they are just out of graduate school and this past year was their first year on the job market. If so, I suspect that they will still look like someone 'just out of graduate school' and the gap on their CV won't matter much. I suspect this is especially true right now, due to the COVID pandemic. Search committee members will be well aware that candidates just out of grad school faced a uniquely horrible market this past year.

On the other hand, my sense is that the longer one is out of grad school, the more likely it is that these kinds of gaps are likely to affect one's chances. Generally speaking, my guess is that you want to look like you are 'still in the game', publishing, getting teaching experience, etc. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? I'm especially curious to hear from people who have served on search committees.

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.

Alternative paths to academic philosophy jobs?

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

The standard path towards landing an academic job in philosophy involves getting a doctoral degree in philosophy, and upon its completion, either securing a post-doctoral position in a related field or (if one is lucky) securing a fixed-term or tenure-track position within a philosophy department.

Now, I get the sense that there is some apprehension towards offering someone who has already obtained a doctoral degree (in a different subject) a place within the philosophy department to complete another doctoral degree, perhaps for reasons of fairness -- that given the competitive nature, it is only fair that someone who does not have a doctoral degree be offered a chance to obtain that degree than someone who already has a doctoral degree.

However, without a doctorate in philosophy, it appears difficult (much harder than it usually would be for people with a philosophy doctorate) to secure a post-doctoral position in philosophy, especially if the area of their original doctorate is pretty far from their primary(ish) research interests in philosophy. Even if one were to chance upon a rare instance where they do secure a post-doc position, it appears to be an uphill battle to convince a hiring committee that one indeed has sufficient philosophical background to teach philosophy at an undergraduate level (I have a suspicion that many would not consider having a master's degree to be sufficient). It therefore seems that, at best, one no more competitive within the job market after the end of that post-doc tenure even if they were to be lucky enough to land a post-doctoral position in philosophy without a doctoral degree in the subject (again, I suspect that one would, in fact, be less competitive on the job market because of the unconventional academic path).

So, more specifically, I have the following questions:

(i) is there an alternative path towards landing an academic job in philosophy that is just as effective/efficient as the standard path?

(ii) if the standard path is all that is available, what could someone who has already obtained a doctorate in a different subject (and is currently pursuing a master's degree in philosophy) do to make themselves reasonably competitive when applying for their second PhD so that their application is not dismissed on the account that they have already received a doctoral degree?

Interesting questions. I'm not sure that there is an alternative path toward landing an academic job in philosophy. But fortunately, I'm not sure there's any reason to think that PhD program admissions committees in philosophy are likely to be apprehensive toward admitting someone who already has a PhD in another field. Far from it, my guess is that admissions committees may find candidates like this especially interesting--as the person's expertise in another field could well enrich their department. Indeed, what could be better than having a new PhD student who has expertise in (say) physics, or psychology, or biology, political science, sociology, etc.? All of these fields (and many others besides!) have much to offer philosophy, and I imagine it might not only be interesting on a day-to-day basis to have someone like that in the department, but also educational, offering grad students and faculty alike fertile ground for expanding their horizons and knowledge-base.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Handling frustrating journal verdicts?

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

I just received a verdict from a journal. One referee suggested minor revisions and the other referee suggested major revisions. However, the editor rejected my paper. I wonder if that is common nowadays? Could I argue with the editor? Or is the idea crazy?

In my experience, this is very common. In fact, I received a similar verdict just yesterday. While I've heard of rare cases where arguing with editors can work (specifically, in cases where a referee made clear and obviously negligent mistakes in reading the paper), my sense is that, generally speaking, it's probably not worth one's while to argue with editors. If they made the decision they made, it's probably for a reason. Perhaps they agreed with the referee who advocated major revisions, and they (the editors) just thought that even with the major revisions, the paper is at most 'very good' rather than excellent, and the editors only want to publish stuff in the journal that they (and both reviewers) deem to be excellent. That's their prerogative as editors, after all.

Tips for being forward-looking on the market?

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

Over this year and the last I have had a few interviews for amazing jobs and a few great long lists where I had to choose to send in this or that writing sample. I have a really hard time not regretting my decisions—if only I'd done this instead of that in the interview, if only I'd sent in that paper...I know regretting is a pointless enterprise, not to mention a pretty draining one, but I can't seem not to fixate on things that I might have done differently. I suppose this is more a question for a psychologist, but maybe someone here has some strategies for becoming more forward-looking on the market. The stakes are so high that just hard not to think: that one thing would have really changed my life...

This is indeed a difficult question, and perhaps one that a psychologist might be best equipped to help with. Still, I'm curious whether other readers who have struggled with similar issues have any helpful tips to share. How do you deal with disappointment on the market, and in particular with being forward-looking? What have you found to be helpful for avoiding rumination and regrets about things one 'could have done differently'?

Getting students to do readings?

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

Marcus mentioned this briefly in a different thread, but how do you get your students to do the reading on a semi-regular basis? I've tried quizzes, and while they had an effect, they also made me the bad guy and often ruined rapport. In upper-level courses I require weekly reading questions/posts. But I'm more concerned with lower-level mandatory classes.

This is an excellent question, and I'm curious to hear from readers. I too haven't found quizzes to be a good strategy. Whenever possible, I've found the best strategy to be short reading response papers--even papers that are just 4-5 sentences long. But I also teach relatively small classes, and I recognize this isn't a real option for larger classes. Do any of you have good strategies for incentivizing student reading, particularly in lower-level mandatory courses?