The Philosophers' Cocoon

Elements of a good professional website?

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

I wanted to ask for any advice on how to design a personal academic website. I will soon have my first publication out and thought it would be a good idea to have a web page for people to find out who I am. However, I am not sure what makes for a 'good' academic webpage. For example, should one have one's photograph featured prominently on the front page, as some philosophers do? Is the 'Papers' page simply a list of all publications, or is it helpful to e.g. include abstracts and context, to group papers together in subjects, etc.? Is it good to include personal details about e.g. hobbies, or does this detract from the main goal? I am not aware of any discussions on this topic, and would appreciate any advice people have, or indeed examples of 'good' academic webpages.

Really good questions! What does everyone think? I think it would good to hear what people think in response to the reader's various questions, as well as for readers to link in the comment section below to webpages they think think are particularly good! Here are a few brief thoughts of my own.

Recycling dissertation text in articles

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

What are the ethical norms surrounding recycling text from PhD theses into journal articles? I've heard many say that it is a good idea to write your thesis in such a way that you can convert it to publications, but at the same time, isn't self-plagiarism an offense? Or is the deciding factor whether or not you're at the sort of an institution that publishes dissertations (e.g., in an online repository)? Even if recycling text from a PhD thesis is considered acceptable, can journals reject a paper on grounds that it's not novel because it's too similar to the PhD thesis?

Full disclosure, in my case I'm working on a dissertation by publication. However there's material in my introduction that I would be eager to reuse. I'm at an institution that publishes all dissertations online.

Interesting questions I haven't thought about before. In brief, my sense is that there is nothing wrong or unusual about recycling text from dissertation chapters in published articles. First, I don't think it counts as self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism involves recycling previously published work without citing it. Generally speaking, though, when people publish (usually revised) dissertation chapters as articles, they usually indicate this somewhere--typically in the acknowledgments section (viz. "This article is a revised version of the first chapter of my PhD dissertation. I thank..."). Further, dissertations are only nominally published. Yes, they are technically "published" by your university, but they are also academic work completed in fulfillment of a degree--and generally speaking, the only way to disseminate your dissertation research more broadly is through publishing it in some further venues (e.g. as journal articles or a book). Second, I don't think journals have any problem publishing stuff from dissertations, as it's pretty much expected that people publish stuff from their dissertation. The only thing I think is probably worth being aware here is that dissertation chapters probably usually need a substantial amount of revision before being publishable--due primarily to differences in stylistic expectations (dissertations usually contain a great deal more background exposition that journal articles, where the focus is usually--almost entirely--on the author's positive argument).

But perhaps I am missing something. Any readers disagree or have any other insight?

Re-reviewing unrevised papers?

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

I was asked by a tippy-top journal about a year ago to review a paper on a topic that is squarely in my wheelhouse. I'm one of a pretty small number of people extremely well suited (research-area wise, at least) to review the paper. Because it's a tippy-top journal with an extremely low accept rate, I spent a LOT of time on the review. I try to be very conscientious about reviews generally, but this was especially careful. My review was about 10pp. Note: I'm tenured at a research institution. I returned the review promptly.

There were some very big mistakes--it was a good idea, but had some very serious problems. I offered a lot of comments about how to avoid the problems, some key pieces to cite, and suggested that with those improvements it was a publishable piece (if not at that tippiest toppiest journal). THe journal shared the EIC decision and the other reviewer's comments. The other reviewer's concerns overlapped with mine.

Now I have received a request to review the paper again from another (excellent, if not quite as rarefied) journal. The paper was attached in the request, and it has not changed. Like, none of the very important problems I pointed out have been addressed at all. None of the other reviewer's excellent comments were addressed. My guess is that the paper went straight back out to at least one (possibly two) other excellent journals without addressing the comments (on which I, and at least one other scholar--maybe one of you!--spent a great deal of time), was rejected again, and is now coming back to me.

So, I'm a bit irked by that. This person is clogging up the review process. I know that lots of advice around here is to turn around articles quickly, not spend too much time meeting reviewers' idiosynchratic criticisms, etc. But this strikes me as a case of serious free-loading, and it makes me reluctant to review papers (or to review them conscientiously).

I guess this post is mostly a rant--sorry about that. But I do need advice. How do I respond?

a. I could simply decline to review with no reason given. No doubt I'm biased in that I thought my own comments were good.

b. I could decline but warn the EIC that this appears to be a person just shotgunning their paper out there, and asking others to review is a burden that won't result in a modified paper.

c. I could neither accept nor decline and share my prior review with the EIC.

d. else?

There were already a few replies to this comment in the read, but I'd like to hear what more people think, as I suspect this happens a lot. Ref replied:

Just tell the Editor that will not review the paper because you reviewed the paper for another journal, and it has not changed, despite the many comments you provided.

anon then added:

I understand your frustration. But I've been on the other side of a similar situation, so here's my own take on what went down in my case:

(1) I got rejected from Journal X, with a lot of comments and the assertion that even if I revised the paper, it would be publishable but not in as elite a place as Journal X.

(2) I read the comments and made the judgment call that they weren't necessary revisions.

(3) I submitted the paper to equally prestigious Journal Y.

(4) I received an R&R from Journal Y, with very, very different comments. (i.e., attending to the previous comments would have done nothing to help me with the objections I received from Journal Y.)

(5) I made those revisions and published the paper.

Obviously, what matters is how truly necessary the comments are - maybe you're right, and the author really should have revised their paper. But this is something that epistemic peers disagree about quite a lot.

As for what you should do in your case: if you're now willing to give this author an R&R, maybe you can work things out with them in the back and forth where you get to see the revision letter, i.e., the author's reasoning concerning your comments.

Finally, Amanda wrote:

If I have a situation like that I do not accept or decline, but I write the editor and say, "I have already reviewed this paper for another journal." And then I add one comment about what I thought about the paper. If I thought it was a bad paper and it hadn't changed, I would say, "My review was not favorable."

I kind of think it's fair to give the paper to a new reviewer, given all the disagreements in philosophy among equally smart and equally qualified persons. I also wouldn't hold it too much against the author for not changing anything. Maybe they were told by others they trust that the paper is fine as it is, maybe they are coming up for tenure and didn't have time to make the changes and decided to hedge their bets. I just don't think it's the referees job to judge the decision not to make changes. It is the referees job to judge the paper.

I'm on the same page with these readers. Here's one thing that I have heard of happening before (indeed, I suspect it has happened to me before). You draft up a paper, let's say it's 8,000 words - the maximum word count for one tippy-top journal, Mind (see here). The paper got a good response at conferences, but the first journal you send it to, reviewers find 'problems' and so you revise the paper to 10K words to address those concerns. That lands you at the word-count limit for a bunch of other journals. So, you send it to some of those journals, and the reviewers find more problems. So, you revise and now the paper is 12K words. You see where this is going, right? The more reviewers who read a given paper, the more problems they are likely to find--and you'll keep revising the paper upward, have fewer journals you can send the paper to...and the new reviewers at new journals may be likely to find new problems they think you need to address!

I recently heard someone (I think it was Mike Huemer) suggest this is less a problem with authors than it is with how some (many?) reviewers regard their task as reviewers. Many reviewers seem to think that if a paper has 'problems', then they should ask for revisions or reject the paper outright. But, Huemer suggested (and I agree), this isn't how reviewers should regard their job. Every paper, even many of the most influential ones in the discipline, have problems. The question shouldn't be whether a paper has problems, but whether it is worth thinking about and exposing a journal's readers to. Now, of course, if as a reviewer you find a paper totally uninteresting or its argument clearly bad, then sure, recommend rejection. But I don't think we should be rejecting every paper that has problems, or require every problem to be addressed in revisions. Problems are not in and of themselves reasons to reject papers. They may very well be interesting problems for the subsequent literature to find and address (e.g. in response papers, etc.). 

More generally, I am inclined to think that we, as reviewers, should err on the side of epistemic humility. There are just too many documented cases of reviewers being "sure" a given paper has serious problems...and those very papers either literally going on to win the Nobel Prize (!) or otherwise going on to become classics in their field. If you think a paper is bad, feel free to say so in a review. But, if you get asked to review the paper again, do everyone a favor and just decline: give another reviewer an opportunity to review the paper. If the paper is as bad as you think it is, then another reviewer will almost certainly find the same issues you found and reject the paper again. I understand cases like this may seem like they 'clog the system', but honestly I think this is just the price we pay for a bad publishing system.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Recommendation letter conundrum

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

I have a question about the ethics of recommendation letter writing. Some time ago a former student approached me and asked whether I would consider writing a letter of recommendation for his masters application. At the time I told him that I was willing to write a letter, but that I would expect for the student to work with me through the application process. By this I mean, I wanted to see drafts of the student's writing sample and statement of interest. This was in part to improve the student's application by providing feedback, and in part to give myself more exposure to the student's writing which would, in turn, improve my letter.

Since then, the student's revisions have been consistently very poor and hastily thrown together, and I am starting to wonder whether I can, in good conscience, write a strong recommendation. It's too late in the process for me to expect the student to seek out an alternative letter writer. My question, then, is whether anybody has advice on how I should conduct myself: should I be as honest as possible, to the point of (presumably) damaging the student's prospects, or should I perhaps restrict the focus of my letter to the student's course work that they wrote for me over a year ago (which is somewhat better than what they've since shown me)?

I should add that this would be my first time writing a letter of recommendation for a student.

I'm very curious to hear what everyone else thinks, but here are my two cents. It seems to me the thing to do here is to probably sit the student down and be kind but forthright with them, letting them know of your reservations and the reasons for them. See what they say. Maybe they just weren't very aware of how hastily thrown together their work seems--and maybe they'll take it as a big wake-up call to do better. Who knows, maybe they'll go back and put together some very good revisions. That, I think, would tell you something about them (e.g. about their resilience and willingness to work hard). On the other hand, if they respond poorly, then that tells you something about them too. Either way, you have more to go on in making a further decision about whether to still write a letter, and if so what kind of letter to write.

But these are just my two cents. What are yours?

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?

How can we help you? (January 2020)

Now that it's a new year, I thought it might be a good time for another "how can we help you?" thread.

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

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

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Issues in the profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! 

Are translations valued?

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

Could we have a thread about publishing translations of philosophical texts? Is this kind of work recognized by the profession? Or should I rather publish "original" work?

'b' replied:

If you have not yet got a TT job, I would not recommend translations. But if you do have a TT job, and you are at the right sort of place, they will count for something. Clearly with a good academic commentary published along side a translation, you can make a worthy contribution.

This sounds right to me. My sense is that job-candidates in particular (and TT but untenured faculty to a lesser extent) should primarily focus on publishing original work, staying away from things like translations or editing books. While these things are valuable, my sense is that original research counts far more for securing tenure-track employment and tenure than editing books or translations.

But this is just my sense. What is yours? 

Query on IHS

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, left-winging writes:

I have been hearing that it is bad for an early career scholar's reputation to have received funding from the Institute for Humane Studies (George Mason). Any opinions?

I haven't heard anything like this myself. On the one hand, it is always possible for people with moral opposition to libertarianism or classical liberalism to hold IHS's ideological background against people. On the other, my guess is that if an early-career scholar does work with that kind of background anyway (as I would expect people who receive IHS funding generally do), then libertarian or classical liberal themes will show up in their CV and publication-list, in which case receiving funding from IHS is probably a moot point.

In any case, my general stance on these kinds of things is simple: "you do you." Although I'm not a libertarian or classical liberal myself, my sense of philosophical and moral integrity is that if this is the work you do and believe in, then living in fear of what people may or may not think of IHS funding is no way to live. Sure, it's always possible some people may not look favorably on it--but other people may: namely, those who are more sympathetic with libertarianism or classical liberalism. And so I guess I'm inclined to say: just do work you believe in, and let the cards fall where they may.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Turning dissertations into books

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

I would sincerely appreciate if you could create a thread that seeks advice on the general topic of turning a dissertation into a book. I understand there is already a series on "book publishing" but this is obviously a different scenario.

I am looking for the following advice:

Where does one begin?

What is the best way to think about how to do this?

Is there any advice from someone who has done it themselves and what they would recommend?

Are there specific things one can do to make this process easier?

I realize advice may vary depending upon the specifics of the dissertation itself but any general advice would be much appreciate.

**Please note: I am not looking for advice on whether to do this. I have a book contract.

As I don't have any experience turning a dissertation into a book, I don't have much advice to give here beyond the following two things.

External committee members for European PhDs

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

I am currently a PhD candidate at an European university, and I wonder what exactly the relationship between the candidate and the external members of their committee is.
What are exactly the tasks of the external committee members?
How soon should one invite an external professor to be member of their committee?
Can one ask the external members of their committee to write letters of recommendation on their behalf?
Thank you in advance!

This is a great query. Unfortunately, given that I've spent my entire career in academia in the US, I don't know anything about it. But I'd be very curious to learn more and help European PhD candidate and others in their position out. Anyone with experience here have any helpful answers?

Tips for recruiting majors & promoting diversity

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, ABD Philosophy Student writes:

In the recent 'What do first-round academic philosophy job interviews look like?' it's suggested that there are two common questions one might get: (1) How would you recruit majors? and (2) How would you promote diversity in the classroom and/or on campus?

I'm wondering: (1) How does one recruit majors? and (2) How does one promote diversity?

Not just, what can I say? But, what are genuinely effective tactics for these projects?

Good questions, and I am curious how readers would answer. I will share just a few things I did, my department has done, and which I have seen work well.

In terms of recruiting majors, when I was in a non-TT position I took it upon myself to put together a detailed informational packet on philosophy and the major, which I then took to my department. The packet included information on the major itself, including how easy it is to double major, as well as information on graduate school test scores, employment and salary statistics, examples of successful, real life people in all different kinds of fields who majored in philosophy (focusing on diversity too), and so on. In the years after distributing that flyer, our major numbers more than doubled, and 60% of our majors are consistently women and historically-marginalized minorities. I also coached an Ethics Bowl team each year, which seemed to recruit some diverse majors, and one of my junior tenure-stream colleagues has been very active and creative in relaunching our Philosophy Club, organizing club meetings around philosophical issues related to hot topics in pop culture and the news. We also began a series of 'lightning talks', featuring philosophers from nearby universities who give 10-15 minute philosophy talks on their research to the club, followed by discussion--which I think attracts and interests students in philosophy far more than, say, a traditional 30-60 minute colloquium talk. Finally, this year we began the fall by putting together a "meet UT's philosophers" event (with food!) where new students, majors, and potential majors could meet each other and the faculty--and we even started a department Instagram page (thanks to the suggestion of several students).

In terms of diversity, when I was still in a non-TT position, I also took it upon myself to create and c0-organize an annual human rights conference with a sociologist, which not of featured diverse academics but also representatives of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, Enterprising Latinas, the League of Women Voters, the CARIBE Program for refugees, and many other organizations. These conferences were advertised all around the university, and attended by a diverse body of students.

Anyway, these are just some things we/I have done at my university, and I don't think there's any one way to do (1) and (2). But my advice is simple: be proactive and get creative. Talk to other people inside and outside of your department, brainstorming about things you could do. Chances are, you'll come up with something, and as they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained! Do any of you have any tips of your own, including things graduate students might do (since the OP mentions they are ABD)?

Book contracts and the market

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

To search committee members: how does receiving a book contract from a mid-tier press look to potential search committee members?

How should one go about listing this on their CV?

'Press' then responded:

Book contracts are not that impressive - in part, because they are not binding on the press, and they are often based on work not yet done. You say mid-tier ... that is hard to image which press. Can you be more specific: Springer, Chicago, Cornell, MIT? If you are dipping lower still, it really cannot count for much.

For what it is worth, Press's comment does not cohere at all well my experience on the market or my experience hiring at a liberal arts university. Here are my thoughts.

Grad school grades & the market

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

...I have question concerning job prospects. I'm relatively early ish in my Grad program, but I've had some conversations recently with others in my program and they made me curious about what others thought (not just in my department).

1. 1. How important are your grades when applying for a job? Do they even look at them? Straight A's vs. a couple of B's.
   2. Should one just focus more on publication than grades?
   3. How many publications should one aim for? For instance, avg number for most graduates, a good number, a great number, and an outstanding number of publications?
   4. Mainly, is it better to focus on conferences, publication rather than getting top grades when it comes to getting a job?

I know that my advisor has a big role to play in me landing a good job, but I'm wanting to figure out where I should be putting most of my energy.

I could always be wrong (I am more often than I expect!), but my guess is that grad school grades almost never matter in any direct way on the job-market. When it comes to getting hired for R1/research university jobs, what matter most seem to be: (A) grad program prestige, (B) the overall perceived quality of your work (viz. your writing sample and letters of recommendation), and (C) the quality of your publication record (viz. publishing in top journals). Conversely when it comes to jobs at teaching institutions (e.g. SLACs), grad program prestige seems to matter less, as does publishing in top-journals. My own sense, having hired at a SLAC four times, and having been very competitive on the SLAC market when I was a job-marketeer, is that publication quantity matters more for SLAC jobs, as does the perceived quality and innovation of one's teaching and perhaps even one's service record. Here again, I suspect hardly anyone is likely to pay attention to grades--though I guess if you did have a very spotty grade record, it might raise a yellow flag, leading people to wonder about your work ethic, perhaps (I don't know). [Side note: as we've discussed many times on this blog, the above differences between what different types of schools look for suggests that different people should probably have different job-market strategies, depending on what kinds of jobs they are likely to be most competitive for!]

Does this mean you shouldn't care about grades in grad school? No! The way I see it, the point of grad school grades isn't to impress potential employers. The point is what they reflect: your philosophical development, and the extent to which your work has impressed faculty in your program. These are things worth caring about, but only as means to ends: namely, producing good work, publishing effectively, and so on. So sure, try to get good grades, but don't be mistaken: they're not what people on the hiring end of things care about. You're not going to get tenured on the basis of your grad school grades, but on the basis of your publications, outside letters in support of your candidacy, teaching, and so on. Your real focus, in other words, should be on becoming the best researcher, teacher, and member of the profession you can!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Pregnancy and the market

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

I am a pregnant first-time job seeker on the North American market and my baby is due during the height of flyout season. I see no reason to mention this situation to search committees unless and until they invite me to visit, but I would like to prepare myself for such a conversation ahead of time. Can anyone illuminate the constraints on campus visit scheduling? How much flexibility do hiring departments have? Does this vary from institution to institution? Who makes these decisions? Also, does anyone have experience (either as a job candidate or hiring department) with a flyout involving a baby? I am 99% certain that I would rather cope with the challenges of bringing a nursing newborn than with the challenges of being separated from said newborn overnight. I am fortunate to have a family member who can travel with me to provide childcare. I imagine that I should plan for her to travel on my own dime, though please correct me if I am wrong. I should also add that this is not my first kid, so I have at least some idea of the exhaustion and other things I will be feeling.

These are really good and important questions. My experience serving on several search committees is that hiring committees can have a significant amount of flexibility, but that scheduling is also constrained by the schedules of administrators (e.g. Deans), the fly-out schedules of other candidates, and the overall timeline for the search (some hiring committees may be pushed to wrap up the search by a certain date). Consequently, I suspect (but don't know for sure) that things can vary quite a bit from institution to institution. Do other search committee members have any thoughts on these issues? And more generally: do readers have any relevant experiences and/or advice to share?

What to put on a grad application CV

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

I am applying to PhD programs in Philosophy. Many require submitting a resume/cv. As someone just coming out of undergrad, I do not have the level of publications/academic achievements that I am seeing on current grad students or faculty. What kinds of things should be included on this and how should it be organized? Should employment history also be included?

Good question. Given that grad school applicants may have little to report besides where they received the undergraduate degree or MA, what in the world should they put on their CV when applying to grad school?

Cover letters: how forthright to be?

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

When your applying for a job opening in your own department, is it assumed your going to say things in your cover letter that play on your knowledge of the department? Would it be stupid not to?

Or, instead, would it be stupid to over-emphasize these aspects because it shows that you somehow presume it will give you an advantage?

Prof L responded:

[W]hy not just say what you love about your department and how it makes you want to stay forever? This will be convincing since you are there already. Eg “I have had a fulfilling professional life at U. I have benefitted from the rich intellectual culture, the inquisitive students, and [&c.]. As a professor on the tenure track I could see myself contributing in such -and-such a way.. I have settled in the area and have a strong desire to stay...”. You can make this very specific, which does give you an edge. It would be odd to say “you should hire me because I know so much...” The mere fact that you know so much does not give you an advantage. That’s not a good reason to hire someone.

I am curious whether other search committee members agree. More generally, I am also curious how forthright search committee members think job-candidates should be in cover letters. For example, is it a good or bad idea for a candidate to mention in a cover letter that they hope to move to the university's area for family reasons? On the one hand, I could imagine this potentially assuaging concerns about whether a new hire really wants to live where the university is located. On the other hand, I could imagine some thinking it is 'too personal' or 'too much information' for a cover letter. What do search committee members think? What kinds of things are good to be forthright about in cover letters, and what kinds of things are not?

Pub-Impeding VAP vs. Pub-Conducive Adjuncting?

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

I received my PhD this spring. No pubs yet. Extracting papers from my dissertation has taken a long time. I'm well-positioned for 3 decent, but far-from-elite pubs over the next year. As for this year’s job market: at best, 1 pub *very* late into the job-market season.

I gather there’s a good chance I’ll face the following choice:

(A) Pub-Impeding VAP: Take a VAP with a 4/4 load that includes major preps, not to mention moving. Being realistic, this will lead to little pub-work getting done.

(B) Pub-Conducive Adjuncting: Local adjuncting with classes requiring very little prep. This would be highly conducive to getting pubs over the next year.

I would pick (B) in a heartbeat but have heard that doing so would have significant costs when going on the market in 2020-2021, especially since it took me forever to finish the PhD.

Would it?

I think this is a great question, and am very curious to hear what everyone thinks. My own sense is that (A) is probably the better bet, and for a couple of reasons.

Writing diversity & inclusion statements

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

Nearly every single job ad I read says something like the following: "Please explain how your research, teaching, or service would/do contribute to a climate of diversity and inclusivity."

Are there effective ways to do this without sounding too on the nose, so to speak?

I would love for committee members to speak to how they think this can be done effectively because it is so pervasive in job ads now.

What are you looking for?

My general worry is that things I say come across as forced/disingenuous, i.e. "I make sure I include non-canonical texts in my courses."

Good questions. I have heard a lot of job candidates raise similar questions, saying they have no idea what to write in these things. My guess is that the thing to do is to simply report any clear ways you have been involved in diversity and inclusion efforts (at a department or university level), as well as any things you actually do in the classroom like the kinds of things anon mentions. But beyond that, I have no idea. It would be great to hear from some search committee members on this!

How can we help you? (October 2019)

Seeing as it has been well over a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, I figured now may be a good time to run another 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.

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

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Issues in the profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! 

Tips for editing books

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

I’d love a post for both those editing books, special issues of journals, etc. and for those who get asked to contribute about what kind of information should be communicated to contributors and/or what questions contributors should get answered before they commit. I’ve seen wildly different levels of information communicated. Some initial thoughts of things that should be communicated before commitment: word count, what kind of review process will happen (I.e. will it be peer reviewed? Will the editor just look at it? Does it need to be blinded? If it is for a journal special issue, is the review process the same as the standard review process?), how much editorial advice one should expect to get, what the expected publication date is (though of course take this with a major grain of salt), an abstract or infgormation about the theme (as opposed to e.g. just a title for the collection), what kinds of subfields contributors will be drawn from, etc.

I've never edited a book myself, but I have contributed to edited volumes as an author and am curious what people think. What are authors owed in terms of up-front communication? One thing that I think may be relevant is an expected timeframe for publication. I've heard a few horror stories about people who contributed papers to volumes only to be left hanging for many years without any clear picture of if or when the volume would actually come out. Another thing I think may be relevant is whether the volume will be reviewed after publication. I know of cases of edited volumes that have come out (in some cases we very good presses) that, for one reason or another, never received a single review, either in a journal, NDPR, etc. I can imagine it being very frustrating to put hard work into a piece, only to see the book get no attention at all. How much control / responsibility do volume editors have for this? I don't know - but it does seem to me to be something that authors should be informed about heading in (if possible, of course).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? What should a good book editor communicate to contributors, and at what stage?

Book review tips?

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

I'm a recent PhD and have agreed to review a book that is directly in my AOS. I've never done one of these before, so I'd appreciate any how-to advice the Cocoon community can offer. The recent(ish) posts this year about writing referee reports were super helpful, both for understanding what a good report should look like, as well as explaining how to actually write one, so something along those lines would be ideal.) Thanks!

Benedict Eastaugh replied:

Thom Brooks, in "Publishing Advice for Graduate Students", discusses how to write a book review in section I, "Publishing 101: Book reviews as an introduction to publishing".

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1085245

I agree that Brooks' guide is a great resource, but I'm also inclined to think that the Cocoon community might be able to give anon some more fine-grained advice. What do you all think? Do you have any tips for writing a good review? Any "do's" and "don'ts"? 

Submitting extra/optional application materials?

In our September "how can we help you?" thread, 'job applicant' writes:

Should applicants submit materials that are "optional"? Will it hurt our chances if we don't? This is a general question, but the ad I'm thinking of gives very specific instructions about the documents the applicant must submit and does not mention any optional documents. It's only while working on the application through the university's website that one sees one may upload additional optional documents (research statement, cover letter, etc.). If submitting optional materials increases one's chances, I'll do it, but if it doesn't, I'd rather not spend the additional precious time it takes to do it. And if it will or even just may make a difference, I wonder why these documents aren't just listed as required.

This is a great question. Someone recently asked me, for example, whether they should upload a diversity statement if they have the chance, in cases where a job ad mentions diversity but doesn't explicitly ask for a diversity statement. I guess I'm inclined to think that candidates should upload exactly what is asked for (and no more), as uploading additional documents might rub search committee members the wrong way (viz. the applicant trying to give themselves an unfair advantage). However, I'm not sure about this. 

What do readers think (not just about the example I gave, but about job applicant's query in general)?

CV's: norms for listing work

In our September "how can we help you?" thread, 'ostdoc' writes:

I was recently invited to write a book review. I am a young scholar, and having the book review on my CV would be useful for job applications. The question is, when can I list the book review on my CV? Since it isn't refereed, it (barring doing a terrible job) won't be rejected. Can I list it as forthcoming already? Can I list it as expected? What the the norms on this?

'An editor...' replied:

I certainly would not list it before you submit it to the journal. It does not exist yet, and it may not. Once submitted it is a different matter.

And I added:

editor is right. Never list something as forthcoming unless it has been officially accepted. You may list it at this point as “commissioned.”

I think this is an important issue. A recent study went around my social media last week indicating that academics routinely misrepresent things on their CVs. My own sense, having seen some CVs with misleading stuff, is that at least sometimes, people aren't even aware that they are misrepresenting things (though I am sure in other cases people are well aware of what they are doing). By my lights, the right thing to do in every case is to be forthright about exactly where a given piece of work is in the process. If it's a paper that's not finished or under review, list it as 'in preparation.' If it is book review or book chapter that you have been commissioned to do, then until it is accepted, list it as 'commissioned.' If you have a book under contract but the final manuscript isn't accepted yet, list it as 'under contract.' Only list something as forthcoming after the final manuscript has been officially accepted. Does anyone disagree? Are there are any norms I'm missing?

One final thought: the initial commenter here, 'ostdoc', writes that "having the book review on my CV would be useful for job applications." I think it is worth discussing whether this is true. Back when I was in grad school, I vaguely recall some other grad students thinking that book reviews might help them on the market. I thought then, and still think now, that this is almost certainly not true. Perhaps having a book review on your CV will look 'better than nothing' (if you have no other publications). However, I very much doubt that book reviews play any significant role in how search committees evaluate candidates. When it comes to research, my sense is that people on the hiring side of things are interested primarily (and perhaps entirely) in candidates' capacities for publishing original work. But perhaps I am wrong about this. 

What do readers 'in the know' think?

A writing sample dilemma

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

I claim two AOS, A and B. I plan on applying to jobs in AOS A, but all of my current work on A is co-authored. (Just one other co-author, and it's fully jointly authored.) My ordinary writing sample is in in AOS B, but it's single-authored.

For those jobs that are looking for AOS A, should I (1) send my regular writing sample from AOS B, which is single-authored but on a different AOS; (2) send my co-authored paper on AOS A; (3) do some combination, or (4) something else entirely?

Good question. I've heard over and over again that it is a really bad idea to submit co-authored pieces as writing samples. This may be entirely unfair (co-authorship is standard in many academic fields, and increasing in philosophy), but the general thought is that search committees want to know your philosophical 'chops' and co-authored pieces make it unclear what exactly you have done and what is the work of your co-authors. So, I am inclined to think option (1) is probably the way to go, at least for jobs that only permit one writing sample. The ideal case, I think, is to submit both pieces, but in my experience very few jobs request multiple writing samples or even permit them in the file-upload process.

What do you all think?

Job apps: how confidential are they?

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

I have a TT position and a department near my own is hiring. I am a good fit for the position and plan on applying. But I'm a bit worried that my current department will find out if I apply. Are SCs generally good about keeping things confidential in these cases? Or do you know of exceptions? What should I include in my cover letter, other than a request for confidentiality? I won't say anything negative about anyone or anything, but I'd wondering if I need to actually say something that I wouldn't say if I were applying from across the country.

I would sure hope that job applications are treated confidentially! Still, the world often isn't how we hope it to be. What's the reality here? Does anyone have any experience relevant to worried's concerns?

Research standards for tenure

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, curious asks: "How many articles are usually required for getting tenure (at R1s, SLACs, etc.)? Does the journal's impact factor matter?" I'm glad someone asked this, as my sense is that a lot of people may be unaware of just how much variation there can be in tenure and promotions standards and processes.

In response to curious's query, anonymous writes:

curious: there is too much variation in the answer to your question for there to be a meaningful answer; and also, at almost nowhere is a certain magical number of publications either necessary or sufficient for tenure.

I think this is exactly right. Job-marketeers need to be aware that tenure and promotion standards can vary wildly by institution. For example, I know someone who received tenure at a very teaching-oriented SLAC with a single publication. Why? Presumably, because their institution primarily focuses on undergraduate teaching. Obviously, that wouldn't fly at an R1, nor I think would it fly at many other SLACs. At my liberal arts university, for example, the expectations generally seem to be substantially higher than that. The people I've seen tenured here generally "publish consistently" in peer-reviewed journals. Also, although citations are mentioned in our criteria for tenure and promotion, nowhere in our handbook's criteria for tenure or promotion are journal-rankings or journal impact-factors mentioned. 

My sense is that tenure standards can vary just as much at R1's. I've heard that at some R1's, tenure standards are fairly clear: that the expectation is something like one publication in a highly-ranked journal per year (so, something like 6 highly-ranked publications when coming up for tenure). However, I've heard that other R1's basically make tenure decisions on the basis of whether someone has become a Big Name in their field--such that if a candidate has published in top journals but no one recognizes or engages their work, they could still be denied tenure.

Finally, it is vital to recognize that tenure and promotion processes can vary a great deal by institution. In response to curious's initial query, Anon prof wrote:

curious:
Your tenure file will be evaluated by people in your subfield, typically, who will write letters for you. The letters will (likely) take into account the publication venue as well as the importance of your work for the subfield and its quality. If you are genuinely unsure, talk to people who might be called upon to write letters for you and ask them how they would rate your work relative to the position that you hold. Or, look at the publication records of people who recently got tenure at various institutions.

My sense is that this is how a lot of people think tenure and promotion works everywhere. However, as I noted in follow-up comment, it isn't. At some universities (including my own), your tenure file is not evaluated by outside people in your subfield. Instead, the process is carried out "in house." Here again, candidates should be aware of these differences, and ideally find out what the T&P process and standards are like at institutions before they accept an offer!

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear from people at various institutions: what are your university's tenure and promotion process and (research) standards like?

Anonymizing when self-citing

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

I am working on a paper that relies in a couple of paragraph on an argument from a previous paper, already published. I was wondering how best to do this in a way that complies with blind-review. Some possibilities I am considering:

a. Cite myself as though it were another person.

b. Give a footnote and write '[deleted for blind review]' where the reference would go. (However, I have been told before, when doing this, that it is not sufficiently compliant with blind-review. Wish that my views were that famous!)

c. Appeal to some other argument in the literature that raises a similar concern, and give that prominence instead of my view. Then change this if the article gets accepted. (This could be used in combination of a or b).

This is a great query. I struggled with this very issue for a long time because I didn't know what the norms are. After seeing this discussed on social media, my sense is that the dominant norm is (a): citing yourself in the third-person, as though you are not the author. I am skeptical about whether this actually tends to work in terms of successfully anonymizing a piece--as my sense is that referees can probably still infer it's probably you a good proportion of the time (which I suspect may advantage prestigious, well-known authors and disadvantage lesser-known, less prestigious authors)--but still, my sense is that (a) is the norm.

What to list as peer-reviewed?

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

What publications count as "peer reviewed"?

Until recently, I had assumed that all and only papers submitted to a journal/volume and were (a) reviewed by a scholar, (b) whose identity the author didn't know, and (c) had a genuine possibility of being rejected at that stage were peer reviewed and eligible to be labeled as such on one's CV. It could also be double- or triple-blinded, but that wasn't necessary to peer-review.

However, a colleague's CV labels as peer-reviewed the following:
- invited papers to edited books, where someone read the paper and requested revisions.
- invited entries into books where the editor read the individual entries and the entire volume was sent out for review.
- the introduction to a volume they edited, which was sent out to a reviewer (and blinded), but where the volume was already under contract.

Is there a norm here? I was surprised, and now think I'm under-crediting my publications.

'Anon human' then added:

I’m very interested in the answer to early careerist’s question! Those all strike me as bad cases, but I think there are some cases that are particularly hard to figure out. (E.g.: if you were invited to submit a paper to a journal, it was peer reviewed by anonymous people, but the standard is to accept 98 percent of invited submissions, should someone list that as peer reviewed? Etc.

I'm curious what the norms here are as well. Unlike 'Anon human', it's not obvious to me that all of the cases early careerist listed are "bad cases." Invited papers to edited books could well be rejected if the reviewer(s) or editor(s) think they are not worthy of publication, so these cases seem to me legit cases of peer review (albeit not anonymized peer-review). Nevertheless, in my own case, I tend to play it safe in what I list on my CV. I only explicitly list my journal publications as peer-reviewed, as I don't want to run the risk of rubbing anyone the wrong way for listing other things that way. Since I take it everyone knows that invited book chapters are subject to review (but not the same kind as journal articles), I just leave it up to the person reading my CV to infer what they will about those cases.

In any case, I am curious about the norms here. What does everyone think? What kinds of publications are legitimate to list as peer-reviewed? Which ones are not? 

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?

Getting rec-letters many years post-PhD

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

An earlier post discussed explaining why one is going on the market from a tenure-track (or tenured) position, but I'm wondering specifically about application materials and letters: if one has been out of grad school for 5-10 years, and hasn't kept in particularly close contact with advisors, who should one ask for letters of recommendation? In general, how does one go about putting together application materials when applying from a more advanced career stage? (I'm realizing everything I know about going on the job market, I learned as a grad student or post-doc!)

Bm then replied:

When are on the market looking for a new tenured job at another place, you should get letters from senior researchers who know your work. Ideally, at that stage, there are such people who you have been in contact with because they like what you have done. If there are none, your chances of moving are close to nil, unless you are pitching yourself as someone with administrative skills - for example, willing to chair a department who cannot find a chair among themselves. But then you must have chairing experience.

Fair enough. Notice, though, that Bm doesn't mention how Al might end in contact with senior people who like their work. Do senior people just email you out of the blue saying, "I love your work"? Presumably not, for the most part. I take it that in order for someone like Al to end up in contact with senior people who look favorably on their work, there are probably things Al needs to do: be active at conferences and the like, trade work with other people for mutual feedback, and so on. But is there more that Al could or should be doing? I guess I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask for advice here, as I don't fancy myself much of a "networker". Does anyone have any helpful practical advice for Al?

What kind of teaching experience is best?

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

I’m currently a grad student and I'm relatively free to choose the topics about which I want to (solo-)teach. Would it be better to start developing my teaching portfolio around introductory courses (Introduction to Philosophy, Introduction to Philosophy of Science, Ethics, and so on)? Or rather with more specialized ones (Philosophy of Economics, Philosophy of Mathematics, etc.)? Should I focus on fields and topics related to my dissertation?

Craig replied:

My impression is that the broader courses would be a better choice. People will assume you can teach your research (or, at least, in my experience, they make that assumption). Accordingly, your courses are a chance for you to show breadth, valuable especially for smaller, teaching-focused departments.

I think Craig is absolutely right...

How can we help you? (September 2019)

Now that it's the beginning of the month, I'd like to run another monthly "how can we help you?" thread.

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

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

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Issues in the profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! 

Applying for political science jobs

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

I am a political philosopher with a PhD in philosophy considering applying to some political theory jobs (in polisci departments). Does anyone have any experience with this? Are both sorts of departments looking for different things, or can I basically use the same materials for both political philosophy and political theory jobs?

Great questions. I applied to some political science jobs during my time on the market, without any luck. I wonder if there are any readers out there who have had any luck with them, and who are now working in political science departments. What differences should candidates be aware of?

Letters of recommendation from temporary positions

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Ano(n)ther VAP writes:

What are the boundaries of decorum on asking for letters of recommendation from a temporary position?

I'm a 1-year VAP this coming year, doing a sabbatical replacement for a well-known senior philosopher in area X (I also work in area X). If possible, obviously it'd be an asset to have this senior person's support as I go on the market again. But they aren't going to be around town or campus much, so there's not much of an opportunity to naturally build rapport.

Would it be strange to ask something like: "Given that I'm going on the market again this year, would you be willing to read some of my work and consider writing me a job market letter? Would you also be willing to come into campus to observe my teaching a few times?"

Interesting questions. I do think it would be presumptuous to ask someone to come in during their sabbatical to observe one's teaching. I'm less sure about whether it might be worth asking the person if they are willing to read some of your work, and if they like it, to write you a letter. In general, my approach to letters has always been roughly: it doesn't hurt to ask. This approach worked for me surprisingly well on the market, as the people I did ask were almost all happy to do so. However, in just about every case, I had some previous interactions with the people I asked--so I wasn't approaching them totally out of the blue. In contrast, in this case, it's not clear that the senior person knows the candidate at all. So I'm really not sure what to advise. I guess my own inclination is to think, "The worst they can do is say no." But what do you all think?

Editing volumes and the market

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

I am currently in an NTT position with a fairly modest publication record. I have ambitions for a TT teaching position.

I have an idea for an edited volume that I believe strongly in but also worry I am just at the wrong stage professionally to do this kind of work and that it doesn't make any sense given the labor and time spent involved and relatively little pay off I might see from it in terms of landing a longer term position.

Does my thinking on this seem about right?

The short answer is: yes, my sense is that anon is thinking about this exactly right. The longer answer is this...

Deciding which recommendation letters to use

Over on Twitter yesterday, Jonny (a philosophy of science postgrad) asked, "Suppose I have 10 letters of recommendation for PhDs, how do I determine whose to use?" Someone suggested we hold a thread on this here, so here goes!

First of all, congrats to Jonny on securing 10 letters. That might be an all-time record! In response, Craig Agule wrote: "Although this advice is not wholly uncontroversial, you should have some trusted advisor read all 10 letters, both to catch accidentally bad letters and to help you choose." Although I've never tried it, this is what I've been told before--and I've heard if you have your letters uploaded to Interfolio, you can have them sent to a trusted advisor (though I wonder if there are some ethical issues here, given that letters are intended to be confidential). 

In any case, I guess my own answer is a bit more complex. I think if it's possible to get a trusted person to vet your letters, that's a good way to go. But I also think some strategy is probably in order for selecting the best letters. First, when it comes to jobs at R1's and prestigious SLACs, I suspect name recognition may matter a lot. If you have some letters from really eminent people in the profession, my sense is that (all things being equal) those are probably ones to prioritize. Conversely, if you are applying to jobs at a "teaching" school, it is not at all clear to me that the same strategy is wise. In my experience, prestigious letter-writers tend to write research-heavy letters--ones that may make a candidate look like a bad fit for a teaching school (conveying in effect, "this person really belongs at an R1"). When applying to teaching schools, one should always include at least one "teaching letter", and I think one should try to figure out which of one's letters make one look balanced (i.e. both a good researcher and a good teacher). Finally, I think that whenever possible, it is good to include at least one "outside" letter by a person not from one's grad department, as everyone recognizes that faculty from your grad program have a vested interest in your success (and hence reasons to "oversell" you relative to someone who has no such vested interest.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I have to confess that this is a problem I never really solved as a job-marketeer. I had seven letters, never had anyone vet them, and just decided on a case to case basis which ones seemed to best fit the jobs I was applying to (most of the time, my experience is that jobs have a three-letter cutoff). This probably wasn't the best solution, but it worked okay! I suspect this may be in part because (or so I've heard) search committee members these days often take recommendation letters with a real grain of salt, focusing more on judging your materials for themselves. As a four-time search-committee member myself, I can attest to this. When a candidate's letters don't match your own estimation of their materials at all (viz. "overselling" the candidate), I suspect the tendency is to go with one's own judgment. But again, this is just my guess, and I could be totally wrong!

What do you all think? It might be particularly good to hear from candidates who have grappled with this problem effectively, as well as from search committee members!

Journals being unable to find referees

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

What to do when top journals reject papers without sending them for review not because the paper is bad but because they simply cannot find referees? My manuscript has been rejected from two top journals. One of the journals rejected the paper and the editor basically said that we do not have time to find competent referees for every paper and for that reason we have to reject some promising papers. Another journal rejected my paper after it has been "under review" for 6 weeks or so. They first contacted me and told that they have not yet found a referee for it because people keep rejecting referee invitations but that they will continue to find the referees. Just a day later I received another email saying that they have rejected my paper without any comments from the referees.

Is this practice common? Is it morally permissible? What an author can do to avoid this? Should I only submit papers to specialized journals that know more referees? (The problem is that if one does not publish in top philosophy journals, some philosophers think his/her work is not "real philosophy"). Should an author always recommend possible referees in a cover letter when submitting a paper? (at least some journals ask the author to recommend possible referees).

This is interesting, as similar phenomena happened to me for the first time recently as both an author and reviewer. In one case, an editor wrote to me apologizing for a long review time due to inability to find referees for a paper I submitted. Then, in another case, an editor for a different journal wrote to me asking me to review a paper because reviewers kept turning their requests down. In all my years, these are the first times I've encountered this phenomenon, and both instances happened in the past few months. I wonder what's going on, and whether this some kind of trend due to the professional conditions that David Velleman recently termed 'the publication emergency'.

Anyone else have any experience with this? On the one hand, it seems to me that members of the profession have a presumptive duty to take on review requests (viz. contributing their fair share to a system that plays a central role in our profession), so if people are turning down review requests left and right, then that's concerning. On the other hand, reviewing is 'unpaid labor' of sorts, so I know there's not much incentive for people to accept requests. But in any case, rejecting papers due to inability to find suitable referees seems super unfair to authors. So, I'm really not sure what to say on this. What do you all think? It might be good to hear from editors, reviewers, and authors on their experiences here!

'Negative' remarks in research statements

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

When it comes to writing research statements, is it OK if one tries to eschew remarks about what others have not done, but what you have done in favor of simply explaining your projects. I know The Professor is In says to avoid going negative, but I wonder whether in avoiding negative remarks it might not be clear to those who do not work in your AOS what your contribution actually is. Presumably, some may want to know why your particular interpretive angle on X is worth pursuing, and you often cannot motivate that without saying what others have said.

I think The Professor Is In is correct about this. One of the tricks to a good research statement is learning how to convey the novelty of your research without 'going negative'. If you look at my research statement (a much earlier version of which was vetted by the Professor Is In, and which I just revised this morning), you will see that there is very little (if anything) that could be construed as negative. Instead, there are brief explicit and implicit contrasts with dominant views, as well as brief indications of how my work resolves some critiques. Here are a few examples:

"I challenge the dominant view that answers to moral and political questions can be discovered by theory or rational argumentation, arguing that sound answers to moral and political questions should be seen instead as created by fair, organic, real-world negotiation."

"Chapter 1 of my book argues that be truth-apt, moral philosophy should be based upon a new methodology: seven principles of theory-selection adapted from the sciences."

"In two subsequent articles...I argue that Rightness as Fairness has important implications for reducing social polarization and for solving the 'alignment problem' in ethical A.I. programming...Finally, in a second book manuscript, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory (under contract, Routledge), I outline a unified theory of prudence, morality, and justice which reduces all moral and political norms to norms of prudence, arguing in turn that a wide variety of recent findings in behavioral neuroscience support the account. The revised version of Rightness as Fairness the book defends also resolves a variety of critical concerns raised to my first book."

"In addition to these two main projects, in two articles I have argued that several longstanding issues regarding human rights—regarding their number, justification, and action-guidance—can be resolved by distinguishing between (A) domestic human rights, which apply within states, and (B) international human rights, which justify international intervention."

Although I don't pretend my research statement gets everything right (if I learned one thing from the Professor Is In, it is that it is very hard to craft job-market materials that 'hit all of the right notes'), my sense is that this is probably the way to try to go about things. I have read research statements that spend so much time explaining how the author's view 'defeats' other people's views that it just comes across as 'getting too much in the weeds'. Leave that for your writing sample! That's where I want to see you argue against other people. What I want to see in a research statement is a crisp, concise picture of what you're doing. If what you're doing is interesting and original, my sense is that it should probably pop out to the reader without going into a bunch of detail about "why my view is better than X, Y, and Z".

But, of course, I am just one person, and I could be wrong about this! Does anyone who has been on the hiring side of things have any insight to share?

Interdisciplinarity: good or bad?

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

I am currently a graduate student and have been trying to develop a teaching portfolio at the intersection between philosophy, politics, and economics - i.e., teaching courses not only on political philosophy, philosophy of economics, philosophy of law, and so on, but e.g. on human rights policy and political economy as well. I am afraid, however, that search committees may think my profile is too interdisciplinary. Any thoughts in this regard?

This is great query. I'm not entirely sure about jobs at R1's or prestigious SLACs, where I've heard (albeit only anecdotally) that it can be important to look specialized rather than too broad or unfocused. At the same time, I can't help but wonder whether the specific kind of interdisciplinarity PhC mentions (PPE) might be an advantage at research schools. After all, they might be able to apply (and be competitive) not just for philosophy jobs, but also political science jobs in political theory or in business schools (I know a few philosophers in business schools at some pretty rarified places).

In any case, what I do feel pretty confident about is that interdisciplinarity in general is almost certainly a real advantage at teaching-focused schools similar to mine. My experience is not only that administrators at these kinds of schools tend to look very favorably on collaborative work across disciplinary boundaries. It is that philosophy departments value the ability of new hires to teach (and create) a wide variety of courses that might be of interest to students and attract majors--including political science majors, econ majors, law students, and so on.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have been on the hiring side of things?

Disclosing one's views when teaching?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, New to Teaching writes:

I’d love to start a discussion on whether we ought to tell our students our views on the material we’re teaching. Do you aim for your students to end the course not knowing what you think, perhaps because it shows that you’ve taught in a relatively unbiased way? Or, on the other hand, do you find that putting forward your own view provokes discussion and perhaps models a thoughtful approach to the issues? How likely are students to write essays they think the tutor will agree with in hopes of getting a better grade?

My inclination would be to not say much about my own views unless asked directly, but if asked, to answer honestly and openly. Is that a good strategy?

Any thoughts about the pros and cons of being more or less forthcoming about one’s philosophical views as a teacher would be appreciated.

I think this is a great query. My experience is that different people have very different views about this, and so I think it might be great to discuss it!

Conference presentations and the market

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

All things considered, how much does it matter when looking at a prospective candidate's CV that they have never been to nor presented at an APA meeting?

Mike Titelbaum replied:

At least for the R1 job searches in which I've been involved, what's helpful is that you have some experience at conferences, preferably not just grad student conferences. But APA conferences in particular bear no special significance to me on that front.

For what it's worth, I've heard people at R1's say similar things: that it's advantageous for candidates to have at least some professional (rather than grad) conference experience. I also expect that especially impressive presentation lists (viz. multiple invited colloquium talks at prestigious departments) are probably advantageous for candidates applying to research jobs. I'm curious, though, whether this is true of jobs in general. My own sense, having served on several search-committees at a more teaching-focused school, is that conference presentations and activity may play very little (if any) role in hiring committee deliberations. In brief, my sense is that this may be because committees at these types of institutions care most about two things: (1) a good enough publication record to get tenure, and (2) teaching/service. Because it's possible to present at a lot of conference but not publish much, my sense is that people at schools like mine may not attribute much weight to presentations. But, of course, this is just my sense, and it may be incorrect.

Any other search committee members willing to weigh in?

Is applying before job deadlines advantageous?

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

Here's a question I don't think I've seen discussed anywhere: as a job applicant, how much of a disadvantage are you putting yourself at if you don't submit your application until very close to the deadline? Do those submitting quickly after the job ad is posted get a de facto advantage?

Mike Titelbaum replied:

While I can imagine situations in which prompt submission might make a difference (suppose an emergency has come up and a department is looking to fill a job quickly), for your standard job search it makes no difference what order the applications come in. I have often been on search committees that don't even begin to read files until after the deadline has passed.

I am not so sure about this. Although Mike has been on committees that don't read files until after the deadline is passed, I know of cases where candidate files are read before the deadlines--and in these cases it seems to me it may be advantageous to get one's application in sooner. To see why, put yourself in the shoes of a search-committee member in this position. You know you will have hundreds of applications to read, so you want to get started evaluating them sooner rather than later. Suppose that several weeks before the application due date, you have seventeen candidates in the pool. Since you've begun looking at files early, you're not pressed for time: you have plenty of time to read those seventeen files. After reading the files, you may already have a few "favorites": candidates you feel like you want to interview even before anyone else has applied. Then suppose the deadline comes, and you get a few hundred applications basically all at once. Will you have the same amount of time and energy to read them thoroughly? Probably not. And will your earlier judgments (about the first seventeen applications you reviewed before the deadline) play an outsized role on who you choose to interview? Maybe. Given the existence and pervasiveness of primacy bias (people tend to favor the first sources of information they receive), as well as the anchoring effect (bias in favor of using early judgments to influence later judgments), it seems not at all implausible to me that applying early could be an advantage.

In short, while there may be cases (like Mike's) where applying early confers no advantage, I think there are plausibly cases where it does confer a real advantage. Since there is no real way for a candidate to know which of the two situations they are in, I'm inclined to think the rational thing to do is to apply as early as possible, on the off chance that it might pay off. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

TA-ing vs. solo-teaching experience

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

How important are TAs positions for one's CV and teaching portfolio? I'm currently a PhD student and have the choice between a prestigious TA position with a renowned professor and teaching a course as sole instructor. What would be best?

Mike Titelbaum responded:

Cleinias, I'd suggest you think in terms of what your total TA experience is going to look like when you're done with grad school. It's useful at some point to have been sole instructor of your own class. (At least once, if not more than once.) Personally, when I look at a job application it's not so important that someone TAed for a renowned professor versus a no-name professor. It's more important what kind of teaching experience they have and what I can expect them to be able to accomplish in the classroom.

I agree with Mike that it probably doesn't matter whether the professor one TA's for is renowned. My experience is that when it comes to evaluating candidates as teachers, search committees care about the teaching statement, rest of the teaching portfolio, and quality of the candidate's teaching recommendation letter (specifically, what the letter says about the candidate's teaching). 

However, I think Mike's point about TA-ing versus solo teaching understates things a bit. In terms of being competitive for jobs at 'teaching schools', my sense is that it is very important to have solo teaching experience. This isn't to say it is a necessary condition for getting hired at such a school, nor that candidates who have only TA'd never get hired into these kinds of positions. However, my sense is that search committee members can be pretty skeptical of the probative value of TA experience. TA-ing is wildly different--both far less involved and less challenging--than teaching one's own course. To teach one's own course, you have to put an entire syllabus together, design your own assignments, manage the classroom on a daily basis as the instructor of record, and so on.

The only time I think it might make sense to TA rather than teach solo is if (1) you already have solo-teaching experience, and (2) the course you're TA-ing for gives you experience in some other area (i.e. AOC) that you wouldn't otherwise be able to get (because, let's say, there are no opportunities for grad students to solo-teach in that area). But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search-committees?

Postdoc after professorship?

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

Is it usually possible to get post-doc fellowships after holding a professorship? I'm currently unhappy with my tenure-track position (I started last year) and have been considering to apply for post-docs this fall.

Amanda responded:

If you are within the allotted time period post-graduation (anywhere from 2-6 years, usually) then there is no reason why you couldn't get a post-doc. I suspect your application wouldn't be treated much differently than others, but I could be wrong.

I'm not entirely sure. I've heard it said that search committees can be biased against candidates applying for more junior positions. I wonder whether it might make sense for someone like Professor to email the search-committee chairs of potential postdocs to scope things out, and perhaps explain why they are applying so that the committee understands why they are applying from a more senior position. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have hired postdocs?

 

Experiences with jobs overseas (in autocracies)?

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

Could someone share the experience of teaching philosophy at American colleges overseas where the regime is (at least partially) autocratic? I'm thinking about institutions such as Yale-NUS or NYU Shanghai, for example.

I'm actually really curious about this, not just the case of American colleges overseas under autocratic political regimes, but overseas jobs more generally. Are any readers with experience here willing to share their experiences? What has your experience been? Positive? Negative? In what respects? I'm really curious to hear!

Jobs in history of political thought?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'Am I a Philosopher?' writes:

I'm pursuing a PhD program at an European university on the history of political thought (19th-20th centuries). I gather that Anglo-American philosophers don't consider what I do as political philosophy, but as political theory or intellectual history. Is that possible to get a position in political philosophy in the US without producing normative-oriented research?

My sense is that jobs in the history of political thought are really rare in philosophy, and that it is probably difficult (if not impossible) to get a job in political philosophy without doing normatively-oriented research. My guess is that someone in this person's position is probably more likely to be competitive for a job in political science. However, I'm not very clued into that job-market. Anyone out there have any insight?

Continental Programs & the PGR

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, Cautiously Optimistic writes:

I start my master's in three weeks, and I am already thinking of the next step...After looking at the PGR, none of the ranked programs are continental programs. This is disappointing because I am partial to phenomenology and existentialism, and the programs they recommended FOR continental philosophy were stronger in epistemology, logic, etc. than my desired area. I worry that people take the PGR too seriously considering its bias. Is it best to apply to PGR programs, or non-ranked continental phd programs that have good placement? I am interested in Stonybrook (who have Steinbock) and Penn State (who have Nicolas de Warren), but neither Penn State nor Stonybrook are top PGR programs. Will this hurt me in the long run?

As Martin Shuster noted, "There are certainly non-ranked PGR programs that place quite well if not better than ranked ones (e.g., University of Oregon or Vanderbilt)." Indeed, the ADPA data make that pretty clear. I also personally know people who went to non-PGR-ranked Continental programs that have excellent placement rates who went on to get tenure-track jobs. So I'm with SPEP Grad Student, who wrote, "Take a close at placement data, if it is available." If I were entering grad school today, I'd be more concerned about the placement rates of the programs I was interested than I would be concerned program rank. 

But this is just me. What do you all think? It might be good to hear from current grad students and recent grads from the kinds of programs Cautiously mentions (Stonybrook, Penn State, etc.).

Best books on pedagogy?

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

I have been wondering, what are some of the best books to read about philosophy pedagogy? Or, if not explicitly *about* philosophy pedagogy, what are the most helpful books wrt developing one's philosophy pedagogy?

Sam Duncan followed up, writing:

It’s not specifically about philosophy but Ken Bain’s “What the Best College Teachers Do” is very well regarded and I personally found it helpful on number of levels. It’s short too so it’s an excellent place to start. I also found Kathy N. Davidson’s “The New Education” helpful in thinking about pedagogy.

Anyone else have any recommendations?

Getting contracts for edited volumes?

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

The blog has talked extensively about how to write and achieve a contract for a monograph. I wanted to know what the process is like for getting a contract for a volume. How does one start the process? Presumably one cannot have all the papers ready beforehand. Does one simply pitch the idea to a press (e.g. Cambridge), and depending on your expertise in the field they may bite? Does one have an introduction ready?

I'm probably not the best person to ask here, as I've only had papers in edited volumes, never proposed one. However, my experience as a contributor has given me a little bit of insight into the process. My sense is that individuals proposing an edited volume need at least three things:

1. A compelling introduction/overview of the proposed volume.
2. A list of contributors, including some established, well-known researchers.
3. A complete compilation of paper titles and abstracts from each contributor.

Then, of course, one has to put together a full proposal, based on the proposal forms that presses typically have on their websites (which require proposals to specify an intended audience, competing works, and many other things). Does this sound about right to people? It would be great to hear from people who have actually secured contracts for and published edited volumes. What does one need to do in order to put together and submit a good proposal?

European program-ranks and the market

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

I have a friend with a BA from a Canadian institution, and MA in philosophy from a US institution, who, for compelling personal reasons, wants to do a PhD in Europe (non UK). They have US and EU (non-uk) citizenship. I am putting this here because I wasn't sure what advice to give. Ideally, my friend would like to create the best possibility of being competitive for US jobs once the degree is complete (they are not ruling out Europe jobs, but those are limited).

1.Is there a clear philosophy prestige hierarchy in Europe? If so does it carry over into the United States?

2. The vague impression I get is that search committees often treat all non-uk European PhDs the same, kind of like a low ranked US program, although there is often the disadvantage of lacking teaching experience.

3.Somewhat in conflict with what I just said, other times I get the impression that, especially at research schools, a European PhD is much preferred to a mid to low ranked US PhD. This seems to be because the former has a negative reputation (among elite research schools) while the latter really has no reputation. There is also some sort of plus from the mysteriousness of it all.

4.The more elite liberal arts schools often like the diversity this would bring, especially if you speak multiple langues (again, this is just my impression that is not based on anything known to be reliable.)

If anyone is knowledgeable about this, that would be great. Other things of interest are odds of getting accepted from the US (but with EU citizenship) and odds of getting funded, how long it takes to finish, etc.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think they are great ones to ask. Indeed, I'm very curious what the answers are myself, as I've recently noticed some people (including a few people I know) get great jobs in the US coming out of European programs. Anyone have any insight on Amanda's questions?