The Philosophers' Cocoon

Norms for co-authorship in philosophy?

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

I would like to hear people's opinion about co-authorship in philosophy. To make my question more concrete, let me cite a specific example. In a manuscript by Samuel Elgin (https://philarchive.org/rec/ELGTGO) who is the single author, Elgin says in a footnote that "I am especially indebted to Pauliina Rumm, who first raised the puzzle of the grounds of nonground to me. Though the theory I develop here is my own, credit for identifying the puzzle goes entirely to her."

Elgin is very generous to give the credit for identifying the puzzle entirely to Rumm, but I was wondering whether Rumm deserves to be listed as a co-author. If the above information is not enough to answer the question, then hypothetically, what kind of contribution to the paper is sufficient for Rumm to earn a co-authorship in philosophy? What do people think?

PS: I notice that Pauliina Rumm had given a presentation earlier in July at the International Wittgenstein Symposium entitled "A Puzzle About Grounding and Specification" (https://centerforgermanphilosophy.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/International-Wittgenstein-Symposium-Program.pdf). But I didn't attend the Symposium so I don't know what Rumm has said in her paper. Perhaps someone who's attended the Symposium can provide some more information.

Because this comment singled out his paper, I reached out to Elgin, who said he's happy to see the issue discussed but shared the following for context:

A bit about this particular case: when I started writing that paper, I reached out to Rumm to ask if she would be interested in coauthoring with me. (In my view, coauthorship would be appropriate given the sizeable impact she had on my thinking).  She declined, because she thinks that I am wrong - and (quite understandably) didn't want to attach her name to a theory she believes to be incorrect.  She may well be developing her own, competing account - but, if so, I do not know what that account is.

This seems like exactly the right thing to do. My own view has always been that if any of the main ideas for a paper come from someone (including, say, a problem the paper addresses), then they should be a co-author--unless, as in this case, they decline because the main line of argument/theory isn't theirs or one they would endorse. I'd add that in general, one should always play it safe and err on the side of offering co-authorship, particularly (though not only) when someone more junior is involved. 

What does everyone else think about norms for co-authorship? 

"Real" differences in teaching loads between R1s and teaching-oriented undergrad programs?

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

I would like to hear more about the "real" differences in teaching load between a research-oriented program and a teaching-oriented program.

I am curious about this because I feel that the numbers of courses could be very misleading. I work in a teaching-oriented, undergraduate-only program, and the standard teaching load for us is 3/2. The typical teaching load in a research-oriented program seems to be 2/2 (I could be wrong though). However, I feel that my teaching load is way more than just one course, and I almost have no time doing research during the semester. I have never gone to more than one conference during a semester: simply canceling classes for conferences seems less acceptable in my institution, and I usually fell behind on grading/teaching if I went to a conference.

I have never taught in a research-oriented department, and my impression of the teaching load at such a place is mostly from my time in graduate school. It seems to me that professors at research-oriented programs usually have TAs for service courses, so they only need to teach in the classroom and done with teaching, leaving grading for their TAs. TAs can also cover classes so professors go to quite a few conferences during semesters. They can also teach on topics that align well with their research. So, the actual teaching load in a research-oriented program is way lighter.

Am I right? I would like to learn more about this. Thank you!

Good question. Teaching loads at my university are 3/3, and I find myself in a similar position with respect to research during the academic year--though canceling classes for conference travel aren't a problem and I'm able to get plenty of research done during summer and winter breaks. While my sense is that faculty in research-oriented programs seem to have far fewer teaching burdens with undergraduate courses (for the reasons the OP gives), I've wondered whether that is made up for by much higher demands with respect to graduate teaching and mentoring (including serving on dissertation committees for multiple students, reading and commenting on several-hundred page dissertations, etc.). 

Anyway, it would be great to hear from readers in different types of jobs. What are the "real differences" between teaching loads in teaching-focused versus R1 programs? What type of job are you in? What is the official teaching load, and how much time does it leave for research?

Getting organized: digital libraries and workflow?

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

I'm trying to get more organized, and I wonder if anyone would care to share their thoughts on managing digital libraries and workflow.

(1) A few years after my dissertation has been completed , I am left with a lot of articles from my classes and various research, along (legally!) downloaded pdf ebooks. Does anyone have any tips on organizing a unified digital reference library? I haven't really used Endnote, Mendeley, etc, but they seem to be geared at specific paper projects, rather than cataloguing one's entire reference library (or am I wrong?), and I'm also hesitant at some of those yearly price tags. Right now I find myself just using good old fashioned folders, labeled by author or category, but I imagine this is going to get complicated as time goes on.

(2) I love using Scrivener for writing, but there are so many other stages of project planning that I haven't quite figured out how to integrate with digital platforms (to-do lists, time management, project bibliographies, and note taking, larger brainstorming, etc). I'd love to hear about how people manage their digital workflow and what apps or tools they find most useful in doing so.

I have no experience with any of this, so unfortunately I can't offer any tips.

Do any readers who do have any tips to share?

Developing expertise & seeing oneself as an 'expert': a question from a graduate student

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

I am in the middle of graduate school and I'm having trouble seeing myself as an "expert" in some very niche part of this field. While true, I'm still early in my career, but the jump from being a grad student to being a proto-colleague to my professors is intimidating and scary. I'm just having trouble figuring out what is required for "Expertise" in some field. Is it that I should be able to know relevant conversations? Is it that I should be able to contribute, in an informed matter, to conversations? I'm supposed to publish as a graduate student to get a job but I'm also trying to show mastery of some literature which, clearly, pull in different directions.

If I try to scour all of the relevant literature, I run the risk of not having any publications at the end of my time in grad school. If I publish extensively, then I run the risk of not knowing the relevant literatures required to be an "expert". I'm sure there's some balance in between that we must strike and that those who are successful do strike - but it just is so difficult to balance.

For those more advanced in this field, how do you define expertise?

As a former grad student, I empathize with the OP, but I wonder if they are overthinking things. I've never tried to define 'expertise' for myself, and throughout much of my early career in the field, I never felt like much of an expert. Indeed, my sense is that "impostor syndrome" is a common experience in grad school and among many early career faculty. Because of this, I've always just tried to keep learning, engage in (and learn from) conversations to the best of my ability, and produce the best written work I can given what I do know--again, with an aim of always improving. But, of course, this is just me, and maybe others have grappled with these kinds of issues differently.

Do any other readers have any relevant experiences or insights of their own to share with the OP? 

'Micro-working' strategies?

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

If an idea strikes me I can sit down with a notebook for 5 minutes and jot it down, but if I’m trying to write an essay then I find it really difficult to make any progress in spits and spots - I like to have multiple hours set aside. These are less available these days. Any tips for making use of the odd 10-15 minutes here and there?

I am not an effective 'micro-worker', so I don't have any helpful tips. 

But what about the rest of you? Any tips for the OP?

How many hours to work per day on research leave?

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

How many hours a day is good to work on research? I'm a couple of years into a TT job, and have a semester of research leave. So for the first time since I was a grad student, I can (theoretically) devote all my time to research.

I know not to burn out, but I'm wondering how much "serious" research time (ie, reading and writing) to expect and plan for. I tend to use the pomodoro method, working in 25 minute blocks. I was thinking 10 of those a day, meaning 250 minutes or just over 4 hours. 5 days a week that would be 20 hours a week of solid research time.

Any thoughts? Too high? Too low? Maybe I should ease myself in?

Good questions. I think we've discussed similar issues before, and I recall hearing people say that 4-5 hours per day is pretty good. Some people may work more than this, but I've heard (and experienced myself) that after 5 hours or so, continuing to work can have diminishing returns. I guess I'd recommend experimenting a bit to discover what works best for oneself. Ideally, one should enjoy research leave, so maybe work as much as you enjoy?

What do readers think?

Tips for developing original philosophical ideas?

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

At least once a week, I have an idea that I think could be developed into a publishable paper. But ninety-five percent of the time, the relevant idea has been published already, usually within the last four years. Is this a common experience? Am I doomed to accidentally reproduce others' work on an almost daily basis for the rest of my academic career? Do any of you have advice for generating original philosophical ideas, or for how to quell the ever-present fear that absolutely everything worth saying about philosophy has already been said (or is about to be said, this month, by someone from NYU)?

Good questions. This happened to me a lot early in my career, particularly in grad school, but it doesn't seem to happen to me much anymore. If I had to put my finger on the reasons why, I think it's probably two-fold.

First, the longer one goes in one's career, the better of a sense one may get of the philosophical terrain that has already been mapped out. You've read a lot more, seen the literature develop, and so on.

But second, the further I've gone along in my career, the less my publishable ideas have come from reading philosophy books or articles. Most of the ideas I've come up with that haven't been taken already have come from simply thinking about day to day life and various problems in the world around me. When you read the philosophical literature, you're typically reading preexisting debates where various positions have already been mined and developed. In contrast, the world around us is always changing in unexpected ways, with new phenomena (social media, large language model AI, etc.) always cropping up that haven't necessarily been mined philosophically as much.

So, I guess that would be my tip: focus a bit less on the literature, and more on what philosophically interests you about the world! But this is just me.

What do you all think? Which strategies for developing original philosophical ideas do you find fruitful?

Should a new TT hire narrow their area of expertise?

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

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

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

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

Big congrats to the OP in getting the TT job!

All things being equal, I've always thought it best to work on whatever interests oneself. Earlier in my career, I tried to narrow my focus, didn't enjoy my work, and had trouble publishing. It was only once I started throwing caution to wind, following my interests wherever they led, that I began to enjoy research and enjoy some success. And I've heard other philosophers--including some far more accomplished than me--say similar things.

At the same time, all things may not be equal. I've heard that at some R1s, the key question in tenure and promotion decisions can be whether the candidate is considered a leading thinker on some particular topic (think David Chalmers on consciousness, for example). It's not clear what kind of institution the OP is at, or how many universities follow this model in T&P decisions, but I would think this is critical for the OP to sort out. I'd suggest that the OP find out how their department and college T&P committees (and admin higher-ups) tend to think about this, and then decide from there.

What do readers think?

Coping with perfectionism as a writer?

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

I am disgusted by the way my own writing sounds. This prevents me from making progress on my research, partly because it saps my motivation to write and partly because it causes me to waste time endlessly rewording sentences (or reorganizing paragraphs, or reframing whole papers, and so on).

Oddly, however, others who have read my work compliment me on how clear, well-organized, and engaging my writing is. Moreover, when I read papers I wrote years ago, the writing seems fine, despite the fact that I was much less mature a philosopher then.

Have others had this experience? If so, how do you cope with it?

Good questions. Do any other readers have similar experiences, and any tips to handle it well?

Doing research after leaving academia: is it feasible?

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

I'd love to hear people's views on the feasibility of continuing to do philosophy research outside academia. I suppose one obvious barrier is access to a good research library/journal subscriptions -- but, supposing that issue were solved, it seems to me in principle possible to keep publishing and attending conferences, and maybe even apply for grants (especially outside the US). But how might a lack of academic admission hinder this beyond the obvious (i.e., that you will not be paid to do this research and so will likely have less time to do it)?

Having made the jump recently, I suppose I am feeling some last minute urge to salvage the part of my academic career I really enjoyed and think I will miss the most. So info on the practicalities is most welcome -- but I also wonder whether this desire to continue researching will vanish once I am fully 'out'.

Good query, and I'm not sure. It would be great to hear from people who have spent time outside of academia (either temporarily or permanently.

Do any readers care to weigh in? 

Do translations go underappreciated in tenure & promotion?

Ethan Linehan writes in:

One often hears that scholarly translations are always relied upon but seldom appreciated, that they hardly count at all in tenure review, etc.

Do Cocoon readers agree that scholarly translations often go underappreciated, despite the expertise required to produce them? If so, why does this happen?

How does the tenure review process currently value translation work? Can anyone share anecdotes where translation efforts were either overlooked or properly recognized?

In what ways might the conversation change for better or for worse regarding how academia values translation work given the increasing capabilities of AI-driven translation?

Interesting questions. I've never seen these issues come up in my career, as I don't think I've ever been on a T&P committee where a candidate had done a translation.

What do readers think? It would be especially good to hear from readers who have gone up for tenure having done a translation, as well as from people who have served on T&P committees.

Choosing which philosophical leads to develop?

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

I'd be interested in hearing a discussion about how people manage the process of chasing down their philosophical leads. I have an ever-growing list of ideas that, prima facie, seem like they might be fruitfully developed into papers ("philosophical leads"). But, as I'm sure is familiar to many, the process of figuring out which these ideas really are viable is long and fraught. It can require significant time reading the literature, thinking things through, and drafting material, with no guarantee that the process will ultimately result in a paper. I'm curious to hear how others navigate the following issues:

(A) Deciding which of the many philosophical leads you have at any moment to actually pursue.

(B) Dealing with the temptation to pursue new leads rather than complete existing projects.

This is an interesting query, and I'm curious to hear from readers.

How many hours per day do you work on research?

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

How many hours a day do you work? I mean real, serious, research work (reading and writing)? Even on my research days I can't do more than 4-5 hours... anything more than that my brain is mush.

Lots of scientists claim to work 80 hours a week, but of course a lot of their research is quite different. Just curious what the experience of pother philosophers is.

I'm pretty productive. Not a research star, but I got tenure at a decent place.

Due to my teaching and service workload, I only really have time to focus on research during the summers, but when I do have time I'd say 5 hours is my median. Sometimes I'll work significantly longer than that, for example if I have an impending deadline. But, like the OP, I tend to find that after 5 hours or so, my brain goes to mush. I also virtually never work in the evenings or on weekends, as I find I'm more productive when I give myself time off to recuperate and do other things in life.

What about you all?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Startup packages and research funding for tenure-track positions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it just me? What should I do?

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

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

How to "go big" philosophically?

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

How to go big?

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

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

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

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

Research & reading tips for people in teaching-intensive jobs?

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

I teach a lot, but still try to write a lot too. So what happens? I get an idea; I then have a vague recollection of a paper or two in the area that I should probably read and cite; but otherwise I just want to write MY paper, and don't have the time--I teach a 4/4--to read up like I did in graduate school. (I'm also not going to leisurely sit on things, let it be a conference paper first, and so on - I want to get stuff out.). Plus, I am not even sure why I should feel the pressure to dig into every related piece, when I just want to get my ideas out. But oh, right, no journal will review my papers if the reference list is too short. But who has the time to research like they did in grad school? Why is the journal standard set for the spaciousness of R1 research conditions?

Summary of predicament: I have no problem writing despite a heavy teaching load; the problem is that my environment does not allow me to approach writing like a graduate student, or postdoc, or someone at an R1. And I don't plan to be someone who just saves writing for the summer.

Tips?

Good questions! I'm in a pretty teaching-intensive job (a 3/3 that due to longer-than-normal class-times is more like a 4/4), but I'm able to get a good amount done and the reference lists in my papers tend to be pretty long. A few tips that I have:

1. Try to develop teaching strategies that require less grading and course prep --> focus more on class discussion.
2. Focus on research during summer and winter breaks (this is when I get most of my work done)
3. Do a few quick Google Scholar and PhilPapers searches on your topic prior to writing, to see if anyone has published "your idea" already -- it saves a lot of time!
4. Subject to 3, write first, read later: I almost always write "MY paper" when I have an idea, putting in footnotes wherever it seems to me like I should probably cite something. Then, after I have something like a full draft, I read up on stuff in my free time, working things into my references.

How about other people who do research in teaching-intensive jobs? Any helpful tips for the OP?

How much can you get done if you only work a few hours a day? (Guest post by Paul De Font Reaulx)

By Paul De Font Reaulx (PhD Student, University of Michigan)

In my experience, being an aspiring academic involves a lot of autonomous work on long-term projects with relatively little feedback that makes clear when you have made progress. This can make it hard to have a sense of what you’re concretely getting for each hour devoted. For example, I expect few of us could say with any confidence what the concrete result would be of working one more hour per day for a month.

I think this vague intuitive grasp of what we can produce with our time can lead to a few negative outcomes. For example, some of us might be familiar with the experience of devoting a lot of time to a project because it is important, only to procrastinate until an impending deadline makes the value of our time concrete. This plausibly causes stress and guilt, and in the worst case burnout. Most obviously, however, it robs us of time we could be spending on other things.

In an attempt to make the value of my own time more concrete, I tried to figure out what I should expect to get done if I worked a few hours per day for some period of time. I found the results valuable and wrote up this post to share them in case anyone else would benefit as well. The main takeaway is that the classic advice of writing every day seems, unsurprisingly, to be good advice.

In what follows, I estimate the total hours gained from a period of consistent work and compare this to estimates of the total hours required to complete a range of projects. I then check how these results are affected by variations, such as working more or taking a break. Finally, I compare the numbers to other leisure activities.

Writing productivity tips?

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

I am becoming less efficient in writing as time goes on. When I read productivity advice for academics, the bottom line is usually, "spend more hours of your day writing." But what is "writing" mean? My real problem is not so much about finding hours for research, or about writing itself, it is about the process of translating great ideas into a single (limited) paper. When writing for a conference, I always see so many angles of exploring a theme and I struggle to choose between them. This bogs down my process as I explore all of them simultaneously, and often ends up complicating my writing to the point I publish one dense piece that really would have been better as three separate papers. I am also a really slow reader, and my time tends to get bogged down by researching (often of sources that don't end up helping much in the end but only take more time). So I guess my question is: does anyone have advice for improving the efficiency of the process of transforming an idea into an article or chapter, without sacrificing serious scholarship or rigorous original thought? If you see multiple paths to a question, what intellectual or pragmatic strategies do you use when deciding which one to take? What kind of external or internal limits do you use keep the (temporal) balance of researching new sources and pursuing original thinking vs. writing pieces?

Good questions! Do any readers have any helpful tips? It would be great to hear from everyone, but particularly from people who have grappled successfully with similar issues.

Tips for developing expertise in a new area? A query from a grad student

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

A thread on developing expertise might be helpful. It often feels like there's always so much more to read on a topic, and it can be hard to be sure that you're saying something new or that you have a grasp of the subject at hand.

One reader submitted the following response:

[T]here are a number of ways to track relevant new research. SEP is a starter, though it isn't up to date if a particular entry was updated a few years ago. Then you have PhilPapers, where you can declare your research interests, and occasionally get email updates of potentially relevant papers. Another way is google scholar. You can search the keywords you know and limit the search to within one or two years. You can also find several articles as indicators, and see who cites them on google scholar, and reiterate the process to see the new papers citing the near new ones. And there's this website called Philosophy Paperboy, where you can screen through the titles of new papers, though it is a bit too much information daily; there's a search function in it though, which makes tracking easier. And if you can, monitor the call for special issues, and see who presents at certain conferences that look relevant to your research area. All this takes time, but who knows when you will encounter a reviewer or two who are angry at you for not citing their recently accepted paper just declared on PhilPapers five days after you submitted your paper etc.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips or insights?

Tips for using research funds?

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

I would like to ask your advise on how to best spend research fund (maybe just viable ways of spending it). Other than buying books, the things I can think of are (1) fund my trips (2) invite visitors (3) organize conferences. I am not sure if I am ready to do (2) and (3) as a junior person. If I do them, I will probably do them on behalf of my department and therefore will not use my personal fund.I can do (1) but usually my trips are funded by inviters. Maybe I should just gather the courage to do (2) and (3)? Or are there other easier and useful things that I can do with my fund?

The ironic thing is that the largest expense for me research-related is not to visit anyone and any place, but to stay at a hotel solo and write (which is weirdly necessary for me to do the research that requires intense focus). I suppose I cannot reimburse such an expense without "faking" an invitation, by which I mean asking a friend to write a research invitation and let me stay nearby. (For the record, I have never tried to do something like that.) Anyway, I just want to hear people's advice and their experiences on using personal research funds.

Sadly, I've never had any research funds, so I have no tips to share. 

Do any readers with experience have any helpful suggestions or other insights?

How to go about co-authoring papers?

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

How do people go about coauthoring papers? It seems everyone is working on different topics, yet it looks like more and more people are working together on papers. It is unclear to me how to initiate projects with other people. I also feel too socially awkward/inept to ask to work with other people and also have some self-doubt that I may not be good enough to work on projects that are slightly outside of my research focus. Any tips?

Good questions! I've co-authored a few papers, and if I recall correctly, for the most part I just approached people with an idea who I thought might be able to bring their expertise to bear on parts of the project that were a bit beyond mine. As my father once told me, if you ask for assistance, generally speaking the worst that can happen is that people say no. It may be helpful, however, if you have some previous interactions with the people you approach, such as at conferences, on social media, etc.

Anyway, these are all the tips that I have. Do any other readers have any helpful tips?

What's the most common/default citation style at journals?

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

I have two related questions regarding citation styles. Nowadays, most journals do not require a specific style when you submit a manuscript, but you need to follow their styles when your paper is accepted. First, do we have a sense of the most common style of philosophy journals? (Is there a survey or summary about this?) Second, since one probably needs to send a paper to a few different journals (not at once, of course), what "default" style do people use when you write your drafts before knowing where to send them?

Good questions. I've spent way too much time reformatting citations, and would love to cut down the time I spend on them. My sense, anecdotally, is that in-text citations (APA format) may be the most common, which I find a bit frustrating, as it may be my least favorite format (I just don't like the aesthetics of how it breaks up the flow of a manuscript, particularly since my work tends to be very citation heavy). My default style is to give name/date/p. # in footnotes with a reference list at the end, though to be frank I don't even know what style this is called. I just think it looks best, but again, I have to change it a lot after acceptance.

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

Doing research on "big ideas"?

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

I wonder if others have run into the following challenge: in graduate school. I focused on "smaller", bite-sized ideas that I thought would be most easily published. I also think that philosophy moves pretty slowly, that "small" steps are really important, and that "big" steps often make a lot of "small" (and not-so-small) mistakes.

On the job market, it seems to me that committees are almost exclusively looking for "big" ideas, at least where I'm applying (R1, research-focused). I worry that I've written myself into the typecast of making "small" contributions that don't add up to anything "big". Since I'm junior, that doesn't seem fair since my small contributions haven't had time to add up to anything big. But that aside, I'm just wondering how to move toward "big" ideas, if for no other reason than that is what many schools seem to seek.

I also understand why colleagues want to hire someone working on "big," sexy ideas. I'm not sure that's where good philosophy is done, but it's certainly fun and interesting to engage with.

This is an interesting query to me, in large part because I went through something similar early in my career. I too was socialized in grad school to work on 'smaller' papers. However, I didn't have much success publishing papers like that and while I think papers that take small steps can be good and important, I found it difficult to motivate myself to work on these kinds of papers. It just wasn't why I fell in love with philosophy. I always loved exploring big ideas, so at some point I just tried to trust myself and start writing on larger topics and found more success and enjoyment doing so. I'm not sure that I have any great tips on how to pursue 'bigger' ideas, and I suspect that different things probably work for different people. But here's a little bit on some methods that I use in doing the kind of work that I generally do.

Finally, for what it's worth, I suspect the most important thing is to probably do the best work you can and work that you enjoy. In my experience, there are lots of philosophers who prize good work that takes 'small steps', and indeed, I suspect there's probably a reason why this is the kind of work we are so often encouraged to pursue in grad school. So, if you enjoy working on smaller topics and are being successful with it, there are probably people out there who will value it too!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Tips for revising papers?

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

I'm very good at generating new projects and writing initial drafts. But, revising is much harder and a specific difficulty I have (especially with more complex revisions like r&rs) is that it's harder to develop a sense of progress when working on a revision. So far, I've tried making lists of specific changes so the work doesn't feel invisible/non-existent. This has been a medium success. I'd like to know if other people have techniques they use to approach this part of the writing process.

Good query, and I'm curious to hear from readers. One thing that I do with R&R's is to color-code each major reviewer concern, highlighting the reviewer's comments in a PDF or Word doc with different highlight colors for each concern. Then, what I'll do is to match that color code in my revisions by using those same colors of text for my revisions. That way, I'm able to easily see in the manuscript which revisions address which concern. Finally, whenever I think I've addressed a concern well-enough, I'll use the strike-through function in the reviewer comments to indicate that I'm done with those revisions. Once all of the reviewer concerns are struck-through, I know I'm done!

Of course, it always helps to have an outside reader or two look through your revisions to help make sure that you've dealt with everything well. I've found this is especially helpful if I have any inkling of doubt whether I've dealt with a concern well-enough. Usually, if I'm honest with myself, I'll have a sense of which of my revisions might not be entirely adequate--and if an outside reader or two verifies that doubt independently, then I'll know that I have more work to do.

Anyway, these are just a few things that I do in revisions. Do you have any revising tips for the OP?

Getting into the flow writing new material?

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

How do people get into the flow of writing new material again when it's been a while? I'm hoping to have a really productive summer research-wise, but I've found myself spinning my gears far more than I'd like. I'd love to hear of any tips, tricks etc. from others who've struggled with this and have found some success combating it. I'd especially love to hear from any fellow ADHDers...

Great question! Another reader submitted the following reply:

I have long struggled with the same issue. What I find helps is a time every day where I just write. It could be 20 minutes, it could be 90. But set time aside every day and have a goal for the session. The goal could be very specific, e.g., finish bibliography or write flowchart for objection. It could be fairly nebulous: free write for 30 minutes about x. But it makes a difference because a) if gets you writing and b) it helps you build better habits, making writing later easier.

This seems like good advice to me. I do something similar, setting a goal of free-writing a certain amount of words each morning (e.g. 500 or 1,000 words). I find that if I do this every day that I do work, I'm usually always moving forward with something while leaving ample time for other things.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips? 

Grappling with a post-tenure slump?

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

I'm a tenured associate professor (9 years post phd), going through a bit of a post-tenure slump. Life has got in the way of research recently, after the big push to get tenure. I was steadily producing an article a year until about 2020, but the pandemic hit me hard.

That's all context for a specific question: how many hours a week do you, and should you, work on your research? I mean what they call 'deep work', so writing/revising or seriously reading material directly relevant to your work. When I was in grad school I was often told that 20 hours a week is about right for the PhD, but that's 4 solid hours per weekday and I don't think I'm at that now! (I use the pomodoro method and am counting very rigorously, so I'm not including eg bathroom breaks.)

Relatedly, do you tend to have multiple papers in different areas you're working on at the same time, or do you focus on one until it gets sent out, before moving on to another? I've always done the former strategy, but I seem to have ended up with a lot of 'pretty much done' papers in different areas that have been presented at a few conferences maybe, maybe rejected with comments from a journal, but I've not quite pushed them over the line to being published. A nice place to be in some ways, but as I said, it feels slump-y!

Any advice appreciated.

Believe it or not, post-tenure malaise is a real thing. Its existence may be hard to understand or empathize with, especially if you are an academic struggling on the job market or without tenure or a tenure track position. But still, as someone who spent a horrible 7+ years on the market myself, I can attest that post-tenure blues are real. While they were nowhere near the horror show for me that was the job market, I've been through them a few times (they seem to come and go). I don't know if I have any great advice for grappling with it well, other than that I try to find new philosophical issues that interest me and to finally pursue other things in pursuit of a more well-rounded human life that I just didn't have the time or emotional energy to do when I was on the market or seeking tenure.

In terms of answering the OP's questions, I don't have much time for research during the fall or spring semesters due to my teaching load, but I try to work on research pretty consistently during the summer (3-5+ hours a day on the weekdays, I'd say, depending on how inspired or not I'm feeling--sometimes I have research ideas I'm excited about, other times not). On that note, I also usually work on a few different projects simultaneously, as I usually get tired working on the same project all the time.

Anyway, I wish that I had better advice, but again, this is something that I struggle with a bit too! Do any readers have any helpful tips of insights for the OP?

Changing topics between the MA and PhD?

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

I'm an incoming PhD student with a couple of questions about publishing in grad school. Throughout my MA, I have been working on a clearly historical topic 'X' in Early Modern philosophy (one that is fairly interesting but also quite specific). However, this topic is also relevant for contemporary discussions in the form of a slightly modified topic 'Xi'. In my graduate studies, I want to focus strictly on the latter topic and leave the former behind. The thing is, I have already put a lot of work into researching 'X' and potentially would like to publish an article on it. So, my questions are: (1) Is it wise to put more time and effort into polishing up the draft about 'X' and preparing it for publication, or should I rather leave this topic behind and start working exclusively on 'Xi'? (2) Would hiring committees be suspicious about a diverse publication section in my CV and even hold it against me? I am aware that for many, HoP is a subfield with a very high entry barrier, and my attempts to make a contribution may seem naive/unserious.

I would recommend trying to publish the paper on X while also transitioning to Xi. Changing one's focus in a PhD program is common, and I don't think anyone will hold it against you. If anything, I think having more diverse interests is likely to help you on the market, at least for some jobs. Finally, I think one is simply likely to do one's best work if one works on what one is most interested in. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Tips for developing research ideas in a small department?

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

How do people working in small departments brainstorm research ideas?

I work in a teaching-oriented small department, and people work in quite different areas. I often encounter small ideas and thoughts in my research such as "x is interesting. I wonder if anyone talks about it" and "can we think about y in a different way?"... Some of these ideas were developed into papers, but many of them were based on misunderstandings or the lack of basic background knowledge on certain topics. In graduate school, I could just have a quick conversation with either my peers or professors. But there are no such people around me now. I saw people doing this kind of brainstorming on Facebook and Twitter, but I do not have many friends or followers on social media. So, I was still emailing my peers and professors from graduate school, but I am not sure if this is sustainable. I wonder if there are other effective ways to brainstorm small research ideas.

This is an excellent question, and I'm curious to hear from other readers who work in small departments. I work in a very small department myself, and this was one of the more difficult things that I had to learn how to grapple with early in my career. I wish that I had some helpful tips, but in my case, I just had to learn how to do work mostly on my own. Everyone in my department worked in very different areas, and I've never been very good at cultivating a research network--so I just learned to draft up ideas that seemed interesting to me and send out work to conferences and journals. That worked fine for me in the end, but I imagine that it's probably not the best solution for everyone. 

So, if you work in a small department, what do you do? Any tips for the OP on how to brainstorm new research ideas?

Best epaper tablet for philosophy?

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

I know there was a similar thread on here a few months ago, but since (I believe) there have been some updates released since then, I was wondering whether I could try to crowdsource some current opinions from Remarkable, Supernote, and Boox users? The internet is awash with opinions as to which of these devices is the best, but any and all insight I can glean from other academic philosophers is especially helpful before I pull the plug.

The main thing I'm hoping to use a device like this for is to annotate PDFs and create tags to easily find them for when I'm writing. My research thus far (including the last thread on here) has led me away from the Remarkable, but I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on the Supernote A6 vs. one of the Boox NoteAir2 models? Or is the Remarkable worth looking into again after all?

I've never touched one of these things, so I have no idea! Any readers have any helpful tips/insights for the OP?

Engaging with philosophical work outside of philosophy?

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

Occasionally, I found other disciplines like animal studies or nursing or jurisprudence also discuss some very general philosophical questions like "what is conceptual analysis". And they do refer to lots of philosophers' work in their papers. My question is whether discussing these works by non-philosophers (not just referring but devoting two or even more paragraphs to discussing their views, putting them on a par with other prominent philosophers) is proper. From time to time, I found some interesting views from their works or their works offer a clearer and more careful literature review.

Another reader responded:

I sure hope it's acceptable to discuss works by "non-philosophers." Why wouldn't it be? Even if we accept the sanctity of disciplinary boundaries (which I think is a mistake), it does not seem justified to limit who's views you discuss based solely on which academic hat they wear. I work in philosophy of science and I hope (*hope*, mind you) that scientists at least occasionally read and take up my work as they have taken up the work of other philosophers of science. I often use a specific scientist's professed views as a foil to philosopher's, and this has allowed me to give a richer exposition of potential viewpoints/arguments/etc than would have been available had I only focused on philosophers. Maybe philosophy of science is somewhat unique in this regard as we are often debating and engaging with the work of historians of science, HPSers, and STS folks. But I'd argue that other sub-disciplines of philosophy should also consider viewpoints and arguments from other disciplines (if this don't do this already -- someone from another sub-discipline of philosophy would know better).

I'm curious to see arguments which push in the other direction. If enough academic philosophers think we should only consider/discuss other philosophers' views, then maybe there is a prudent reason to focus only on other philosophers' views. However, this way of thinking has it's own problems...

I too am curious whether there are other arguments that point in the other direction. I routinely engage with work in other disciplines, and am inclined to think that philosophy is better for it when we do--though I do wonder whether some philosophers might hold it against you in publishing. Some moral philosophers, for example, are pretty adamant that they think empirical work is irrelevant to normative and metaethics. But, I don't think this is any reason not to engage with other disciplines. If you think it's relevant and interesting, I say: engage away!

Taking breaks from writing & research?

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

Does anyone have advice for what an early scholar might do while taking a break from writing? I'm in a post-doc and feel a bit(lot) burnt out on writing, having done it at a blistering pace for so, so many years. I'm starting some time "off" from this particular aspect of my career and hoping to spend more time reading, exploring philosophy, and perhaps other things.

Has anyone taken a similar sort of break from writing? How was it? Do people have tips as to how to stay engaged with philosophy even if not through new research projects?

This is a great query, and I'm curious to hear how readers respond. I myself go through peaks when I feel inspired to do write and do research and troughs where I feel worn out and uninspired (often when, like the OP, I've worked at a blistering pace for a while). And I've found it to be helpful to listen to what my body and mind are telling me, as it were. In fact, I'm taking one of these breaks right now, as I've been working really hard the past several months and feel like I need some time to recoup.

When I'm feeling worn out, I'll take a break and focus on other things for a while--either other aspects of work (e.g. trying to teach a particular course really well), and/or hobbies (such as writing and recording music, listening to podcasts, or reading historical nonfiction). Oddly, I've found that many of these hobbies can be great (and unexpected) sources of inspiration for new philosophical projects--so, it's sort of like "doing research without doing research." To be clear, I don't pursue hobbies looking to mine them for philosophical ideas. I often just find that new ideas occur to me out of the blue when doing other things for pleasure.

How to choose readers for paper drafts?

In our October "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asked:

What goes into selecting a potential reviewer for your article? Is it normal for junior scholars to select, for example, their thesis advisor or another person at their graduate institution? Should it specifically be someone who works on this exact topic, or someone who you know in the general area of philosophy?

I've never presented this exact argument, so I don't feel that I would have met someone at a conference who clearly responded well to this particular work. Although, I did attend a conference on this topic and met some folks there. What's the best strategy?

It wasn't clear to me whether this reader means "suggesting reviewers" when submitting to journals (which some journals request or even require from authors), or whether they simply mean "readers of paper drafts." I'm assuming the latter, as it would surely be inappropriate (a clear conflict of interest) to suggest a thesis advisor or someone else one is close to as a journal reviewer.

So, I'm assuming this person means to ask: what goes into selecting readers for paper drafts? Should a junior scholar ask mentors in their graduate program (even if, say, they already received their PhD)? Should they seek out other specialists? If so, how? Any helpful tips?

Editing half-baked drafts into publishable work?

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

People say most of the work of writing a publishable paper comes out in the editing process. Let's say you have a first draft. Can you advise on the way to edit a half-baked piece of writing into a polished work of philosophy? Sometimes it's easy to get "stuck in your head" or overly perfectionistic to the point that you give up on the draft altogether. Thanks.

This is a great question, and a couple of other readers submitted replies to weigh in. An Easter Coaster writes:

James, I would do the Mumford method, https://sites.google.com/site/stephendmumford/the-mumford-method with intellectual peers you respect.

I find this an interesting suggestion, because I basically do everything Mumford says not to do! I mostly just draft papers from beginning to end, working out my ideas on paper but using the drafting of the paper's introductory paragraph as more or less the paper's "outline" so that I at least know where I am headed. Then, after a half-baked version is done, I basically go through the paper from the very beginning again and again day after day, progressively refining the ideas and writing from beginning to end. Because I always start from the beginning each day, the early parts of the paper get polished more quickly, but over a period of time the whole thing ends up polished. This seems to work well for me at least, but if you haven't tried Mumford's method, it seems probably worth a shot!

Another reader writes:

I found that making it into a talk helps. Talks are different from papers, but the process of making a paper into a talk really helps myself rethink each argumentative step in the paper. If I can't comfortably say something to an imaginary audience, or find myself being unsure about the transition from one point to another, then I know I need to revise something or rethink the order of presentation.

I've found this to be helpful too, though I normally only do it if I have a talk to give! One nice thing about it is that if you use PowerPoint for talks (like I do), then the size of a PowerPoint slide constrains how much stuff you can cram into a slide. I've found that this is helpful, in that it can encourage you to break each step in the argument down to a clear, manageable number of points (which can also be helpful in deciding where to place paragraph breaks when writing). I'll also just ad that actually giving talks (at conferences) can be really helpful in terms of turning a half-baked draft into a polished piece, as audience feedback can be really helpful in determining what you need to fix/polish.

But these are just a few quick thoughts. What are yours? How do you turn half-baked drafts into polished, publishable work? Any specific tips for the OP?

The Diversity Reading List

Ten-Herng Lai (University of Melbourne), a volunteer at the Diversity Reading List, writes in:

I am writing to promote the diversity reading list.

https://diversityreadinglist.org

The diversity reading list is an organisation dedicated to promoting diversity in philosophy by collecting information on articles written by authors from diverse backgrounds, and articles discussing issues that are of a diverse nature. The organisation also has a “Reading group blueprint” program

https://diversityreadinglist.org/blueprints/

where volunteers compile several articles fit for a reading group. Recent additions include 

• Statues and monuments
• People and proofs
• Race and aesthetics

Just to name a few. The blueprints provide invaluable opportunities for students in philosophy to discover important information outside their current curriculum.

I believe that it would be awesome if the diversity reading list can be promoted on the philosophers’ cocoon. The diversity reading list is calling for article information to be added to the organisations database, and for volunteers to compile new and useful reading lists. 

I think this is a fantastic resource!

The ways we don't do research, because they don't exist

Helen's interesting post yesterday, 'The journals we don't write in, because they don't exist', about how philosophy journals might become fruitfully more diverse got me thinking more about a topic that I've been thinking about lately: namely, ways that today's technology and a new publishing model might fruitfully alter how we do research.

Readers may recall that Liam Kofi Bright, Remco Heesen, and I advocate in a new BJPS paper for a crowdsourced online approach to peer review. Although Heesen and Bright advocate elsewhere for abolishing traditional peer-review at journals, I am more inclined to support a hybrid approach to peer-review closer to that currently practiced in math and physics: one that combines traditional peer-review at journals with a crowdsourced approach. This is for a couple of reasons. First, insofar as some are skeptical of the utility of a crowdsourced approach, a hybrid approach would be a more conservative change to peer-review than abolishing journal review altogether. Second, the hybrid approach has already been implemented in other fields (see above), and seems to work well. Finally, insofar as (our arguments for crowdsourcing aside) there are arguably virtues and vices of both approaches to peer-review, a hybrid approach can stake a reasonable claim to be a 'best of both worlds' approach.

In today's post, I want to discuss one potential benefit that changing peer-review might have that has not, to my knowledge, been much discussed: namely, how it might revolutionize how we do research in a good way. In their earlier paper, 'Is Peer Review a Good Idea?', Heesen and Bright examine various potential benefits of abolishing traditional peer review at journals, including:

1. Improving the dissemination/sharing of scientific results
2. Improved time allocation (traditional peer-review is extremely time intensive)
3. Reducing gender skew in publications
4. Reducing costs of publishing/freeing up library resources
5. Reducing professional focus on 'short-term credit' (which favors publishing lots of articles) in favor of long-term credit (i.e. impact)
6. Reducing the role of powerful gatekeepers

Whatever you may think of these potential benefits (including whether they really would be benefits), here is another possible benefit of transitioning toward a more open, online approach to peer-review (including the hybrid journal + crowdsourced approach that I favor): it could substantially increase philosophical and interdisciplinary collaboration, in ways that might not only lead to better research, but help authors deal with a quandary that I expect that all too many of us face. Allow me to explain.

Recommendations for note-taking tablets?

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

Does anyone have any views/recommendations on note-taking tablets? (iPad, remarkable, onyx book, supernote)

I've never used a note-taking tablet, so I'd be curious to hear about how useful people think they are and what the advantages/disadvantages of different ones are. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I highly recommend Supernote, especially instead of Remarkable. Remarkable is 100% marketing and 0 substance. I arrived at this conclusion not only by owning both (and returning the Remarkable) but also by seeing more in-depth comparisons of remarkable vs other e-paper tablets on youtube.

Interesting--at least anecdotally, I had heard good things about Remarkable. What do you all think? For those of you who use a note-taking tablet, what do you use and how do you like it?

Constructively situating papers in the literature

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

I have some questions about writing and situating oneself in the literature. Most commonly, I see people situate themselves by arguing against others, and I get that people disagree. But I’m wondering if there’s more positive ways to situate oneself in the literature without needing to be on the offence, and instead builds off of others more. What are your thoughts on this matter? And if you have any papers you think do this well, it would be nice to see them too.

This is an interesting question, and I've love to see some examples. I actually tend to favor constructive philosophy myself, as I tend to think it's harder to build new things than to tear down arguments other people have given. But I'm also curious exactly what the reader has in mind--that is, what exactly would count as "building off of others more."

I guess that when I think of my own papers that might be said to do this, the paper that most immediately comes to mind is my 2013 paper, "A New Theory of Free Will", as in that paper I basically combine a bunch of previously defended hypotheses from metaphysics, philosophy of mind, computer science, and physics to defend a new model of reality and "libertarian compatibilist" theory of free will. Another one of my papers that seems mostly constructive to me is my 2015 paper, "How to Rationally Approach Life's Transformative Experiences", which basically argues that if L.A. Paul is right that transformative experiences challenge the dominant conception of rational decisionmaking in our culture, then we ought to adopt a different approach to our lives that involves cultivating resilience rather than control over life-events.

Are these the kinds of things the reader has in mind? In any case, I'd love to hear other examples from readers! Following the OP's query, feel free to give examples of your own papers (but also, do feel free to give examples of other people's work that you think is particularly constructive).

Paper feedback groups?

Following Helen's recent post on finding "first readers" for paper drafts, a reader writes in:

[S]ome authors ... lack a community of readers who can provide feedback. Why not something similar to the dissertation groups but for papers and junior academics? This is not helpful for everyone, but I guess those from small departments, etc., may find it helpful.

This is a great query. When I was in graduate school at Arizona and my first VAP job (at UBC), finding readers for paper drafts was really easy. Both departments had large numbers of faculty and grad students, and finding a reader was often as easy as just walking down the hall, stopping by someone's office, and asking! However, once I moved into a much smaller department, finding people with relevant expertise to read paper drafts became far more difficult. I think it would be fantastic if there were some kind of good online resource for finding readers, perhaps some kind of dedicated message-board at PhilPeople (perhaps sorted by AOS) where philosophers could post "reader wanted" queries, perhaps along with some broad information on the paper's topic and other details (such as willingness to trade papers, etc.). But, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't anything like this.

Writing papers that overlap significantly

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, T asks:

I have two papers that deal with the same issue but from slightly different perspectives. Paper 1 has been accepted for publication. Paper 2 is a work in progress. Paper 2 utilizes and relies upon a criticism of a view that I develop more fully in paper 1. However, how do I incorporate this criticism in paper 2 without plagiarizing myself? I figure I should first cite myself, of course. But then can I basically copy and paste? Or should I rephrase the criticism, or expand it? How to go about this? Thanks!

These are good questions. I've faced this issue many times, and I normally try to rewrite things significantly for a few different reasons.

Platform for finding co-authors? (perma-thread)

A reader writes in:

I have had a raw idea for a few years that I don't know how to evaluate and am sure that I cannot put it into practice by myself, even if it has any positive points. Recently I saw a relevant post on your blog exactly about this. I thought I can ask you as you are in a good position to advise.

It starts with an (I guess common) personal experience. I argued a subfield of political philosophy, where I had no experience with the literature. For a while, I was thinking about how I could find a co-author - it would be much faster to develop such an idea with a co-author, plus it would be good to have real cooperation between subfields, fields, etc. But then it came to my mind that it may be a problem for many others too. So, why not have a platform just for that purpose?

Handling archival restrictions in historical research?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, Tom asks:

I am investigating a philosopher's intellectual history. A particular university archive (whom I am working with) restricts access to this deceased philosopher's records for 80 years after their attendance, but this person's records are only 70 years old now. This information would be very useful for me, but I would have to wait another 10 years, therefore postponing my progress significantly. These situations vary by institution, but does anyone have any advice on dealing with archives who keep their 70 year old records very highly protected? Would it be unreasonable to try to petition them to grant an exception? All people involved have been dead over 30 years now, so there don't seem to be any ethical issues. However, I also don't want to be a bother or to cause trouble. Thanks, Marcus!

This is an interesting query, but sadly I know nothing about this kind of stuff. It would be great to hear from historians who work with archival records on how you handle these kinds of situations. What options are available to Tom?

Norms for supervising students & co-authorship

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

I am wondering about the norms of supervising students, with regard to the content. For one, it's clear that one needs to suggest readings and clues, read the drafts, provide comments, suggestions and criticism. But how much more? For example, should you suggest substantial positive claims to be included in the thesis? What are the norms of co-authorship in such cases? What else should you take into account for responsible and fruitful supervising?

These are really excellent questions, ones that I've grappled with myself. When working with students, I take it that you don't want to "give them the answers" (or what you think the answers are to what they're working on), as it's important for them to grapple with and work out the issues themselves. At the same time, as professors we do give students a lot of feedback, both through discussion and paper comments. The question then is how to get this balance (between helping them work through problems and letting them work through the problems) correct. I'm not entirely sure how to best approximate this balance. In my case, I just try to "feel it through", guiding my students some but trying to give them space to work things out themselves. But I recognize that this probably isn't very helpful. So I'd love to hear tips from readers, including about norms of co-authorship with students!

How to decide what (and when) to read?

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

I'm a grad student working on my dissertation. There is just so much published in my research area and related areas. I always feel overwhelmed and not know exactly which to read first, and feel guilty that I'm not reading faster than I am, and not reading more topics that are written by under-represented scholars. And when I'm reading, I feel guilty about not writing more. How did you, or would you now, decide on what to read? How much did you read per week? How did you balance reading with writing?

These are really excellent questions, though perhaps not for the reasons one might expect. My own sense is that one of the biggest mistakes that grad students and other early-career people do is to spend way too much time reading. It was certainly a mistake that I made...

What inspires you philosophically?

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

I'd be interested in hearing what people read to get inspired, both in the sense of finding ideas to write about, and in the sense of just generally feeling excited about doing philosophy (ideally, these would be things that inspire you in both senses). There've been some nice posts here and elsewhere stressing the value of working on things that truly capture your imagination, not worrying too much about chasing hot topics etc. But when those debates are much of what's in the journals, where do you go to find inspiration instead?

This is a wonderful question, and I'm very curious to hear from readers!

I find my inspiration to philosophy in many places, and get most of my ideas not from reading but rather from simply living and exploring things about the world that interest me. As an ethicist, my work is mostly inspired by everyday life experience--concerning the questions that I find myself confronted with as a human being, such as (to take just one example) why people should behave ethically when it looks like they might benefit from doing wrong. But also, insofar as my work in ethics intersects with my work in political philosophy, I'm often inspired by current events and world history. One of the things that is inspiring my work the most at the moment is the Revolutions podcast, which is a wonderful (and incredibly entertaining) podcast of the history of political revolutions. The podcast is actually just wrapping up now with its 103rd episode on the Russian Revolution (and that's just the episodes on Russia!), and it has inspired me in countless ways that I plan to explore in upcoming work. I also listen to a bunch of podcasts relating to current events that I also find inspiring, and I love to read biographies of philosophers and scientists, which I also find inspiring and which help provide insight as to how other thinkers saw the world and solved problems (some good recent books I've read include this and this). Finally, when it comes to my work in philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and philosophy of physics, I've been inspired by simply playing videogames and recording and listening to music! 

What about you all? Where do you get your philosophical inspiration and ideas from?

Grappling with too many ideas?

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

How to deal with the flood of philosophical ideas that come to one’s mind? I am a productive scholar (at my career stage). But the reason why I am productive is that I often get philosophical ideas that really disturb me until I get them published or at least written on paper. Whenever I got a new idea, I get genuinely excited about the idea, and I have trouble sleeping at night since the ideas keep me awake until I have written drafts on them. I am also afraid that someone else will publish my ideas before me – which is not good since very often I have new ideas. I do not want to work during office hours (only), the best thing about being a philosopher is that I can work whenever I got the inspiration. But what should I do when I have too many ideas in my head (or new ideas come too often) so that I struggle to do anything else besides writing and thinking?

These are great questions, and I'm curious to hear answers from readers. This is something that I grapple with a lot. I constantly jot down new paper ideas in the note function in my iPhone, and create new folders for them on my computer (just to remind myself of what I might work on). However, I don't actually get to writing papers on most of the ideas, and can take a while to get to the ones I do simply because there are so many of them. How do I decide what to work on? Basically, I try to rank paper ideas in my head in terms of philosophical importance, urgency (viz. how timely the idea is and how important it may be to get it published soon), and finally, confidence in my ability to get the paper done fairly quickly (I don't like to spin my wheels on papers that I'm not clear on how to complete). Finally, I take special care to ensure that I have a fair work-life balance, so that I don't spend all of my time writing and thinking (I work M-F from roughly 9am-5pm, never in the evenings, and never on the weekends). I'm not sure how helpful this will be to the OP, but hope they find it at least somewhat helpful.

What do you all think and do? If you have a flood of philosophical ideas, how do you decide what to work on? How do you deal with the concern that someone else will publish ideas before you? Finally, how do you handle the above while achieving sufficient "work life balance", so that you have time to do things other than writing and thinking?

How do you work during summer?

It's been a while since I've asked the Cocoon a question of my own, but I've been struggling a bit with what my summer work schedule and routine should look like, so here goes: how do you work during summer breaks from teaching? For example, how many hours would you say that you spend on average per day working? How does your typical summer work day break down (in terms of reading, writing, etc.)? How many days per week do you work? And how much time do you take off during summer "for vacation" (or rest and relaxation)? In addition to hearing your answers, it might be great to hear what stage of your career you are in and what kind of institution you are at!

Where do philosophers read?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an early career reader asks:

Recently, I found myself wondering not just how or when other philosophers read, but where they read. My dissertation supervisor once told me he did all of his reading in bed. I know plenty of folks who read at their desks. Personally, if there is something that I need to read, yet know that it is sitting on my desktop as a PDF and I haven't printed it out yet, then I'm not inclined to read it that day. I don't think I absorb material from the screen, sitting at my desk, as well as I do from the printed page sitting on my couch or in the park. But maybe others have good reasons why reading from the screen at the desk works for them.

So, I'm wondering: Where do you read and why is that your preferred spot?

This is a fun little question. While I sometimes read books on the couch and e-copies of articles on my computer in my home office, I normally tend to read outside at the park that I take my dog to, where I alternate reading at table or walking around. I also sometimes read while taking walks around the neighborhood (while, yes, trying to avoid walking into things, sometimes unsuccessfully!). Walking around with my head buried in a book probably looks a bit strange, but whatever. I spend so much time sedentary in front of my computer writing that it's nice to get up and get moving, and I tend to think better while walking anyway. Finally, I do sometimes read in bed, but I normally reserve that time for intellectually lighter things, such as novels or historical biographies, as I don't like to get my mind too active on philosophical problems at night (I have a sleep disorder which makes it hard enough to sleep as it is!).

Anyway, these are just my reading habits. What are yours, and why?

Moving on from your dissertation?

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

Is it usual/acceptable to switch to another research area for a grad student after finishing their thesis? Is it a good idea to mention it in one's research statement?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks. My take here may be a bit controversial. I think that while one should of course try to publish material from one's dissertation, it can be really good to move onto another area after finishing the dissertation. Indeed, I think that focusing too much on similar stuff as dissertation after finishing it can be a bit of a trap, for several reasons.