The Philosophers' Cocoon

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.

Late night writing?

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

I have recently found that my most productive writing time is between the hours of 9pm and 3am and no matter how hard I try to write during the day.. it is much more difficult. Is writing late at night sustainable?

Great question. I'm not a late night writer, so I can only speculate, but I guess I'm inclined to think that a lot may depend here on one's professional situation. For example, while it may be easy to write late at night in grad school (when one doesn't have many teaching duties), if one is in a full-time faculty or adjunct position(s) where one has to teach relatively early in the morning, then late night writing may create problems. On the other hand, if you can get all of the courses you teach to be scheduled in the afternoon or evening, then you may be able to adjust your entire schedule so that you can work late and sleep in without it leading to any serious problems. But again, I'm just speculating here. Any late night writers able to chime in with a better answer and/or tips?

Writing tips?

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

Do you have any advice for when one's ability to ask questions and talk philosophy outpaces one's ability to write? How to catch up on philosophical writing in that regard? Thank you!

Good question, and I'm curious whether any other grad students or faculty have any helpful tips. I guess the two tips that I would offer in this situation are:

1. Write every day: make yourself write something like 500 words a day, without worrying about editing. Even if it's just sketching out an argument, the more you write, the better you'll get at it.
2. Consider 'talking out' papers: literally, try to give a 'lecture' on what you want to write, recording yourself. If you're really good at talking philosophy, you might be able to take what you've recorded and translate it to paper in written form. Kripke's Naming & Necessity was a series of lectures. None of us are Kripke, of course, but if you're good at talking philosophy, this approach might be helpful.

Anyway, these are just a few simple suggestions. What do you all think? It would be great to hear from others who have grappled with this issue successfully. Which strategies did yo find to be helpful?

Undergraduate research assistants?

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

My university provides funding for research assistants. But, our philosophy department only has an undergraduate program. The university also encourages faculty to mentor undergraduates. Having an undergraduate research assistant would be a great way to mentor students. With all of that in mind: do you have any suggestions I how I might use an undergraduate research assistant well?

This is a great question! I've never had an undergraduate research assistant, so I'm not sure what to advise. But I'm curious to hear from readers, especially those who have had undergrad assistants before. One reader submitted the following response:

Use them in a manner that will enable them to develop real and useful skills. So design a project in which they could genuinely contribute, not necessarily as an author, but as a research assistant.

What do you all think?

Transitioning to a new AOS before tenure?

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

I am in my first year of a TT position and I am wondering how (or whether) I can or should transition from my current area of research to a new one. I still find my current AOS relatively interesting, but I don't feel passionate about it. I feel much more interested in doing research in another AOS that I have little background in, but it seems like a bad idea to transition before I have tenure (because publishing and letters of recommendation for tenure). I would love advice on how to gradually transition, especially from those who have done something similar, so that perhaps I can make the shift over time while still meeting my tenure requirements. I am already planning on doing the most obvious thing, which is to teach content related to my new area of interest. But maybe there are other things I could or should do?

This is an excellent question. Another reader submitting the following reply:

It is imperative that you get tenure, after the struggle to get a TT job. So, be prudent. I was on the job market long enough - 5 years - such that I had a number of good publications (2 PhilSci papers, 2 PSA, 1 Synthese and others) Further, my first TT job was at a place where I was already upon being hired the most (or second most) productive scholar. I had already begun to publish in new areas. If you are in that situation, transitioning to new areas of research is easy. But if you have never published in this new area, perhaps divide your research time. But it is imperative to get tenure.

And a second reader added:

[L]ife is short so why not? Speaking from my own experience, I transitioned to another area as soon as I started my TT job, and this felt like the force of nature. But I guess we will both need to publish into the transition, in other words, make the transition by publishing. It won't be too difficult, I think, given your publishing experience and your passion in the new area.

These comments are both good, but personally I think a lot may depend here on what kind of job the OP is in. I've heard that at (some) R1s, what tenure and promotion (T&P) committees really care about is whether you are a "top name" in your AOS by the time you come up for tenure. If this is the kind of institution the OP is at, then transitioning to a new AOS could be an immense risk, as it might spread them too thin, distracting them from really making their mark in either AOS (the old one or the new one). On the other hand, if they are at an institution that just cares about publications (e.g. 1 publication a year in good journals), then it may not be so risky to transition to a new AOS...as long as they are publishing. Personally, if it were me--and I did publish outside of my original AOS leading up to tenure at the latter type of institution--I would probably keep my primary focus on my original AOS while beginning to publish occasionally in the new AOS.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear both from people who have transitioned AOSs prior to tenure (how did it work out?), as well as from people who have served on T&P committees either at the department or college level (what kind of institution are you at, and how would a candidate for tenure fare if they shifted their area of focus?). 

Critical reading tips?

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

I’m sometimes wondering whether my approach to reading papers is not critical and active enough, and I think that many weaknesses in other people’s positions slip my attention. I would be interested to hear about your approaches to reading critically. I’m most interested in how actively you engage with the literature, and whether you follow a more or less strict thought process (and if so, what is it?).

Here is what I usually end up doing when I read philosophy: I read a couple of papers that discuss a certain problem or position. But in doing so, I’m usually not following a certain thought process. For example, I usually wouldn’t reconstruct an argument, check its validity, and reflect carefully on each premise, without first having the intuition that it is fallacious, and I usually don’t actively try to come up with counterexamples to general claims that seem unsuspicious to me. Rather, I read until something strikes me as implausible or fallacious. That is, I wait for an intuition that a claim is false or an argument invalid. I’m sure that I would find more things to criticize if I were to read more actively. But on the other hand, this is extremely time-consuming, and the time I have for research is very limited. So, how do you read critically? Do you have tips on how to read more critically without wasting time?

For my part, I don't have a formula here. I just read and if anything pops out to me as implausible, inadequately defended, or invalid, then I'll stop and consider it more carefully. I also like to consider what foundational assumptions are generally accepted in a given literature (not just in this paper or that paper, but across a variety of papers) and ask whether I think they are good background assumptions. But, beyond this, I just read and let the critical part happen organically. 

What about you all? Do any of you have tips or particular strategies you find useful for critical reading?

Tools for keeping track of projects?

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

Can anyone recommend tools (ex: a spreadsheet template or app) they have found helpful for keeping track of multiple writing projects? Like most academics, I currently have lots of different, "big" projects, and I find myself spinning wheels going from one to the other trying to figure out what needs to be done next when. I know it helps to break big projects into daily and weekly goals, and I'm wondering if there is a tool that lets you break down several projects and plot them on a calendar, so that I can look and say "ok, tomorrow I need to revise section 2 of the R & R and draft the introduction to ch.3 of my dissertation."

Good question! Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions, as I don't keep track of things anywhere. ;) But I expect that some of you are more well-organized than I, so I'm curious to hear which kinds of tools are out there.

Work habits on the tenure track?

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

As a (very) early career person, it would really help me to know how later career people spend (or spent, when they were on the tenure-track) their average week. How much time to you dedicate to writing? How do you make sure you are setting aside the right amount of time for editing / pipeline type work (responding to reviews, getting papers submitted) vs creating type work (developing new projects, drafting new paper sections)? I'm finding it difficult to navigate this and am curious if others have systems that work for him. I expect this varies widely, but it would still be helpful to hear about others' experiences.

These are very good questions, and I am very curious to hear how readers respond. It is difficult for me to give a simple answer in my own case, as during my time on the tenure-track (and post-tenure) my work habits have varied tremendously. A lot depends, I think, on how in need of publications one is. When I needed to publish a lot, if I had a two-day-a-week teaching schedule, I would basically spend the other three days of the week writing. On the other hand, during times that I didn't need to publish a lot or had a three or four day a week teaching schedule, there have been entire semesters when I've gotten very little writing done--and, in any case, I get the vast majority of my writing done during winter and summer breaks. In general, I've found it pretty difficult to shift-gears between teaching and research on "teaching days", and have friends who report the same thing--though maybe things are different in R1 jobs where one has a very light teaching load.

In terms of how I partition my writing time between pipeline-type work (editing pre-existing papers, completing R&Rs, etc.) and drafting new work, I'd say it's roughly 50/50. On writing days, I'll usually spend the first half of my day (say, 9am-1pm) drafting new work, and then the afternoon (2-5pm) on pipeline stuff. I will say that my sense is that it is vital to always be drafting new things. Most of the people that I know who are the most successful (including in terms of receiving tenure) are people who consistently publish a lot, and hence, always have quite a few things under review at any given time--which requires producing a lot of new work pretty consistently. 

But these are just my habits and experiences. What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from those on the tenure-track who are pretenure, but also (for obvious reasons) from those who received tenure. What does your average work week look like, and how do you partition your time between teaching and research, and between drafting new work and work in your pipeline?

Learning how not to rely on one's PhD advisor

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

I don't think I'm alone in this, and I'm looking for advice from those who've gone through it or something like it.

I have an excellent relationship with my advisor. With his guidance, my mediocre ideas become significantly less mediocre, and even, on occasion, quite interesting. I've worked with other professors and, to be honest, we're on the same wavelength in ways that I haven't experienced with others.

While I'm incredibly grateful to be working with them, I'm also a bit anxious about what's to come. At some point, I'll move on, ideally to a job, and it will be less and less appropriate for me to lean on my advisor to lift up my work and make it more intelligible. What can I do to prepare for this? Should I just hold on as long as possible? Will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?

These are very good questions. Timmy J. submitted the following response:

My own adviser told me that most of the point of grad school is to get voices in your head. You get your adviser’s voice is your head. You get some of your cohortmate’s voices in your head. Maybe you get frege or Kant or whoever’s voice in your head. Then you leave but the voices stay and some large portion of the help they could give before they can still give later, albeit in a disembodied way. Yeah yeah it’s weird and mystical and whatever. But it sorta helps me deal, and maybe it’ll help you too.

This seems right to me (I still bear in mind many lessons that I learned from my advisor). However, I don't think they are the only way to handle the OP's situation--and I also think it can be critical to develop one's own voice, as it were, becoming one's 'own philosopher' (there are, for example, some preconceptions about research that I was taught in graduate school that I now firmly reject). In any case, what other strategies are there? One strategy that I have seen is for people to slowly wean themselves off of their advisor, staying in close contact with them for their first few years out of graduate school, meeting with them via Zoom, sharing work, etc. My sense is that this can work if one's advisor is a caring and conscientious person, particularly given that advisors can want their former students to succeed. Not all advisors are like this, however--and so, one might very well find oneself 'ripped away' from being able to rely on them. In that case, my sense is that one's situation can be very much akin to being thrown into the deep end of a pool and simply having to learn how to swim. 

Long story short, I don't think there's just one way to answer the OP's questions. I think a lot depends on you (are you 'naturally independent' or someone who really needs support networks?), on your advisor (are they willing to stay in close contact and be helpful once you graduate?), and on context (is your first job out of graduate school in a large research department or small department with high teaching loads?). Because things can differ so much, I'm very curious to hear from readers. How did you handle the kinds of issues the OP asks about? Did your strategy work well or not?

Finally, I do want to say a few things about the OP's third and final question: "will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?". My sense is that you probably will. My own advisor once told me in graduate school that at some point, one undergoes a transformation of sorts. You begin to realize that, whereas for your entire academic career as a student, you had to satisfy your professors with your work, now the main person you need to satisfy is yourself. Sure, you need to convince referees to publish your work. But, at some point, you'll get a sense of how to do that while being the kind of philosopher you want to be. And, in my experience, it can be a really wonderful experience, generating not only a kind of confidence in your work, but indeed, a kind of confidence that doesn't depend so much on others for validation (which, I think, can be a really liberating experience). But again, this is just my experience. What's yours?

Alex Guerrero (Rutgers) on research methods

Over at Daily Nous last week, Alex Guerrero (Rutgers) shared some really helpful advice for applying to PhD programs. But, in addition to being helpful for grad applicants, I actually think his remarks on writing samples may be helpful for graduate students and other early-career scholars who are struggling to publish. Here are the key passages that I have in mind:

Let me begin by saying some possibly controversial things about how good philosophy comes into existence. I’ll begin by describing a method that rarely works. First, start with an interest in some topic that has been discussed a lot by philosophers. Second, read everything on that topic, over a long time, keeping kind of neutral notes on the views throughout. Third, try to think of something new to say. Disaster!

Maybe some people can do it that way, but it’s very hard to find your voice and keep your passion and energy throughout that process. Instead, you learn about the 18 moves that have been made, the 14 positions in logical space that have been occupied (like tanks running over flowers), and you can maybe spot another 2 or 3 that haven’t been occupied. You can write a paper that takes up one of those, but often you aren’t really excited about that position, it’s just kind of left over. And maybe for a reason…

Much better: start with something that is bugging you or disturbing you. Maybe it’s an actual thing in the world that is happening. Maybe it’s an idea that was presented in a class that just seems wrong somehow. Maybe it’s some text or topic that seems philosophically interesting, but which no one is talking about. Maybe it’s just a way of looking at things that comes to you from who knows where, while your mind wanders around (like flowers growing over tanks).

What I find so interesting about this is that the first method--the method that Guerrero says rarely works--is the one that I initially adopted when trying (mostly in vain) to come up with a viable PhD dissertation topic. After my comprehensive exams, I spent something like one-and-a-half years doing just that: reading everything on moral motivation, taking copious notes, and trying to come up with something new. It was a disaster. I found myself in exactly the position Guerrero describes: I knew the "14 positions in logical space" that everyone had already occupied, as well as the 2 or 3 that hadn't because, well, those positions were obviously wrong. So, I couldn't come up with anything! It was like running into a brick wall, day after day after day. Then, I did what Guerrero says to do instead. I found something that was bugging me. I read Rawls again, and noted that he never did nonideal theory in any kind of systematic way, and that no Rawlsians really had either. So, I immediately had an idea--to use Rawls's machinery to develop a nonideal theory of justice--and wrote a dissertation on it. Just like that!

Anyway, it's really amazing what a simple change in research methods like this can do, so I figured that I would not only share it--as I expect there are probably grad students and early-career philosophers who are struggling to come up with dissertation ideas and publishable work. I also figured it might be good to see (1) whether other readers have found Guerrero's approach to research beneficial, and (2) whether you have any research tips of your own! Any readers care to weigh in what you've found helpful in coming up with good research ideas or otherwise being productive as a researcher?

Tips for (pre-tenure) research leave?

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

I am newish assistant professor at a school with a medium-level teaching load, where I am fortunate to get a guaranteed pre-tenure research leave (one semester at full salary or two semesters at reduced salary). I would love to hear tips from readers about how to make the best use of this time. Here are some specific questions. Where might I look for funding to support the longer leave? And then, assuming I can swing that financially, what are the advantages and disadvantages of staying put vs. going somewhere else as a visiting scholar? At present I am slowly recovering from burnout related to making a number of demanding life transitions during the pandemic and I am instinctively resistant to any more upheaval. But I fear I might regret not taking the opportunity to travel, especially since I am not an a research-intensive institution and do not have much local accountability for my scholarship.

Good questions! As far as funding is concerned, visiting fellowships seem to me to be one obvious answer--but as the OP notes, moving for a fellowship could involve quite a bit of upheaval (moving to a new place). So, it could be good to hear from visiting fellows/scholars whether it is worth it. Grants are another obvious source of funding, though they can take a lot of time to apply for and be hard to get. So, I'm not sure what to recommend here, especially given that I've never had a research leave myself. Finally, in terms of making the best use of one's time, I guess I expect that a lot turns here on how one works best--but, in my case, I find it's usually a good idea to have an idea of which projects I want to write on before I have time set aside for it. My guess is that one way to "waste" a research leave is not to have any good idea what to work on, and then spend most of the leave reading and trying to come up with ideas. So, I guess I'd say: have a clear picture of which projects you want to work on and (roughly) how you think the projects should go. Then spend the research leave focusing on writing, etc.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? For obvious reasons, it would be great to hear tips from people who have had research leaves themselves (both tips on things to do, but also potentially things to avoid!). 

What are standards of co-authorship?

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

What are the standards of honest co-authorship in philosophy? I have recently been asking around to fellow grad students, and in one case, one person reported drafting the entire paper by themselves, receiving feedback by their supervisors, and being asked to add their names as co-authors. In another case, the student recounted a similar story, except this time they acknowledged that the more senior person's ideas were what made the paper worth submitting to a journal in the first place, even though the student wrote the draft entirely by themselves. In a third case, the student researched and wrote all but the introductory/'background' sections of the paper, but the paper is still billed as an even co-authorship. Are these students being exploited, or is this normal?

These are excellent questions. Given that co-authorship is relatively uncommon in philosophy (but seemingly increasing!), I'm hoping we can have a good discussion. One reader submitted the following response:

I work on authorship, and I have co-authored with a number of people, junior, senior, and peers. This is a complex set of questions you ask. Further, one cannot reliably know what happened if you just hear one person's story. The other co-authors might see things very differently. If the various students you mention feel exploited, then they need to talk with an ethics person on campus, that is, someone involved in research integrity. At many universities there is usually a committee. But they can initially talk with a member of such a committee.

I think this follow-up is broadly correct: co-authorship is complex, and as a spouse of someone who works in a STEM field, I've experienced many of these complexities second-hand. My sense is that in science, there doesn't seem to be any exact standard of how to settle co-authorship (including the order of co-authors listed). Instead, there appear to be some general rules of thumb that co-authors often broadly negotiate these matters according to, but which are not always respected (and indeed, in some cases--all too many cases, in fact--abused). Allow me to explain, and then open things up for discussion.

Should dissertations be cited?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another reader submitted the following response: 

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

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

Extra financial (e.g. research) support?

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

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

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

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

Dealing with undercitation in philosophy? (Guest-post by Ten-Herng Lai)

Ten-Herng Lai (Australian National University) writes in:

I understand that pretty much the same issue was discussed here around 2015, but I think it is important that we bring it up again. I believe that literature review and under-citation is a problem in academic philosophy. Here I can only provide some personal experience as a journal reviewer. It may be that I’m not being a very good reviewer. I’m open to this possibility, and if so, please simply point it out.

I am a very junior scholar, but was fortunate enough to publish a paper in a decent journal on an issue that proved to be quite topical. So I get these invitations to review, several of them. Last time I counted, there are at least 20+ papers published in print or online first on this topic since 2019. A good portion of papers I reviewed cites almost none of them, as if the issue was uncharted territory. Some papers have very good insight, but fail to engage with the literature at all. Some papers just reinvent the wheel. Occasionally there are some papers that make good proposals but would be much better if taken certain points others have made into consideration.

Here’s what I did as a reviewer. I would encourage them to at least say “Archer (2020) Bard (2018) Cleric (2019) Druid (Online First) have all suggested certain solutions, but mine is different and covers an ignored but important point.” Better is that they say why their point is better, or at least distinguish their own point from those made by others. Sometimes I suggest that they can simply cite and rephrase a “respond to objection” someone else already made, instead of writing a separate response to some objection that has already been responded to like 5 or 6 times in different papers. Some more particular points may be that the author(s)’s solution can be combined with someone else’s solution to become even better.

I hope what I did as a reviewer helped to improve the quality of those papers, even if they were not accepted in those particular journals. I sincerely believe that doing some literature review and actually engaging with some previous papers enhances the quality of papers. (And I admit sometimes I see some papers published that fail to do so, and are of very bad quality, e.g., proposing points that have been utterly knocked down by previous publications. I don’t know how they went past the reviewers in those journals...) I also believe that there seems to be some sort of disrespect going on when not engaging in previous publications enough. Probably it’s some sort of arrogance, believing that one has “discovered” something new, just like (though obviously less serious than) how Columbus “discovered” America and how Captain Cook “discovered” Australia.

I agree that this is a problem, and have heard other people say similar things. I also agree think that what Lai did here as a reviewer is right. But this raises an obvious question: what else can/should be done to address under-citation in philosophy? I have two ideas, and am curious what other readers think, including whether readers have other suggestions, as well.

Getting well-known people to read drafts?

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

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

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

Starting v. finishing papers?

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

I have questions about writing papers. Specifically:

how do I finish them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to juggle projects effectively?

A reader writes in:

I'm looking for some advice about how to juggle different projects.  I put together a draft, sent it to a few folks for comment, and I received back one set of thorough comments already.  I'm wondering: Is it better to stick with one paper all the way through til it's ready to be submitted somewhere? --the idea being I have the material in my head so it's good to work on it while I have it all well-rehearsed.  Or is it better to sit on some of those comments and work up a different paper draft altogether so that when I do come back to the first project, I'll be looking at the comments and my own work with fresher eyes?  Bear in mind, (1) I have zero pubs and (2) I'm not talking about drafts that are submission ready nor am I talking about drafts that have been commented on by journal reviewers.  Maybe I'm asking a broader question related to a fruitful publishing program: is it better to complete one thing at a time start to finish or to have several papers going at any given time?

These are really great questions. Although everyone works differently, my sense is that it may be a mistake to focus on just one project at a time. For better or worse, academia has become progressively more competitive. Job-candidates seem to have more publications than ever before, and so to be competitive on the market (and then, for tenure) one must publish quite a bit. And unfortunately, focusing on just one project at a time doesn't seem to me to be all that conducive to this--as to publish a lot, one has to get a lot out for review, and to get a lot out for review, one has to (I think) be drafting and revising multiple projects at any given time. Maybe this is wrong, and if so, I'd be curious to hear from readers who work on just one project at a time and are successful that way. In any case, I don't work that way. Allow me to briefly explain how I work (and why), and then open things up for comments.

Maintaining a (coherent) research program?

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

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

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

How (much) to read (and take notes)?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'inexperienced scholar' writes:

Standard advice for paper writing is not to let reading keep you from writing. However, I often choose to write about topics that involve extensive research, partly because I don't have any time constraints on my writing and I write out of a love of the craft. Right now, I have my outline and some of the paper written, but being still new to the process, I wonder how much reading is too much and how much is too little. Do professional philosophers take extensive notes on the literature they read? I tend to engage with lesser known scholars in the field as well as the big names, but I must admit that I have a compulsion to memorize and extensively document what I read, some of it primary lit and much of it secondary. Any advice as to how to manage reading in a way that is conducive to proper research, while not drowning oneself in papers?

This is a good query, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Allow me to share a few brief thoughts before opening things up for comments.

How do you decide what to read?

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

I'm a second-year PhD student, and I often struggle with deciding on what to read at all, how to prioritize the reading assingments I give myself, and how thoroghly I should read a text. As my time and my ability to focus are limited resources, I often find myself doubting whether a paper or a book I began to read is really worth the time, and whether I should rather read something else instead. These doubts occur quite frequently, and I begin to jump back and forth between papers and rarely finish one. Maybe one could describe this as a kind of fear of missing out on the most important readings. I would like to know how other people approach these problems.

This is a good query. In my experience, one of the traps that graduate students can run into is reading too much. Of course, it's important to read, so that you have a good grasp of the literature. But when I was in graduate school, I knew fellow grads who spent most of their time reading and little to no time writing--and it very much stifled their progress through the program and in publishing. So, it really is crucial to find the right balance. But what is the right balance, and what are some practical tips for finding it? I'm curious to hear what readers think. Obviously, I'm not a grad student, so my own approach may not generalize to the OP's situation. But here, very roughly, is how I go about things...

What you 'should have read' & are glad you did?

Last week, we had a fun, guilt-free thread where readers shared examples of philosophical works that they are "supposed to have read" but haven't. This week, I'd like to have another thread that turns this on its head: what philosophical work(s) are you supposed to have read that you were (perhaps unexpectedly) glad you did, and why?

I'll start things off! I have to confess that until a week or two ago, I had never read most of Alasdair McIntyre's After Virtue. I had read small bits and parts of it before, mostly because those bits had been cited in the literature and were relevant to things I was working on. But I had never sat down before and read the book from beginning to end--and I'm glad I finally did. Like some of the book's critics, I don't quite buy the book's positive argument. But what I found really insightful, deep, and plausible is the book's negative critique of contemporary ethics and the implications that the problems with contemporary ethics have had in modern society. I also very much enjoyed MacIntyre's writing style and manner in which he situates the book's philosophical theorizing in history.

To simplify greatly--and really, I encourage readers to check out the book itself--McIntyre's basic idea is that throughout most of human history, 'the moral' wasn't taken to be a distinct category of reasons or requirements (indeed, he argues, some historical languages haven't even had words that correspond to the modern notion of 'morality'). Rather, prior to the Enlightenment, the fundamental normative notion was to live a good life, where this conception of 'morality' (as it were) in no way divorced 'moral reasons' from descriptive psychological motivations or posited any 'is-ought gap' (McIntyre gives a rather quick yet masterful analysis of how, absent the modern philosophical insistence there is such a gap, there are plenty of intuitively valid inferences from what is to what ought to be). McIntyre then argues that the modern philosophical insistence of schisms between is and ought (qua Hume) and between moral and non-moral reasons (qua Kant) have been bad for moral philosophy and practice, by pushing them in two opposing directions: in the direction of mind-independent moral realism, on the one hand, and emotivism on the other. His critique here--again, to simplify greatly--is that both of these doctrines are problematic, turning morality either into a set of essentially contestable moral intuitions about what is right and good (here, MacIntyre notes how many modern moral debates appear to be based upon incommensurable intuitions), or mere appeals to emotion. 

Whatever you think of these negative arguments (and you might not be convinced!), I found the way that MacIntyre defends them both plausible and exciting to read. This is just one recent example of a philosophical work that I was 'supposed to have read' but hadn't. There are many others, as well. Another, less recent example is Charles Mills' The Racial Contract, which I read for the first time about nine years ago. I remember reading the book distinctly because (A) I had surprisingly never been exposed to it either as an undergraduate or graduate student, and (B) when I read it, I found Mills' account of how seemingly anti-racist liberal ideals can serve in practice to uphold white supremacy enlightening and important. While I'm not persuaded by Mills' longstanding critique of Rawls and ideal theory (see here, here, and here), I nevertheless found The Racial Contract to be an exciting read as well, one that has influenced me deeply as a researcher and teacher ever since.

Anyway, these are the two examples that most obviously spring to mind for me. What about you? Which work that you were 'supposed to have read' did you find exciting and important when you finally did get around to reading it, and why?

Should philosophers lead interdisciplinary projects? (Guest post by Mandi Astola)

One of the Cocoon's readers, Mandi Astola (PhD Candidate, Eindhoven University of Technology), submitted the following guest post:

We are doing interdisciplinarity wrong

A lot of young philosophers are being educated to become interdisciplinary philosophers. And many philosophers scoff at that. Journals that publish interdisciplinary work tend to be seen as less prestigious, as are papers with many co-authors (which is what often happens in interdisciplinary work). There is a sense in which interdisciplinarity can involve a “watering down” of philosophy, which philosophers don’t love.

However, even for all the negatives: the rise of the interdisciplinary philosopher is probably a good thing in the long run. The ecological, technological and political crises that we are facing cannot be solved with single disciplines. It is important that philosophers learn to talk with other disciplines. However, I think that the way in which we are doing it is often counterproductive.

Before I tell you why it’s counterproductive, let me explain how I came to think this. I have worked on an interdisciplinary project, in the role of an ethicist. I also took part in writing a project proposal, where I would have a part as an ethicist. Apart from that, I have been in close contact with various other projects where there was an ethics component. I have always felt a little dissatisfied with the place of philosophy in these projects.

What haven't you read, and why?

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

Lots of my philosophriends report that they're embarrassed about having not read X. Sometimes X is something that philosophers generally are supposed to have read. Sometimes it's just something that philosophers of one sort or another are supposed to have read.

I also feel this way. But rationally, I think we should all get over these feelings. So here's my proposal: let's have a confessional thread. It should be used exclusively for confession (no shaming!). Anyone who wants to can write in with philosophical work(s) they think they're supposed to have read but haven't. Hopefully this helps us all realize that we're ok.

This could be fun. I think it could be interesting to hear both what people haven't read, but also why. Is it simply that you haven't had enough time? Or is it some other reason, such as that you're just not interested in the topic or the literature surrounding it for some reason? Remember, no shaming other commenters! (Also, if you do share a reason why you haven't read something, please be sure to respect the Cocoon's supportive mission).

How to develop new research projects?

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

I'm an early career academic (in my first job post PhD). I've recently finished a couple of drafts based on PhD chapters and sent them to journals, and now I don't really know what to do next! This is the first time since my PhD began where I have had to effectively start from scratch. I'd love to know how academics navigate this - when faced with a blank page, how do you decide what to start working on next? What criteria do you use? My job is only temporary, so there is also the pressure of producing enough publications to make me a good candidate for jobs in a few years time.

These are great questions that, in my experience, many early-career people have. Indeed, I struggled with them earlier in my career myself! One reader submitted the following reply:

I have been a relatively successful researcher - for whatever that is worth. I would recommend that you extend your research into a neighboring topic, that is, investigate something near to what your thesis was on. Alternatively, go deeper into a topic that you have written on in your dissertation. You need to build on your strengths, and get some publications under your belt. And the best way to place them in good journals is to develop depth and build on your strengths. 

This seems like good advice, but I think there are other options too. In the past, I've shared some of the ways that I've found work for me in terms of developing new projects. For example, in this post, I shared the following three suggestions:

Norms for citing oneself?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader ('Narcissus (young and not established)') asks: Is it lame to cite yourself? One reader submitted the following response: 

The only reason to cite yourself is if it adds to the support of the argument. And please only cite published papers. The problem with self-citing is that is too often abused.

I think the first point here should go without saying, as that's just a general norm of citation: cite things relevant to the paper's argument. And, in general, I think the second point (about only citing published papers) is right, though I think there are scenarios in which citing unpublished work is fine (note: this is often done in the sciences, where preprints posted to the ArXiv are often cited prior to journal publication). Still, I'm curious what readers think: what norms do you think should govern self-citation?

Circulating unpublished work?

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

I have a rather silly question. Every once in a while, I hear that a paper has become quite popular prior to publication: the manuscript has been circulated and the work has been extensively discussed. I get that a paper becoming so popular requires a nice combination of luck and prestige in addition to a very nice paper. However, from the popular-prior-to-publication phenomenon I infer that there must be a tradition, in some philosophy circles at least, to circulate papers rather widely before publication. It just occurred to me that no one has ever sent me an unpublished work that is not the sender's own. So my question is, what are the norms for circulating papers where you work? Under what circumstances have others sent you a third person's unpublished papers? Under what circumstances would you be willing to have yours circulated, and how would you go about that?

These are excellent questions. I think the basic norms for circulating unpublished work are rooted in the author's consent. For example, suppose an author has posted the paper on their website, or on PhilPapers, or on SSRN, and so on. In all of these cases, absent some kind of disclaimer by their (such as the author writing 'Do not circulate or cite' on the paper or on their website), then I think it's fine to circulate the piece. The author has, after all, put it out there for circulation. This is very different, I think, than circulating an unpublished piece the author has sent you directly (e.g. by email). In this kind of case, I would think it wrong to circulate the unpublished work without asking. Sure, maybe the author should tell you when they send it to you, 'Please don't circulate this', but of course sometimes people can forget things like this--and the right thing to do in these cases, I think, is to play it safe out of respect for the author. For my part, I don't think I have ever once been sent an unpublished paper by anyone other than the author themselves--and my sense is that, when papers are widely circulated, they tend to be circulated either by the author or else shared widely from the author's website (where, again, the author has chosen to share them publicly).

Anyway, this is just my sense of the relevant norms, and they seem to me to be common sense. But what do you all think?

 

What next after finishing a major project?

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

I'm in the very lucky position that I have a permanent job in the UK on a teaching and research contract. Before this, I had a series of post-docs in Europe and the UK. I finished my PhD in 2012 and I recently published a monograph which rounded off the big research project that my PhD started.

I suppose what I'd like help with is: what next? I'm really struggling to develop and frame a 'second' mid-career research project. Because of the UK system, there is pressure to come up with projects that can result in research grants and books. I generate lots of ideas for projects, but none seem to stick. So how have other people found their second major project and brought it to fruition?

Great question, and I'm curious to hear how readers answer! Here are a few quick thoughts of my own.

Logic resources?

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

I've always struggled with logic. I've worked my way through a few logic texts now, and every time I forget most of it shortly after and then wonder, 'what was the point of that?'. I don't enjoy logic and I'm not mathematically inclined. But some areas of my field (metaphysics) are heavy on the logic and it would be nice to be able to keep up. Does anyone know of any resources (books, software programs, etc.) that can help, or just advice in general?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I was in your boat when I started my PhD. But I was forced to confront my distaste for formal logic because my program has a logic exam for 1st year PhD students. A few people from my cohort purchased 'Language, Proof, and Logic' by Barker-Plummer, Barwise, and Etchemendy. It comes with software that is useful for learning translations, truth tables, and derivations. The derivation software is especially useful because it tells you whenever you're taking an invalid step. I think you'd have to order a new copy to ensure that you get the software / get software that has an unused registration key. That said, it looks like it costs about $80 USD, so I'd certainly try to get a second opinion. I know it was useful for me, but perhaps more useful was the study group that I went through the book with, so the software may not have been indispensable.

Nice suggestion! Do any other readers have suggestions of their own?

Experiences and tips for co-authoring?

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

I was wondering whether this blog might be a good outlet for graduate students/faculty to detail and describe their experiences with co-authoring and collaborating on papers and symposia. What worked well? What didn’t? Who approached who with the idea to co-author/collaborate? How well did you all know each other before the project? Did you work on similar areas or different areas (and then pursue a project at the intersection of your differing areas)? Any general advice on this process?

These are great questions, and I look forward to hearing how readers answer. I have co-authored four times, and by and large I have found it to be a very positive experience. Here are some quick answers to the OP's questions:

What worked well?: I found co-authoring to be an excellent way to write papers in areas a bit outside of my areas of expertise. In half of the papers that I've co-authored, I had a paper idea that I thought promising, but I didn't have the technical background in the relevant area. Seeking out co-authors with expertise filled in those gaps, as it were. In the other two cases, I did have expertise in the area but had been corresponding with co-authors with related ideas. So, we teamed up!

What didn't?: For the most part, stuff went very well. In one case, I didn't know how to use the drafting software (LaTex) that my co-authors used, so I found that a bit difficult. In one other case, the paper I was working on with a co-author didn't really pan out. 

Who approached who, and how well did we know each other?: My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think in three out of the four cases I approached my eventual co-authors. Also, in three out of the four cases, the collaborations were with people who were formerly acquaintances--people who I had either met a few times or interacted with online, but otherwise didn't know very well. In the fourth case, I did know the person very well beforehand. 

Did you work on similar areas or different areas?: In two out of the four cases, I worked in similar areas as my co-author(s). In the other two cases, I worked in quite different areas from my co-author(s), but we teamed up because the project was at the intersection between our areas of focus. 

Any general advice on this process?: Here are a few tips...

A. Be up front about and negotiate clear timelines and expectations: For example, if you are on the job market or coming up for tenure, and you need to get the paper out and publish relatively quickly, my sense is that it is probably a good idea to let your co-authors know this, and see if they can commit to a mutually acceptable timeline for working on things. First, I think a prearranged 'deadline' for getting the paper done can be good. Second, I think it's a good idea to try to hammer out who will do what. In half of my co-authored papers, I served as the primary drafter, and my co-author served as a 'second author', revising (and adding in content) after the fact. In the other two cases, we split things up, with each author serving as the primary drafter for different parts of the paper. For what it is worth, my sense is that both can work well, but (for obvious reasons) I think it can be more efficient to designate one person as a 'first author' responsible for most of the drafting.  

B. Be understanding with co-authors: everyone has different commitments, especially during Covid (where they or family members can get sick, bogged down in teaching, etc.). Co-authoring may take longer than solo-authoring in this regard, but I think it can be worth it!

C. Be a responsible co-author: my spouse works in a STEM field where co-authoring is the norm, and sometimes one or more co-authors can be slow or non-responsive. Sometimes people just get bogged down, and for whatever reason aren't able to keep up with the prearranged schedule (if you had one). This is okay: it happens, and nobody is perfect! The key thing is just to be open and communicative, and to do your best to be a good co-author. Finally, on that note, sometimes a co-authored paper just doesn't quite come together, just as can happen with solo-authored papers. If you have doubts about the paper, just be honest with your co-author(s) about it. 

D. There's no single right way to co-author: my spouse regularly meets with co-authors via Zoom. Me? I've done all four of my co-authored pieces entirely over email, via email communication and communication in paper drafts (i.e. side comments). I prefer the latter because I think I work best on paper. But some people like to talk things through in person. Again, I think the best way forward is simply to find common ground.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of co-authoring, but these are just my tips and experiences. What are yours?