Last year about this time, Kris McDaniel posted some important questions about the nature of the hiring process in philosophy, particular with respect to APA interviews. I’d like to resurrect one of Kris’s questions for a new round of discussion as well as add another.
I'm interested in when it's legitimate to request that a journal reconsider a manuscript that it has rejected. In particular, I'd be curious when it's appropriate to resubmit a manuscript indicating that you feel the manuscript was not read with sufficient care.
Since this is motivated by my own recent experience, I'll give a general picture of the situation in question (details concealed to protect the innocent). But I sense that this occurs from time to time within philosophy, so perhaps others will find this discussion beneficial.
Because the effort to bring elections to
the Pacific APA only partially succeeded last year, a group of Pacific
APA members plan to introduce new amendments to the By-Laws at the 2008
business meeting. If you would like to sign a petition (by Oct. 31, 2007) so that these amendments can be introduced at the next meeting, see APA Governance.
Today's (Sept. 10) Inside Higher Ed has a news story about Sally Haslanger's paper on Sexism in academic Philosophy
I had a conversation earlier this year with a faculty member who was recently appointed to emeritus status at a research university, a story that says a lot about the research climate in philosophy then and now.
Here is my "unofficial" report on the actions taken at the Pacific Division
Business meeting (April 5, 2007) regarding the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on By-Law
Amendments (for Nomination and Election Procedures of the Pacific Division of
the APA). The report and proposals can be found in the
Proceedings and Addresses of the APA (January
2007) pp. 211-220, or on the APA webpage.
Over at Leiter Reports, there's an interesting discussion of the lack of venues for publishing discussion notes -- see here. The problem is that few journals these days publish discussion notes (which I take to be distinct from full-length articles that discuss some article or book), and those that do tend to publish only discussions of articles appearing in their journal. What is needed is a journal willing to publish discussions of articles appearing in other journals. BEARS did this, but I suspect it was ahead of its times and that that's what resulted in its unfortunate demise.
Now Jamie Dreier has said that "If there's a lot of interest, I suspect the editors (Dave, Julia Driver, Andrei Marmor, I) would be happy to set up a portion of JESP especially for discussion notes."
Well, who's interested? I certainly am!
I'd like to raise what I imagine may be a touchy subject but one worth the attention of those in the philosophy profession: We occasionally hear of efforts to shut down undergraduate philosophy degree programs, but rarely do we hear of efforts to shut down Ph.D. granting philosophy programs. In fact, my own perception is that one or two new philosophy doctoral programs open annually. My question is whether this growth in doctoral programs is healthy, or whether we might conclude that the profession would be healthier with fewer such programs.
Winter is a good time for a bit of navel-gazing. Blogging is an interesting medium of philosophical discourse; its virtues and vices, it seems to me at any rate, are considerably different from those of the more standard, tenure-relevant sorts of philosophical work. Posts and comments have to be relatively short, making their points quickly and clearly, even vividly. The medium doesn’t sustain narrow specialists very well. It doesn’t allow the intense, in-depth kinds of argument that so many articles and book chapters engage in. However, it also prevents the exploration of grand sweeping metaphysical worldviews. All of which prompts the question, which great philosophers of the past would have made good bloggers?
Workers at 13 San Francisco hotels, including the Westin St. Francis where the Pacific APA is scheduled to meet again in 2007, have voted to authorize a strike. See the news stories linked below for an update on the labor situation at our conference hotel (a strike date has not yet been set, but last Thursday, several hundred union members participated in an informational picket outside of the Westin St. Francis):
Employees at 13 hotels vote to authorize a strike
Strike Threatens Rebound in San Francisco Tourism
Last spring, when Pacific division members learned that our Executive committee decided to enter another contract with the St. Francis, I asked (on this blog and elsewhere) whether our Executive Committee has made plans for an alternative meeting place, given the possibility of a strike or of an ongoing labor dispute at our conference hotel in the months leading up to the meeting. I've checked the APA webpages and have not yet found any mention of the labor situation at our conference hotel. If we do not want to find ourselves in the situation we faced in 2005, without plans or alternatives, I would think that planning should begin ASAP. Has anyone heard of any planning within the APA in response to the hotel situation in S.F.? What do folks think the APA should do at this moment?
Recent Comments