There is a discussion on the Daily Nous on whether having some papers at top-5 journals or having a monograph at a prestigious publisher is the best measure of quality in a job candidate or someone who goes up for tenure or promotion. Discussions such as these are diagnostic for our profession, which I worry is in decline (
I’m not in philosophy but in an adjacent field (religious studies and theology), but this feels very true for my field as well. I know that so many of my colleagues have stopped reading journal articles, in large part because they find them irrelevant. But it’s interesting that this doesn’t necessarily stop them from publishing in journals. And I think that the same thing could be said about much of the book publishing that happens at academic presses; we academics keep pushing ourselves to publish books at presses that feel prestigious enough, while also increasingly feeling like these books aren’t relevant to us anymore... I know a lot of academics who’ve just stopped feeling as if their writing is worth doing anymore. I get almost no professional benefit from the writing I do here, on Substack. But I have to say that it’s made writing fun for me again. And it’s a space where I don’t police my own tone, to fit into the genre of academic writing.
Thanks for writing this! I, for my part, rarely find the most interesting papers in Philosophical Review or Journal of Philosophy, or for that matter, in Ethics or Philosophy & Public Affairs. The average quality of papers is probably higher in those journals, but still, it happens more often that I find really original and interesting papers in Ergo, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, or Journal of Value Inquiry.
This is my favorite passage from Henry Suso's "Horologium Sapientiae" (N.B. this is right after "the Disciple" leaves the mathematicians and astronomers who are just sitting around "playing with their astrolabes"):
"What the Disciple found in this mansion amazed him, and made him want to laugh. For
there was what seemed like a silver ball that had fallen among them from the sky, rolling
around, which by its beauty and costliness made all of them gaze on it in love and
longing, for it promised glory and honor to those who could possess it. And when one outstanding teacher had it in his hand, […] many, seeing this and envying it, tried in every
way they might to snatch the ball from his hand. Now they threw shar p darts at him, and
now hard stones, but it did not help them, for they were inflicting astonishing hurts on
themselves, and wounding themselves with their own darts. When this ball bounced round
among them, those who were present were at pains, not indeed to grasp it for themselves, but rather to do all they could to knock it out of each other's hands, and steal
it away and advertise that someone else did not have it. They offered no explanations of
what it was, but they wrapped it up in their own implications. And there were […]
astonishing arguments and uproars and contradictions about this ball, and in the minds of
many who were listening this produced great boredom and distaste. For they derived no
benefit from these things […]. And some of them mocked the others, and they wore themselves out with wordy warfare, and attacked each other and sparred like fighting cocks."
Economics shares the top 5 problem (economists don't do books), with some of the same results. The problems are mitigated by the presence of lots of field journals. And there are plenty of outside options.
Still, I think the profession has become more scholastic in the pejorative sense of the term.
Once again you’ve touched on a topic I’ve previously written about, although in a niche print outlet, so no link this time, but I’ll still throw in my perspective as an outsider with an interest in academic stuff. The inaccessibility problem for me mainly comes down to the sheer cost. Not having institutional access means many good journals are not really a subscription option, so I have to either email the author or friends for PDF’s. It works, but it’s tedious and not ideal. Books are also annoyingly tough to afford sometimes, especially annoying cause the royalties authors get obvs are not where the bulk of the price goes, and when you can get your generic sci-fi/fantasy paperback for $10-20, it’s obviously not a production cost either. This makes doing serious academic inquiry an extremely expensive hobby which no doubt contributes to its irrelevance. Convincing people to try a difficult book or essay is tough enough when it’s available as a cheap Penguin/Oxford Classic; why would they take a risk on a book that’ll leave you eating nothing but ramen all month? As you say, this is all unsustainable and will likely collapse. Idk what comes after, but hopefully the replacement takes thematic and financial accessibility more seriously.
I’m not in philosophy but in an adjacent field (religious studies and theology), but this feels very true for my field as well. I know that so many of my colleagues have stopped reading journal articles, in large part because they find them irrelevant. But it’s interesting that this doesn’t necessarily stop them from publishing in journals. And I think that the same thing could be said about much of the book publishing that happens at academic presses; we academics keep pushing ourselves to publish books at presses that feel prestigious enough, while also increasingly feeling like these books aren’t relevant to us anymore... I know a lot of academics who’ve just stopped feeling as if their writing is worth doing anymore. I get almost no professional benefit from the writing I do here, on Substack. But I have to say that it’s made writing fun for me again. And it’s a space where I don’t police my own tone, to fit into the genre of academic writing.
Thanks for writing this! I, for my part, rarely find the most interesting papers in Philosophical Review or Journal of Philosophy, or for that matter, in Ethics or Philosophy & Public Affairs. The average quality of papers is probably higher in those journals, but still, it happens more often that I find really original and interesting papers in Ergo, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, or Journal of Value Inquiry.
This is my favorite passage from Henry Suso's "Horologium Sapientiae" (N.B. this is right after "the Disciple" leaves the mathematicians and astronomers who are just sitting around "playing with their astrolabes"):
"What the Disciple found in this mansion amazed him, and made him want to laugh. For there was what seemed like a silver ball that had fallen among them from the sky, rolling around, which by its beauty and costliness made all of them gaze on it in love and longing, for it promised glory and honor to those who could possess it. And when one outstanding teacher had it in his hand, […] many, seeing this and envying it, tried in every way they might to snatch the ball from his hand. Now they threw shar p darts at him, and now hard stones, but it did not help them, for they were inflicting astonishing hurts on
themselves, and wounding themselves with their own darts. When this ball bounced round
among them, those who were present were at pains, not indeed to grasp it for themselves, but rather to do all they could to knock it out of each other's hands, and steal
it away and advertise that someone else did not have it. They offered no explanations of
what it was, but they wrapped it up in their own implications. And there were […] astonishing arguments and uproars and contradictions about this ball, and in the minds of many who were listening this produced great boredom and distaste. For they derived no benefit from these things […]. And some of them mocked the others, and they wore themselves out with wordy warfare, and attacked each other and sparred like fighting cocks."
Economics shares the top 5 problem (economists don't do books), with some of the same results. The problems are mitigated by the presence of lots of field journals. And there are plenty of outside options.
Still, I think the profession has become more scholastic in the pejorative sense of the term.
Once again you’ve touched on a topic I’ve previously written about, although in a niche print outlet, so no link this time, but I’ll still throw in my perspective as an outsider with an interest in academic stuff. The inaccessibility problem for me mainly comes down to the sheer cost. Not having institutional access means many good journals are not really a subscription option, so I have to either email the author or friends for PDF’s. It works, but it’s tedious and not ideal. Books are also annoyingly tough to afford sometimes, especially annoying cause the royalties authors get obvs are not where the bulk of the price goes, and when you can get your generic sci-fi/fantasy paperback for $10-20, it’s obviously not a production cost either. This makes doing serious academic inquiry an extremely expensive hobby which no doubt contributes to its irrelevance. Convincing people to try a difficult book or essay is tough enough when it’s available as a cheap Penguin/Oxford Classic; why would they take a risk on a book that’ll leave you eating nothing but ramen all month? As you say, this is all unsustainable and will likely collapse. Idk what comes after, but hopefully the replacement takes thematic and financial accessibility more seriously.