Philosophical Research after the Virus (guest post by Eric Steinhart)


The following is a guest post* by Eric Steinhart, professor of philosophy at William Paterson University, on the possible consequences of the widespread disruptions to ordinary life being caused by the pandemic and reactions to it. 

It first appeared at The Philosophers’ Cocoon.


Edvard Munch, “Self-Portrait after Spanish Influenza”

Philosophical Research after the Virus
by Eric Steinhart

Most of us are acutely aware of the extreme impact of the virus on our teaching (it’s SARS-CoV-2, but I’ll just call it the virus). We’ve been suddenly forced to move our entire teaching loads into new formats very rapidly. This is disruptive. Actually, it’s more than disruptive—it’s a shock.

Some of us have become aware of the impacts the virus will also have on our schools. The outlook is not pretty. For a large number of reasons, detailed in publications like The Chronicle of Higher Education or Inside Higher Ed, many colleges and universities now face uncertain financial futures. And even if jobs are not lost and departments are not closed, research funding is likely to be cut back severely. This includes release time for research, as well as money for travel to conferences, and so on. It also includes money for buying new books and maintaining subscriptions to journals.

If the shock to teaching is the lightning, then the shock to research is the thunder. Already, in my own limited Facebook feed, I see conferences being cancelled, visiting professorships cancelled, travel to specialized libraries made impossible, collaborative projects suddenly ended by more pressing concerns.

The immediate impact is on conferences—one after another is being cancelled. These cancellations represent an enormous amount of potentially wasted labor. You wrote that paper; it got accepted; you were going to present it–now nothing. Of course, people are saying you should list it on your vita as accepted. But that fails to address the problem of lost research, research done but now not disseminated.

I suspect there will be a larger disruption to philosophical publication channels. There will be shocks to the system of journal subscriptions and library book purchases. And there will be shocks to the reviewer system. For many reviewers, who are older people, reviewing has now fallen to the absolute bottom of the priority scale. An enormous number of more pressing problems have suddenly presented themselves.  These problems are not going to be solved quickly. It seems likely that our publishing models, already barely sustainable, may no longer be sustained.

Junior faculty now face severe obstacles to research. Putting all courses online takes time away from research.  Other family members may be losing their jobs or may have become ill with the virus. Or worse. It’s reasonable to think that research production by most junior faculty has dropped to near zero. Ideas that might take years to bring to full maturity now have decreasing chances of ever maturing at all.

Senior faculty face a different system of obstacles to research. If you’re a late-career professor (like me), what you’re now worried about is actually dying. Or losing your spouse or parents. All your work may be rather abruptly terminated, and, to say the least, this is research labor lost. It now seems rather pointless to try to work out an extremely polished argument. And, returning to the issue of review, most of us are not likely to prioritize it in our precarious remaining days.

And all of us, junior or senior, face the fact that it takes years to go from a completed philosophical text to an actual publication. Given the disruption caused by the virus, where will you be, and what will you be doing, in five months? Two years? Will the journal system still be functioning? Will libraries still be buying your hundred and fifty dollar book? Should you write that chapter for a book scheduled to come out in two years? Will you be alive then? Will you still have your job? If you have an article or book ready (or almost ready) for submission, why would you bother to submit it? Why not just post it on an online repository while you’re still alive.

Many philosophers have lamented the state of philosophical publication. I won’t repeat their excellent criticisms. But this viral shock means one thing: philosophical scholarship is about to become severely disrupted. Senior faculty are morally obligated to take this into consideration when evaluating junior colleagues for tenure and promotion in the coming years. But what will we be evaluating if not conference talks, journal articles, or academic books? We’ll have to evaluate something else.

I contend that the disruptions caused by this virus are going to transform philosophical publication. The old journal system already has no reason for continuing. The old academic book publishing system has no reason for continuing. There are alternative systems. Most of them involve publication via submission to online repositories like PhilPapers. Review and quality assurance can be done in online repositories. Surely philosophers are intelligent enough to figure out new ways to do quality assurance in new publishing models.

So I see a brighter and much larger future for PhilPapers or something like it. It involves much more curatorial work by area editors. It involves a draft system, in which labor can be recorded through many drafts before being submitted for curation. It involves systems of citation tracking and other metrics. It involves dropping our library subscriptions to predatory publishers and sending the funds to PhilPapers or something like it.

I also see a brighter and larger future for philosophical blogs, podcasts, YouTube channels, and so on. By forcing philosophy to face the public, this can only be good for philosophy. But there will need to be ways to assess the quality and impact of these new publication channels. I’m confident these ways can be found.

I don’t know what the future holds for any of us or our institutions. I’m sure I’ve missed important parts of the future of philosophical scholarship. But I suspect many of us will now mark our lives as BV and AV. I’m confident that we can make AV better for philosophy than BV.

guest
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Wallace
David Wallace
11 months ago

Perhaps this is right, but here’s the more sanguine counter-case. Academic research in philosophy is par excellence the kind of thing that you can do when working from home – yes, childcare is an issue right now for some people (including me) but it’s fairly plausible that will start easing off in two to three months. Preparing teaching to be done on line takes time, but not *that* much more time in the steady state – there are large one-off up-front cost of getting used to it. Journals largely run electronically anyway, so the crisis doesn’t have that much direct effect on their logistics. Losing conferences and workshops is a real blow as regards circulation and development of ideas, but it doesn’t matter that much from the point of view of publications and CV points. And even on relatively pessimistic estimates (sure, not on the absolutely worst-case models), by summer 2021 constraints on travel and groups are likely to be largely eased. So I think it’s pretty plausible we’ll have a couple of months of severe disruption, six months or a year or eighteen months of mild disruption, then mostly back to normal. And my guess (it’s only a guess) is that the ecosystem of philosophy research has enough robustness that it can take that comparatively minor hit without large-scale permanent consequences.Report

JDF
JDF
11 months ago

I suspect that with respect to the implications for professional philosophy, the most dramatic consequence will be the near crippling of the job market in the next few years as a result of the financial fallout.Report

Precarious
Precarious
Reply to  JDF
11 months ago

It is happening right now. Several searches have been halted, at least one after flying out its finalists.Report

Eric Steinhart
Reply to  Precarious
11 months ago

Wow, sorry to hear that. I just focused on the research issues, but it’d be great to see somebody address the hiring issues. And of course I’m thinking about next year and the years after. Recovery will be a long hard process.Report

Manuel G. Isaac
11 months ago

About conferences, mostly: why not seizing the opportunity to envision a more sustainable academic lifestyle?Report

Murali
Murali
Reply to  Manuel G. Isaac
11 months ago

Conferences have two aspects. The running elbows part and the presentations part. The presentations can be easily dinner over zoom. It’s the socialising thing which will happen less. But I don’t know whether this will help or hinder people from less prestigious institutions. How much is getting your ideas out there done via the presentation and he much is it fine by talking to people over drinks and canapes telling them what you are doing? How much do these two things synergize? How much does the hob nobbing amplify existing privilege?

Also, online conferences are much harder when you are on different timezones. Daytime in the US is night time in East Asia. When you fly over for a conference, you adjust to the timezone because your body releases the appropriate hormones in response to the availability of daylight. Going completely nocturnal when everyone else in your household or office is not carries a few complications. But then again, lots of people do night shifts. Doing this is not entirely unusual. Report

Manuel G. Isaac
Reply to  Murali
11 months ago

Couldn’t agree more: networking and informal chat are certainly by far the most important deal for any academic event. Reinventing our lifestyle will obviously be a huge challenge. Let’s take it up now!Report

Ray
Ray
11 months ago

We are working remotely using the internet. Why can’t open access e-book publication via the internet become a respectable thing as well? Is there a reason for our horror of self-publishing? There’s value in editing so perhaps open access presses online could handle that part of it. The resources expended on major presses curating for us might be better spent on other things. It seems odd we must forever associate the name of a press with quality when open access books would be things we could read, and we could decide the quality for ourselves. Referees could also decide them for tenure cases.

Just a thought. Report

Cathy Legg
Cathy Legg
Reply to  Ray
11 months ago

Clearly, the reason for our horror of self-publishing is quality control.
Why don ‘t we develop more infrastructure for post-publication peer review, as seen in the natural sciences with website PubPeer?Report

Eric Steinhart
Reply to  Ray
11 months ago

Great thoughts – I suspect something very much like your proposal is the future.Report

Amjad
Amjad
11 months ago

Timely warnings. Definitely, disruption or chaos will bring new lifestyle. Report

Filippo Contesi
11 months ago

This is an amazing post, and, I hope, amazingly prescient. COVID-19 may indeed change for the better the sociological mechanisms of analytic philosophy, and make them more inclusive, globalized and in sync with the technological environment. I hope we will take the opportunity of this change sooner rather than later! BTW: The one depicted in the post is Munch’s Self-portrait *with* the Spanish flu: https://www.nasjonalmuseet.no/en/collection/object/NG.M.01867Report