New study suggests women’s papers receive greater critical scrutiny

But that headline doesn’t even scratch the surface of how interesting this study is.  Erin Hengel examined papers by economists in top journals.  She found:

  • Women’s papers took longer from submission to publication
  • Women’s abstracts were more readable than men’s (employing standard measures of readability)
  • Women’s papers improved in readability than men’s, during the transition from draft to final published version.
  • Women’s abstracts’ readability continued to improve steadily throughout their careers, while men’s did not– leading to a very large gap in readability for senior women.

 

Hengel suggests that this may offer us a partial explanation for the often-noted productivity gap between men and women.  If women are revising their papers more, and spending longer bringing them up to a higher standard, they are likely to publish more slowly.  After considering several explanations, she concludes that the most likely one is that referees are tougher on women’s work than on men’s.

Thanks, L, for letting me know about this study!

 

CFP: Women in Philosophy, Uppsala

Women in Philosophy: Philosophy in Action

Uppsala University (Sweden); 22nd – 23rd May 2017.

Keynote Speakers: 

–       A. W. Eaton (University of Illinois at Chicago)

–       Jennifer Lackey (Northwestern University)

–       Helen Frowe (Stockholm University, Stockholm Centre for the Ethics of War and Peace)

–       Kristin Sampson (University of Bergen)

Aim: 

The conference will bring together female philosophers from all areas, serve to further the interaction of our research community, provide a platform for female philosophers, and most importantly, provide inspiration for female students of philosophy whilst surrounded by such role models.

We encourage presentations from all areas of philosophy, for example: Ethics, Aesthetics, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of History, History of Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Logic, Meta-ethics; Metaphysics, Philosophy of Law, Phenomenology, Epistemology, etc. The conference will be categorised in four broad sections, representing these; theoretical philosophy, practical philosophy, history of philosophy and aesthetics.

CFP:

The presentations will consist of a 25-minute argument followed by a Q&A session consisting of 20 minutes. Please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words excluding bibliography.

There will also be discussion-based presentations, designed for advanced undergraduates and masters level students. These will consist of a 5-minute talk in which selected participants will a put forward a research question that they are working on, after which there will be a 10-minute Q&A session in which the audience will discuss the concept, advise on reading, and propose new developments. For these presentations, the abstract should be no longer than 150 words excluding bibliography.

Please send your abstracts in an email containing your name and affiliation to conferencewip@gmail.com for consideration by midnight on 31st January 2017. 

We aim to notify applicants by mid-February. Note that we will not be covering travel, lunch and accommodation expenses.

The languages of the conference are English and Swedish. We expect most of the presentations to be given in English, however there is the possibility to present in Swedish.

Registration: Conference attendance is free of charge and open to all.

Homepage:http://www.filosofi.uu.se/forskning/konferenser-och-workshops/conference-women-in-philosophy/

If you have any further questions please contact the email address above or Rebecca Wallbank at rebecca.wallbank@filosofi.uu.se

CFA: Lorraine Code: Thinking Responsibly, Thinking Ecologically

Call for Abstracts
Lorraine Code: Thinking Responsibly, Thinking Ecologically
(Preliminary Title)

Edited by Nancy Arden McHugh and Andrea Doucet
Under Consideration with State University of New York Press

Since the publication of her book Epistemic Responsibility in 1987, feminist philosopher Lorraine Code has been at the forefront of linking epistemology, epistemic injustice and ethics to shape critical frameworks for responsible, situated knowing and practice.  Her work has been path breaking on many themes, issues and problematics, including:

  • epistemic virtues,
  • individual and institutional epistemic responsibilities,
  • the epistemic significance of the gender of the knower,
  • the politics of epistemic and physical locations,
  • critical epistemic frameworks, such as ecological thinking,
  • the epistemic salience of gossip,
  • subjectivities and narratives,
  • the politics of testimony,
  • feminist methodologies and epistemic practices,
  • human and non human entanglements,
  • relational ontologies

On all of these issues, Code’s work has provided a gateway for subsequent work in feminist epistemology and philosophy of science, as well as more generally in feminist theory and methodologies. Moreover, through her critical analysis of mainstream epistemologies, medicine, law, literature, politics, psychology, and ecology, Code also provides avenues for creating institutional and social change.

We invite abstract submissions of 500-750 words that engage with the work of Lorraine Code by utilizing and building upon her theoretical, epistemological, and methodological arguments developed over the course of her writing and research career and/or by applying her arguments to new frameworks, cases, or problems. Please note that although Lorraine Code’s work has been housed in philosophy, her approach is highly interdisciplinary. Thus, abstracts are welcome from an array of disciplines and approaches. 

 Timeline:

Abstracts (500-750 words) and one-page CV due:
April 1, 2017

Abstract Acceptance notification:
May 20, 2017

Full papers of 6500-8000 words due:
January 31, 2018

Notification of Paper Acceptance:
May 20, 2018
 

Contact:

Nancy McHugh
Professor and Chair of Philosophy
Wittenberg University
Springfield, OH 4551
nmchugh@wittenberg.edu                                                                

 Andrea Doucet
Canada Research Chair in Gender, Work & Care
Professor of Sociology/ Women’s & Gender Studies
Brock University
St Catharines, On L2S 3A1
adoucet@brocku.ca

Letter to the Electors

It’s signatories include eight philosophers:

Esteemed Electors:

We, a bipartisan coalition of Americans including Electors, scholars, officials, and concerned citizens write to you in the spirit of fellowship, out of our sense of patriotism, and with great urgency.

There are times in the life of a nation when extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. Now is a such time, and your courage and leadership are required.

Never in our Republic’s history has there been a President-apparent comparable to Donald Trump. His inauguration would present a grave and continual threat to the Constitution, to domestic tranquility, and to international stability:

  • He has threatened the freedom of speech by condoning violence at public events, and suggesting criminal penalties and even revocation of citizenship to punish political expression;
  • He has threatened the freedom of press by vowing to revoke First Amendment protections for journalists;
  • He has threatened the freedom of religion by proposing to bar entry to the country and force the registration of members of certain faiths;
  • He has entangled himself with foreign interests through his personal business dealings, and refused to provide records of his taxes, which could allay suspicions;
  • He has indicated a willingness to condone torture, in contravention of the Constitution and our international treaties, which carry the force of law;
  • He is uncomfortably close to the regime of Russia, which has interfered in the election;
  • He has shown reckless disregard for diplomacy, communicating impulsively, in public forums, regarding matters of national security, and allowing personal emotions to interfere with reasoned judgment, calling into question his fitness as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the nuclear capabilities of the United States;
  • He has, unlike every previous Commander-in-Chief, never served in any public position, whether elected or appointed, civilian or military, thereby bringing no experience or proven judgment on behalf of The People, or evidence of a character suited to high office.

For these reasons, his assumption of office endangers the Constitution, the freedoms it protects, and the continued prosperity and welfare of the United States.

You, Electors, possess the power to prevent this outcome. You are not bound to cast your vote for the candidate of your party – and, as he won neither a majority nor even a plurality of the popular vote, there can be no question of undermining the will of The People.

The Constitution empowers Electors to exercise judgment and choice. If your role were only ceremonial, our Founders would not have required the states to elect you, or that you cast ballots by your own hand. State laws notwithstanding, you are free to vote your conscience. You have a mandate, like all officials, to protect and defend the Constitution. And you have the right and responsibility to investigate those who stand for this office, and to deliberate before casting your vote.

We place country before party in imploring you, our fellow Americans, to investigate and deliberate. We stand with you as you exercise your conscience and give profound consideration to the consequences of your vote. We affirm your right and your duty to do so free from intimidation, and urge you to cast your ballot for a person with the temperament, integrity and commitment to Constitutional principles necessary in a President.

In doing so, know that you enjoy the support of millions of Americans.

Thank you for your service to our country.

Academic citizenship and the pay gap

Female professors earn less on average than their male counterparts because they focus on underappreciated “academic citizen” roles that do not lead to promotion or pay rises, a new study suggests.

Male professors devote less time to mentoring duties, serving on university committees and other “academic citizen” roles, and instead concentrate on their own research – an activity more likely to win them external recognition and a pay rise, according to a paper by Bruce Macfarlane, professor of higher education at University of Southampton, and Damon Burg, a research fellow at Southampton Education School.

As presented in the THES article, this would appear to be a choice women happen to have made to be good academic citizens.  But I think it’s important to remember that these are not simply choices.  First, women are likely to be asked to serve on more committees simply because they are underrepresented and women are needed on committees.  But also, and at least as importantly, women are more expected to take on the mentoring and good citizen roles.  A woman who devotes herself exclusively to her research is likely to be viewed more negatively than a man who does so.

Milgram experiments and resisting Trumpism

Mark Alfano argues that the Milgram experiments tell us a lot about how to effectively resist authoritarianism.

In a boon for psychological science and a moral test for the country, the Trump presidency will be the most ecologically-valid, large-scale replication of Milgram’s studies ever conducted.

Instead of issuing verbal prods, Trump commands the FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA, and the military. Instead of torturing an obviously innocent victim, he targets African-Americans, women, Mexicans, Muslims, gay people and other groups who have faced dehumanizing animus since the United States enshrined slavery in the Constitution.

If 67% of us maximally comply with the destructive orders that are sure to flow from the Trump White House, Milgram will be proven scientifically right and we will be proven morally wrong.

Milgram’s studies aren’t all bad news, though. He and other researchers have identified six ways that you can be part of the resistant 33%.

 

In better news: Philosophers Against Malaria has raised more than $45,000 so far. 

Philosophers Against Malaria has been raising funds for the Against Malaria Foundation since November 28, and at the time I’m writing this, have so far collected $45,705. At a time where many of us are feeling really discouraged about the political future, it’s lovely to see such a wonderful and successful effort to make the world a little bit better.

The Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) fights malaria by distributing insecticide-treated mosquito nets. AMF has been rated a top charity by Givewell, Giving What We Can, and The Life You Can Save. The organization is widely celebrated in the Effective Altruism movement.

Delivering a net costs just $5.31. For every $3500 we raise, we can prevent one person from dying from malaria. For comparison, the UK’s National Health Service will spend up to £20,000 (over $30,000) for a single year of healthy life saved!

Malaria killed around 438,000 people in 2015. Seventy percent of these deaths are of children under five years old, making malaria one of the leading causes of child mortality in Africa. Even when non-fatal, malaria can damage children’s cognitive development.

Lower malaria rates help more children stay in school and more adults continue working, which stimulates developing economies. For every $1 spent fighting malaria, Africa’s GDP improves by at least $6.75–and by some estimates much more. Well-designed action against malaria has been shown to be hugely successful: since 2000, mortality rates have fallen by 47 percent globally and by 54 percent in the WHO African Region.

If you want to donate, head over to the fundraiser site. If you want to get your department involved, see the comments on this Daily Nous post.

The fundraiser goes until December 15th, so you still have time to participate.

Freedman on Galloway, Boyden and Implicit Misogyny

In recent months, the Canadian literary and academic worlds have been rocked by sexual harassment allegations against former UBC Creative Writing Program Chair Steven Galloway. In brief, UBC fired Galloway, whereupon CanLit golden boy Joseph Boyden published an open letter to UBC  deploring what he saw as a breach of due process in the case. The letter was signed by 88 luminaries of Canadian literature (including, most notably, feminist author Margaret Atwood). A Twitter war ensued.

As Canadian feminist philosopher Karyn Freedman observes, the complainants in the case have been effaced from the public discussion.

Today is Canada’s s National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women — a day, it bears observing that marks the anniversary of the so-called Montréal Massacre, in which 14 women Engineering and Science students were murdered for being women. To mark the day, Freedman has published a piece on HuffPo Canada, decrying the implicit misogyny that led to the effacement of Galloway’s accusers, and urging Boyden and his fellow signatories to retract the letter.

You can read Freedman’s post here.