| Science Visions
The Newsletter of the PSA Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Caucus
|
|
|
Welcome to Science Visions, Vol. 4, No. 1. Hope your 2023 is off to a great start! |
|
|
Contents - Feature: We would like to hear from you!
- Highlighted Philosopher of Science: Qiu Lin
- What We Wish We’d Known: A Postdoc by Any Other Name
|
|
|
Feature
The caucus has gone through some changes recently, and Science Visions has followed suit. To reflect the new agenda of the caucus, we would like to reintroduce our featured sections to our dear readers from whom we would very much like to hear. Scroll down to find out ways you can get involved!
Highlighted Philosopher of Science is a column where a underrepresented philosopher of science is publicly recognized to the caucus membership once a quarter through Science Visions. It is managed by Katherine Valde. To nominate a philosopher of science as a future Highlighted Philosopher, fill out the form here: https://forms.gle/eocZLPobCYbgaiZUA
What We Wish We’d Known is a short column that features information, advice, and opinions from underrepresented philosophers of science about different aspects of academic life. It is managed by Jacob P. Neal. To suggest future topics or volunteer as a writer for a future column, please contact Jacob P. Neal at <jneal28@uwo.ca>.
The caucus' Facebook group page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/518986874779595/
Join the caucus' affinity groups by emailing the chair/contact person! Currently active groups are:
<Diversity and Neurodiversity Working Group> Chairs: Joanna K. Malinowska (malinowska@amu.edu.pl), Walter Veit (wrwveit@gmail.com), Insa Lawler (mail@insalawler.com)
<First Generation/English as Second Language (ESL) Affinity Group> Chairs: Chia-Hua Lin (clin@fairfield.edu), Nadia Ruiz (naruiz26@stanford.edu)
<Phil Physics Group> Contact person: Chris Mitsch (cmitsch@uci.edu)
<Affinity Group for Black Philosophers of Science> Chairs: Quayshawn Spencer (qspencer@upenn.edu), Alexander Tolbert (altol25@sas.upenn.edu)
<Mentors' Group> Chairs: Julia Bursten (jrbursten@uky.edu), Kino Zhao (kino_zhao@sfu.ca)
|
|
|
|
Qiu Lin (https://qiulin.org/) is currently a Philosophical Review Postdoctoral Associate at Cornell’s Sage School of Philosophy. In January 2024, she will be joining the Department of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University as Assistant Professor. Qiu found a love of philosophy through her undergraduate education at St. John’s College in Annapolis, Maryland. St. John’s has a “Great Books” curriculum in which students read significant works from the history of Western civilization chronologically. Qiu decided to pursue graduate school like many “Johnnies” with the hope to one day return to St. John’s as an instructor.
|
|
|
Qiu got her master’s degree in philosophy at Tufts University. At Tufts, Qiu was immediately drawn to George Smith’s two-semester course on Newton. The course inspired Qiu in many ways – first, she grew to have a deep appreciation of Newton scholarship, and of the way that George Smith approached research and teaching. Second, when Qiu went to apply to PhD programs, it was George who suggested that she work with Katherine Brading. Qiu completed her PhD in 2022 at Duke University under the advising of Katherine Brading.
Qiu has two main areas of research. First, is her interest in early modern philosophy and history and philosophy of science. Serendipitously, Qiu arrived in graduate school just as the first full English translation of Émilie du Châtelet’s Foundation of Physics (1740) was completed. Qiu was able to attend events surrounding the release of this translation, and to see for herself how many exciting questions were just beginning to emerge in the field of Du Châtelet research. In her work on Du Châtelet, Qiu hopes to accomplish two goals, first to bring her back into the cannon as a philosopher of physics. Not only was Du Châtelet writing on the explanations, hypotheses, theory building, and other ideas that were central to the philosophy of physics, but also her work provides us an opportunity to re-think the traditional characterization of the early modern period as involving a clash between rationalism and empiricism. Thus, Qiu’s second goal for her work on Du Châtelet is to consider how the coexistence of rationalist and empiricist strands in her work might help us reframe our thinking about the period.
Qiu’s second major area of research is in Chinese Islamic philosophy, and it has an important personal significance to her. Scholars have written much about the Catholic missionary Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) and his attempts to make Christianity and Confucianism palatable to each other. Yet, although Muslim communities have a long-established presence in China, we know little about the philosophical system that blended Islam and Confucianism in the heart-minds of Chinese Muslims. Qiu has been working to uncover what she has found to be a rich and fascinating Islamic philosophical tradition indigenous to China. Her hope is that one day Chinese Philosophy anthologies will include an Islamic section!
One theme that runs throughout Qiu’s fascinating scholarship is a commitment to telling stories that have unjustly become ignored by a dominant narrative or perspective. I would venture this commitment is shared by our caucus (the PSA DEI caucus). The unique connections and contributions that international scholarship creates is invaluable as we work to make progress on this mission. And while it is not unique to philosophy, international scholars face challenges that are not shared by those studying and working in their countries of origin. The particular challenges (be they repeatedly renewing different visas, struggling to keep a family together, or something else) vary from person to person, but the need to hustle to stay in a country far from home is often shared. While many of us go to school with or work with international scholars, we often fail to recognize or understand the burdens of being in this position. Not least of which is a fear that that mentioning these challenges comes across as a burden. Challenges surrounding status as an immigrant often become the biggest obstacles faced by international scholars. I, for one, worry that the voice of international scholars on issues of immigration have been marginalized across the academy. If we want more cannon-changing work like Qiu is doing, it might be worth paying attention to how to make our institutions (universities, department, professional organizations, etc.) more welcoming to international scholars.
|
What We Wish We’d Known: A Postdoc by Any Other Name
What We Wish We’d Known is a short opinion column that features advice from female philosophers of science about a particular aspect of academic life. To suggest future topics or volunteer as a writer for a future column, please contact Jacob Neal at <jacobpneal@gmail.com> |
|
|
A Postdoc by Any Other Name by Jacob Neal
|
From the Editor
Postdoctoral positions in philosophy of science have recently become much more common. This change has benefited recent PhDs by making more jobs available, but it has also added to the already challenging task of navigating the academic job market. For this column, I have invited two early career philosophers – Sarah Arnaud and Siska De Baerdemaeker – to share their experiences and address the pros and cons of different types of positions. Hopefully, their accounts will be useful to other early career scholars who are on the job market now or will be soon, as well as other more senior scholars who have little firsthand experience with postdocs.
|
|
|
| (1) Sarah Arnaud
Sarah Arnaud (https://saraharnaud.com/) is a Postdoctoral Associate at the Rotman Institute of Philosophy at Western University. Her research interests lie in philosophy of psychology and psychiatry, as well as philosophy of mind, where she works primarily on emotion, consciousness, and autism. |
| |
A few months ago, a tenured professor of philosophy told me that they would love to be a postdoc: “You can just focus on your research, no administrative duty, no teaching, so much freedom! I wish I could switch!” The comment made me reflect on my experience as a postdoc. Although I would love to have the stability of a tenured position, being a postdoc has had its benefits. With my dissertation behind me and few administrative duties, I have had more time to explore research topics in new ways, start new collaborations, and test out my ideas with others.
Having been a postdoc for almost five years now, navigating different universities and three countries (US, Belgium, and Canada), I have been particularly lucky to have had supportive supervisors who have guided me through the job market, improved my writing, and helped me develop my own publications.
Looking back, I realize that there are a few things I wish I had known when I first started. One important lesson is that time passes quickly when you are a postdoc. As soon as you begin your fellowship, it is already time to start preparing for the next round of applications. Longer postdocs can be helpful because they give you more time for research in between application marathons. Another thing to keep in mind is that teaching is a double-edged sword. It's important to have some teaching experience to build expertise that you can showcase in your application dossier. But too much teaching can take away from the time you need for research. I found that minimizing teaching responsibilities, when possible, allowed me to focus more on research. Thus, I would suggest prioritizing postdocs with a lighter teaching load or without any teaching obligations.
While postdocs that give you a lot of autonomy and freedom are often seen as ideal, I have found that I prefer working in environments where I am surrounded by people. Collaborating with others, including graduate students and faculty, has helped me learn faster than anything else. Interdisciplinarity has also been valuable, especially for my work in philosophy of science. Working with scientists has been highly formative and has broadened my perspective on my own research.
Overall, I have come to understand that postdoc fellowships are not inherently terrible or amazing. The quality of the fellowship depends on its conditions. As a postdoc, you are on a challenging and competitive path that can come with its share of inequities. But with perseverance and guidance, it can also be a rewarding and valuable experience. I am incredibly grateful for the guidance that I have received along the way, especially considering the difficulty of the current market. I hope that one day I can provide the same level of support to my own students.
|
|
|
|
Siska De Baerdemaeker (https://www.siskadebaerdemaeker.com/) is a researcher at Stockholm University, Sweden. Her research focuses on history and philosophy of astrophysics and cosmology.
After receiving my PhD, I was a postdoc on a research project for two years. The application process in itself was shorter, but otherwise not that different from any other academic job. I first submitted a full dossier, including a research statement relevant to the project, and then participated in a Zoom interview. During the interview, we discussed both my own research, as well as how I saw myself contributing to the broader research project. |
|
|
The postdoc itself was a great opportunity for me to further develop my own research and to find new research interests in line with the project. I also got more teaching experience, both in undergraduate and graduate courses. In many ways, it was a total luxury.
As a postdoc on a research project rather than on an open fellowship, I had to thread the line between contributing to the project and further developing my own research track record. It can be difficult to balance the two, but I was lucky to have a postdoc supervisor who recognized the importance of me being able to pursue my own research in conjunction with contributing to the joint project. Early on in our collaboration, we had a frank conversation about expectations, and this chat set us up for a fruitful collaboration.
But all postdoc positions are by definition temporary. And given the timeline of the academic job market, I had to start thinking about what I would do after my contract ended almost as soon as it started. I found this quite tough: it implied considering another international move very shortly after the previous one. It also meant that I might have to leave a department that I had just started to feel settled in, as well as say goodbye to the friends I had made during the postdoc. Luckily for me, the department where I did my postdoc was very supportive in helping me with my next career move. This support was crucial for enabling me to acquire my own research funding which will allow me to remain in Stockholm for the next three years.
|
|
|
|
