The Philosophers' Cocoon

On Twitter, Joshua Stein writes:

Finished up revisions for the paper that was provisionally accepted (pending revisions, ofc). It’s very weird that one of my increasing areas of publication is philosophy of economics. TBH, it’s an area where I think it’s easier for me to write, b/c I really think of the issues in terms of puzzles and theoretical frames. I have far fewer complicated substantive commitments re: background theory than I do in metaethics.

Weirdly, there are a few postdocs I’m in the mix for (or will be soon) that would involve dedicating the next few years heavily to that area of research. I kinda wonder how my work will shift if I get and accept one of those…My goal would be to actually yolk the future work much more heavily to my metaethics work, which I’ve avoided in these publications (for reasons of simplicity and prudence). But that could be fun. There’s an element of my research on philosophy of tech and markets which I think is probably the most promising area for me in terms of highly visible future pubs.

I wonder if anybody has ever written smart career advice on this phenomenon of having to triangulate what you like × what reviewers think you do well × where there's interesting stuff to say × where there's grant funding × … It's… really hard to figure out.

FWIW, I have gotten this advice from several people over the years, including David Dick, @marcusarvan (whose work is published regularly, so may have said something like this @ Cocoon), and my doctoral advisors. I agree having some formal discussion would be great.

This is an interesting query, and I'm curious what others think. I have no experience writing grant proposals, as grants aren't expected in philosophy in the US in the way that I know they are in other parts of the world. So, I can't really comment on that. But, setting that important issue aside, my own reaction is this: just do research on what you are genuinely interested in. Early in my career (like, right out of grad school), I tried to figure out what the OP talks about: how to triangulate what I like vs. what reviewers like vs. where there's interesting stuff to say. Etc. Alas, I had a terrible time publishing this way, and I didn't enjoy my work. It was only when I decided to just start writing papers on whatever fascinated me that I began to have any luck and enjoy my work. So, grants aside, that's what I'd recommend: doing work that's authentic to you is likely to result in better work (since, you know, you actually find the issues you are writing on interesting), and if you do good work, you're likely to publish. 

Also, I personally think that many people (including job candidates) overestimate the value of working on "popular topics." The problem here is simple: if you work on popular topic X, chances are there are hundreds of other very smart candidates just like you working on some variation of the same topic, in which case it can be very hard to stand out in a pile of applications. It's easier to stand out if you work on a relatively unique topic, which can come across as original, interesting, etc.–indeed, as "your own" research program. So, grant issues aside, I think there's a lot to be said for simply working on what fascinates you. If you do good and interesting work that genuinely interests you, the publications (and grants?) will come! But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?