The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2026-27)

recent posts

about

Should a recent TT hire focus their research on a single topic?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Sarah asks:

Should I aim at a narrow(er) area of expertise?

I recently secured a tenure-track position, and at this stage of my career, I've observed that most of my colleagues and admired philosophers have a well-defined expertise encapsulated in one or two keywords. However, due to the instability of my career thus far—having moved through different departments and research projects—and my broad range of interests, I find it challenging to focus on the same specific topic for an extended period. I often switch to whatever has recently captured my interest or, more pragmatically, whatever receives funding. While I recognize the benefits of maintaining focus on a single topic, such as deep knowledge, networking, and reputation, I seem to gravitate toward new subjects periodically.

I wonder if others share this experience. How common is it for individuals to stick to the same topic for an extended period in academic and professional settings?

These are excellent questions. My sense is that a lot depends on which kind of institution one's TT job is at. For example, I've heard several times that at some elite R1 universities, the most important determinant of getting tenure is not how many articles one has published, or even how great the venues are, but whether the person is considered a leading thinker on a particular topic–that is, whether they are a "superstar" in a particular area (example: David Chalmers on consciousness). At other R1s, R2s, and elite SLACs, I've heard that as long as you've published a sufficient number of articles in sufficiently good places, you have a good shot at tenure. But, at other types of schools (e.g. "teaching institutions"), you really just need to publish decently, however this is understood at the particular institution (in my experience, different institutions can have substantially different research standards for tenure).

So, if I were Sarah, the first thing I'd want to do is to ask people at her institution (e.g., department chair, dean, etc.)–and indeed, get in writing in an email somewhere (just in case it might help in a tenure appeal later on)–which of the above are expected for tenure at her institution. If the answer is, "you need to be a superstar in a particular area", then I'd say: focus on that. But, if the answer is, "you just need to publish 6 articles in selective peer-reviewed venues", then work on whatever you think is likely to do that!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Posted in ,

5 responses to “Should a recent TT hire focus their research on a single topic?”

  1. breezy

    I agree with Marcus, especially about getting the expectations in writing. My chair was kind enough to do this without prompting when I was hired (TT at a public college). This really helped me plan and generally put me at ease.

    Reply
  2. recently tenured

    as someone at an R1 that has the, not quite super star, but “the main thing that matters is perception of your work” thing (e.g. our external letters are the single most important determining factor in our tenure cases)–you aren’t going to get this in writing. So, while it’s good to get stuff in writing, also make sure you ask many different people about implicit tenure standards at your institution and try to determine what is true.
    (Also as an aside, it’s definitely more risky to write on lots of topics when you are junior at places that mostly value perception of your work among fancy people–but it’s possible to do so and still be perceived well. The “research superstar/impact” thing isn’t essentially tied to the “on one topic” thing. But it definitely makes it much more risky.)

    Reply
  3. Timmy J

    Agree with others about getting the facts and getting them in writing. That said at my R1.5/2-ish school it wouldn’t matter whether you went for the deep dive or the shotgun approach. Either one would get you tenure if you published enough. Some recently tenured folks at my school succeeded without all their publications even being in philosophy journals!

    Reply
  4. recently tenured

    also, I think most people get this, but just in case: the fancier (and also, I suspect, this is more likely if it is private vs. public) your school is, the less likely (a) you’ll get anything meaningful in writing or even if you do that (b) it matches actual expectations (e.g. it will often be phrased as necessary, but not sufficient, or the “bare minimum”, etc.); also, your department may have “tenure standards” that don’t match the administrative tenure standards.
    So if you are at a fancy-ish school, whether it is an R1, an elite SLAC, etc.–you have less reason to trust anything you have in writing than you do other places. Don’t ever assume you can just meet whatever you do get in writing and be fine. I think if I hadn’t known anything about how tenure actually works at elite schools (and at which stage people are most likely to be voted against–at my school that is the college level promotion committee that has very different standards than my department does) and had blindly followed the tenure standards my department wrote, I would be screwed. Of course, in a functional school/department, your colleagues will communicate this to you, but I wouldn’t necessarily trust that they will do so, so you have to be pretty proactive about figuring stuff out for yourself.

    Reply
  5. Untenured Ethicist

    Tenure at R1 institutions is fundamentally a political decision. The way to get it is to make people in your department and senior people in your field happy with you and your research.
    Talking with senior people in your department about the criteria for tenure is useful. Understand that when you ask this question, you are not really asking what the objective criteria for tenure are. The only objective criterion is getting enough votes (at both the departmental and the school level). You are asking what would make that senior colleague more likely to vote for you.
    Asking for advice about this from strangers on the Internet is completely and utterly useless. We don’t know your department or your department’s politics.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading