Query from a reader in the UK (where, as they allude to, there are actually close to equal numbers at the undergraduate level):
In all areas of philosophy above the undergraduate student level there is a gender imbalance. But in certain areas there is a huge gender imbalance. I am trying to organise workshops in the areas of experimental philosophy and contrastive explanation. We are seriously short of female philosophers who could participate. This is particularly awkward in Europe as the European Science Foundation requires 33 per cent of participants in their workshops to be ‘of either gender’. That does strike me as a very modest requirement. But it is a tough one to meet! Anyone out there who could help us to secure more balanced participation at such an event?
My first suggestion would be to contact some of the women who write for the experimental philosophy blog, here. But I don’t have any helpful thoughts about contrastive explanation.
Another thought: good for the EU, caring and doing something about gender balance!!
Any suggestions to help our reader?
6 thoughts on “Query from Reader”
I’m never sure whether by “experimental philosophy” someone has in mind philosophy-working-with-surveys or more generally philosophy heavily engaged with empirical sciences. The latter could include Machery’s book on concepts, or Noe’s work on vision.
If it is in the broader sense, a number of our visitors might like to have a means for self-nomination. If it is in the narrower sense, the reader might look at the empirical philosophy NEA summer school, which had a number of women attending.
I’m surprised that the conference organizers cannot find women for a discussion of x-philosophy. Jennifer Nagel? Tamar Gendler? Jen Wright? Cripes. There’s three I came up with from the armchair and I don’t do x-philosophy. Just imagine what we could find with some empirical work.
C– I don’t know how many people are involved, so I don’t know how many would be required for 30%– or whether some of the women you mention have already been asked. I also don’t know whether they might need to be European, which would narrow things quite a lot.
Fair enough. I’m a bit quick to get grumpy today. Sorry about that.
The Philosophy of Science Women’s caucus now has a database of the names of members of the group, along with keywords for specialty (there are a number of people who list explanation, for instance). That would be a good place to look, for North American and European based scholars. It should be available from the PSA webpage.
This may be what hk is referring to: http://www.philsci.org/psawomenscaucus/directory.html. Certainly looks useful!
Comments are closed.