Abstract

This paper argues that diversity and uptake are required for objectivity. In philosophy, women are underrepresented with respect to teaching, publishing, and citations. This undermines the objectivity of our research output. To improve women’s representation and objectivity in philosophy, we should take steps to increase women’s numbers and institute uptake-conducive conditions. In concrete terms, this means fostering an appreciation for diversity, diversifying evaluators, integrating women’s contributions into mainstream discourse, and reducing implicit bias.

Highlights

  • It’s well known—and empirically verified—that women are underrepresented in philosophy, with respect to teaching, publishing, and citations

  • The underrepresentation of women in philosophy undermines the objectivity of research in the field, because diversity facilitates objectivity

  • I want to focus on a less obvious, but in a sense more pressing, problem: that the lack of gender parity undermines objectivity in the field. This claim might not be obvious because it relies on some non-obvious assumptions about the nature of knowledge and its production—assumptions that we find in standpoint feminist epistemology; but it’s an especially pressing worry because it’s of interest to all philosophers, no matter one’s disciplinary focus, since we’re all inherently committed to objectivity by virtue of our disciplinary commitments

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It’s well known—and empirically verified—that women are underrepresented in philosophy, with respect to teaching, publishing, and citations. These aren’t the only possible strategies for increasing gender parity in philosophy, but they’re supported by Harding’s and Longino’s proposals, in conjunction with the empirical research on cognitive distortions, group dynamics, and group reasoning that I cite in sections (1)–(4). Another possible factor is status quo bias, the tendency to favour the familiar; if feminist philosophy is less familiar to most people, it’s likely to seem inherently less plausible (regardless of its objective value).

Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.