In the past week, those who follow philosophy blogs have had massive exposure to discussions on the so-called ‘Pluralist Guide’, and in particular on the section dedicated to the ‘Climate for Women in Philosophy’ (see here and here for NewAPPS posts on the topic). At the risk of contributing to the general fatigue, we add a few thoughts.
We concur with many of the concerns raised here and elsewhere regarding the methodology and potential negative impact of the ‘Climate for Women in Philosophy’ survey as originally presented. General reputational surveys are problematic in many ways. But even if we take into account non-negligible considerations of cost-effectiveness and risk to those queried, it is clearly not the most suitable approach to sketch an accurate picture of the parameter under consideration, i.e. whether a given department offers a welcoming environment for female graduate students. We worry especially that departmental strengths in philosophic feminism have been used as a proxy for general welcoming climate toward women. (Having said that, the undersigned take outright hostility toward philosophic feminism as a negative signal.)
However, to bring the ‘climate’ parameter to the fore as a relevant element is a very laudable initiative. Our impression is that general ‘climate’ considerations (not only for women but for graduate students in general, i.e. whether a given department offers a nurturing, caring environment) are typically not given the significance they deserve, and the PG section on ‘climate’ could be an important step in this direction.
Specifically on the gender dimension, in a thread over at Leiter’s blog in November 2009, one of us (Catarina) had already suggested that gender data should also be posted at job placement sites of departments. Nobody seemed to have picked up on the suggestion back then, but now, thanks to the turmoil of the past week, we see similar suggestions being made at a number of places by several people. If nothing else, this is already a good result of the PG’s ‘Climate for Women in Philosophy’ survey. Indeed, as others have argued before it, it would be an excellent development if offering information on the gender distribution among graduate students along with job placement information at each department’s website became standard practice. We need to know in particular whether the proportion of women who leave a PhD program without completing it is higher than that of men, which would be a clear and fairly objective sign that in such departments the climate for women is not particularly welcoming. (The same may also be said about whether the proportion of women with completed PhDs from a department that decide to leave philosophy is higher than that of men.)
Thus, if we view the PG’s ‘Climate for Women in Philosophy’ survey as a first step in a potentially positive direction, there is much to be commended about it. Many constructive and interesting suggestions have been made in discussions at different blogs over the last week, and it is to be hoped that the PG panel (or whoever else gets involved in similar initiatives) will pick up on them. The main ones seem to be:
- Consulting past and present graduate students (and not necessarily only female students) would be a crucial step towards an accurate picture of the climate for women at a given department. It is good to hear that at least one department, Rutgers, is already conducting such internal surveys.
- More generally, the pool of ‘experts’ consulted should be larger (not necessarily in numbers, but not limited to female philosophers working on feminism).
- It would be paramount to assemble ‘hard’ data such as the drop-out rate for both male and female graduate students so that ‘climate’ assessments would not only be based on subjective judgments of reputation.
(Please feel free to add further suggestions in comments below.) For the time being, it might be a good idea for the PG panel to take stock and reflect on the many suggestions that have been put forward, and reformulate their approach – in particular in view of the clear cases of both false positives and false negatives on the current list. As argued by others, Mark Lance and Rebecca Kukla in particular, both cases can have serious negative consequences. It would be a shame if this laudable initiative – to highlight the importance of a parameter such as ‘climate’, in particular but not exclusively with respect to women – were not to be pursued, but significant adjustments seem to be in order.
Catarina Dutilh Novaes
Eric Schliesser
Recent Comments