Underrepresentation in Philosophy, Underrepresentation in Engineering
Sunday, September 9, 2007 by Rachel McKinney
Just a quick post to pool together some blogosphere discussions on Sally Haslanger's paper "Changing the Ideology and Culture of Philosophy: Not by Reason (Alone)" from Crooked Timber (here), Thoughts Arguments and Rants (here), Mad Melancholic Feminista (here) and Feminist Philosophers (here and here).
Also, the Lemmings post on the central APA panel meeting where Haslanger presented the paper this past spring is here. And, finally, just for shits & giggles, the Livejournal philosophy community discussion on the topic is available here.
Also of some interest might be a few reports highlighting the demographic work that has been done in other areas where women and people of color are traditionally underrepresented, particularly engineering and the sciences. Here is the National Science Board's 2003 report on broadening participation in science and engineering faculty, and here is the National Science and Technology Council's 2002 report on diversifying the science & technology workforce.
Of course, philosophy is very different from the sciences, and the institutional support available (i.e., outside funding for research) is quite asymmetric. My point isn't that data from these areas map onto data about women in philosophy, but that it makes sense to look at empirical demographic research in these areas to help us think about participation levels in our own area.
For instance, this article by Michelle Johnson and Sheri Sheppard is, I think, particularly salient from a methodological perspective: the researchers pick out key decision points in a student's educational progress that lead to further participation in a particular area of study. Successful navigation through a series of decisions (say, the decision to graduate from high-school, the decision to pursue study at a postsecondary institution, the decision to take a course on critical thinking, the decision to take intro-level survey courses in philosophy, the decision to take upper-level courses in philosophy, the decision to major in philosophy, the decision to pursue philosophy at the graduate level, admittance to a graduate program, successful advancement through a graduate program, matriculation from a graduate program, entrance into the job market, progress through a tenure-track position, etc) culminates in a student's entry into a particular area of professional study. By empirically measuring participation rates at various levels of study, we can find out when participation by members of certain groups "drops off" (i.e., after intro-level courses but before the choice to major in a particular area, or after admission into a graduate program but before finishing coursework, etc). This information can help us pinpoint the level of educational study at which members of underrepresented groups find themselves alienated or disengaged.
Another methodological cue we can take from this research is the identification of various "stakeholders" in actively changing participation rates among members of underrepresented groups. These stakeholders serve important roles in various places along the "pipeline" of progress through an area of study, and help create pathways to prepare students to successfully navigate future major decision points. Again, here the engineering data might become less relevent (it picks out engineering societies, engineering advocacy groups, government organizations, and engineering faculty as critical 'stakeholders"), but perhaps analogous agents in philosophy might include undergraduate faculty and advisors, graduate admissions committees, graduate advisors and finally job-search committees.
Also, the Lemmings post on the central APA panel meeting where Haslanger presented the paper this past spring is here. And, finally, just for shits & giggles, the Livejournal philosophy community discussion on the topic is available here.
Also of some interest might be a few reports highlighting the demographic work that has been done in other areas where women and people of color are traditionally underrepresented, particularly engineering and the sciences. Here is the National Science Board's 2003 report on broadening participation in science and engineering faculty, and here is the National Science and Technology Council's 2002 report on diversifying the science & technology workforce.
Of course, philosophy is very different from the sciences, and the institutional support available (i.e., outside funding for research) is quite asymmetric. My point isn't that data from these areas map onto data about women in philosophy, but that it makes sense to look at empirical demographic research in these areas to help us think about participation levels in our own area.
For instance, this article by Michelle Johnson and Sheri Sheppard is, I think, particularly salient from a methodological perspective: the researchers pick out key decision points in a student's educational progress that lead to further participation in a particular area of study. Successful navigation through a series of decisions (say, the decision to graduate from high-school, the decision to pursue study at a postsecondary institution, the decision to take a course on critical thinking, the decision to take intro-level survey courses in philosophy, the decision to take upper-level courses in philosophy, the decision to major in philosophy, the decision to pursue philosophy at the graduate level, admittance to a graduate program, successful advancement through a graduate program, matriculation from a graduate program, entrance into the job market, progress through a tenure-track position, etc) culminates in a student's entry into a particular area of professional study. By empirically measuring participation rates at various levels of study, we can find out when participation by members of certain groups "drops off" (i.e., after intro-level courses but before the choice to major in a particular area, or after admission into a graduate program but before finishing coursework, etc). This information can help us pinpoint the level of educational study at which members of underrepresented groups find themselves alienated or disengaged.
Another methodological cue we can take from this research is the identification of various "stakeholders" in actively changing participation rates among members of underrepresented groups. These stakeholders serve important roles in various places along the "pipeline" of progress through an area of study, and help create pathways to prepare students to successfully navigate future major decision points. Again, here the engineering data might become less relevent (it picks out engineering societies, engineering advocacy groups, government organizations, and engineering faculty as critical 'stakeholders"), but perhaps analogous agents in philosophy might include undergraduate faculty and advisors, graduate admissions committees, graduate advisors and finally job-search committees.
Don't you think the US ed. system should make these decisions much more explicit early on in a student's career? The Japanese or European examples are the obvious comparisons, where students are tracked in one direction or another early on. But that's not exactly what I mean. Education wrapped around an ongoing and unfolding narrative (the story of 'you'), driven and directed by the student (and parent(s)). A system with explicit and measurable decision points - branches in the tree/road/whatever metaphor works best to motivate students.
Ah... that's all I got for tonight.
How's upsate New York treating you?
Well, I'm not sure about that. I think it might be important for students to have a little bit of flexibility longer into their educational development. I'll have to think about it more, though.
Upstate New York is good! I'm sure I might feel different when it's January-with-20-feet-of-snow-on-the-ground, but for now I'm really optimistic!