A Cartography of Philosophy’s Engagement with Society
Should philosophy help address the problems of non-philosophers or should it be something isolated both from other disciplines and from the lay public? This question became more than academic for philosophers working in UK universities with the introduction of societal impact assessment in the national research evaluation exercise, the REF. Every university department put together a submission describing its broader impact in case narratives, and these were graded. Philosophers were required to participate. The resulting narratives are publicly available and provide a unique resource permitting a more comprehensive, empirically based consideration of philosophy’s influence outside the academy than has hitherto been possible. This paper takes advantage of this data to develop a cartography of the ways in which philosophers engage society in their work. We identify five approaches: dissemination, engagement, provocations, living philosophy, and philosophy of X. We compare these along the six dimensions proposed by Frodeman and Briggle to characterize the ideal field philosopher. We conclude that there are multiple ways of being a field philosopher, which vary in their emphasis. This pluralism bodes well for the expansion of philosophy’s societal influence, since there are routes available to suit different preferences.
KeywordsField philosophy Public value REF Impact case narratives Societal impact
- Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge Exchange between Academics and the Business, Public and Third Sectors. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, Centre for Business Research.Google Scholar
- Allen, Vanessa. 2009. I will give £1m to charity, says Oxford don on £33,000 salary. The Daily Mail, 16 November.Google Scholar
- Bate, Jonathan (ed.). 2011. The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
- Bulaitis, Zoe. 2017. Measuring impact in the humanities: Learning from accountability and economics in a contemporary history of cultural value. Palgrave Communications 3, Article number: 7.Google Scholar
- Davey, N. 2011. Philosophy and the quest for the unpredictable. In The public value of the humanities, ed. J. Bate, 303–312. London: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
- Frodeman, Robert, and Adam Briggle. 2016. Socrates Tenured: The Institutions of 21 st -Century Philosophy (Collective Studies in Knowledge and Society). London: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
- Frodeman, Robert. 2017. The Impact Agenda and the Search for a Good Life. Palgrave Communications 3, Article number: 17003.Google Scholar
- HEFCE. 2011. Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. REF 02: 2011.Google Scholar
- Holbrook, J. Britt. 2017. Designing Responsible Research and Innovation as a tool to encourage serendipity could enhance the broader societal impacts of research. Journal of Responsible Innovation, published online December 7, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1410326.
- Hughes, Alan, Michael Kitson, Jocelyn Probert, Anna Bullock, and Isobel Milner. 2011. Hidden Connections: Knowledge Exchange between the Arts and Humanities and the Private. Public and Third Sectors, Report to the Arts & Humanities Research Council, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
- McIntyre, L. 2011. Making philosophy matter-or else. The Chronicle Review. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Making-Philosophy-Matter-or/130029.
- Meagher, Sharon. 2013. Public Philosophy: Revitalizing Philosophy as a Civic Discipline. PRAXIS-EDU: Report to the Kettering Foundation.Google Scholar
- Meagher, Laura R., and Ursula Martin. 2017. Slightly dirty maths: The richly textured mechanisms of impact. Research Evaluation 26(1): 15–27.Google Scholar
- Parkin, Frank. 1986. The Mind and Body Shop. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing.Google Scholar
- REF Case Studies, impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/.Google Scholar
- REF FAQs, Research Excellence Frequently Asked Questions, impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/FAQ.aspx.Google Scholar
- Smith, Rebecca. 2010. The impact of impact. The Biochemist 32:3, June, 46-48.Google Scholar