Philosophy’s Diversity Problem

Kings, A. E.

doi:10.1111/meta.12358

Cited by 35 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings thus suggest that across the political spectrum, from very left-leaning to very right-leaning individuals, philosophers sometimes experience politically motivated hostility in the field which, in some cases, prevents them from expressing their viewpoints, from being taken seriously, and from contributing to debates. This is striking because, given the pervasiveness of explicit commitments to open-mindedness and inclusiveness among philosophers (Kidd, 2017;Kings, 2019;Riggs, 2010), philosophy departments, 28 and organizations, 29 one would expect the opposite.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ethical costs are effects of ideological bias and a lack of ideological diversity, which are related to a violation of what subjects take to be morally valuable, such as, for instance, fairness, equality, or social justice. The ideological hostility and discrimination we found create ethical costs in that they violate moral principles that many philosophers (Kidd, 2017;Kings, 2019;Riggs, 2010) and philosophical institutions commit themselves to. For example, in Europe, the Faculty of Philosophy at Cambridge University stresses that it is "committed to equality, diversity, and inclusion."…”

Section: Ethical Costsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…104, 123), and claimed that they are often ridiculed (Sesardic, 2016, p. 200) or told that their "ideas and sentiments are reactionary, prejudiced, sexist, or racist" (Scruton, 2014, p. 12). Similarly, left-leaning philosophers have held that there is, for instance, not only an anti-female, but also an "antifeminist bias in philosophy" (Haslanger, 2008, p. 216; see also Saul, 2013Saul, , 2015Kings, 2019). The matter clearly calls for more research.…”

Section: Informally Gathered Data and Anecdotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 What do we know about the representation of different political viewpoints and the ideological biases against them among members of the field of philosophy (henceforth "philosophers") 3 in particular? While there has been much discussion in philosophy about diversity and bias against various underrepresented groups in the field (Allen-Hermanson, 2017a; Botts et al, 2014;Brownstein & Saul, 2016;Kings, 2019), there is no systematic and inclusive study pertaining to the distribution of and possible bias against ideologies in the field. As Schwitzgebel and Hassoun (2018) note, "political viewpoint" is one of the most "under-studied dimensions of diversity [in philosophy]."…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ideological diversity, hostility, and discrimination in philosophy

Peters

Honeycutt

Block³

et al. 2020

Philosophical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Members of the field of philosophy have, just as other people, political convictions or, as psychologists call them, ideologies. How are different ideologies distributed and perceived in the field? Using the familiar distinction between the political left and right, we surveyed an international sample of 794 subjects in philosophy. We found that survey participants clearly leaned left (75%), while right-leaning individuals (14%) and moderates (11%) were underrepresented. Moreover, and strikingly, across the political spectrum from very left-leaning individuals and moderates to very rightleaning individuals, participants reported experiencing ideological hostility in the field, occasionally even from those on their own side of the political spectrum. Finally, while about half of the subjects believed that discrimination against leftor right-leaning individuals in the field is not justified, a significant minority displayed an explicit willingness to discriminate against colleagues with the opposite ideology. Our findings are both surprising and important because a commitment to tolerance and equality is widespread in philosophy, and there is reason to think that ideological similarity, hostility, and discrimination undermine reliable belief formation in many areas of the discipline.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ethical Costsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Informally Gathered Data and Anecdotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ideological diversity, hostility, and discrimination in philosophy

Peters

Honeycutt

Block³

et al. 2020

Philosophical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, we tend to emulate their behaviour. It is commonly believed that STEM disciplines are predominantly favoured by males (Kings, 2019;Le et al, 2023). According to Archer et al, (2013), girls tend to not view STEM fields as suitable for themselves.…”

Section: Stereotype Threat In Stemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students’ perspectives on the ‘STEM belonging’ concept at A-level, undergraduate, and postgraduate levels: an examination of gender and ethnicity in student descriptions

Dost

2024

IJ STEM Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Women and ethnic minorities have historically been underrepresented in some STEM fields. It is therefore important to understand the factors influencing students’ persistence in STEM fields, and what STEM belonging means from the voices of socio-demographically diverse students, in order to ensure equity among students in STEM fields and to increase their belonging to this field, which has not been clearly defined in the literature, and there is a lack of agreement about the definition of belonging itself. For this purpose, the perspectives of students in England are brought together in this study in an attempt to better understand the concept of STEM belonging within a broader context of integration. Result The inductive thematic analysis with the voices of socio-demographically diverse 313 A-level, undergraduate and postgraduate Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry students showed that compared to male students, it was mostly female, non-binary, non-White, and first-generation students who defined STEM belonging as ‘Feeling safe and comfortable in the STEM community and settings’. This theme was defined by the participants as the group/community/learning environment in which the individual belongs, the interaction with the people in the field, and the comfort that this participation/interaction creates. Students stressed the importance of creating a supportive and welcoming STEM environment so that individuals can feel at home, as well as a safe and comfortable STEM environment for people of all identities, genders, ethnicities, and backgrounds. Based on the participants’ responses, this study also conceptualised the concept of STEM belonging as having four phases: the ‘adaptation phase’, the ‘integration phase’, the ‘continuum phase’, and the ‘transition phase’. These four phases which comprise the STEM belonging concept are consecutive and interconnected. Conclusion The study concluded that all human beings are connected in a relational way (either strong or weak) and that the concept of STEM belonging develops as a result of interactions with ‘self’ and ‘others’ who have a shared passion and an interest in STEM fields. Although individuals have intrinsic motivation and individual prompts in STEM fields (i.e. resilience, beliefs in their capacity/ability and curiosity, etc.), social determinants (i.e. receiving adequate support from members of the STEM community, social capital and social cohesion, etc.) also play a significant role in influencing individual’s sense of STEM belonging.

show abstract

Algorithmic bias: on the implicit biases of social technology

Johnson

2020

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Often machine learning programs inherit social patterns reflected in their training data without any directed effort by programmers to include such biases. Computer scientists call this algorithmic bias. This paper explores the relationship between machine bias and human cognitive bias. In it, I argue similarities between algorithmic and cognitive biases indicate a disconcerting sense in which sources of bias emerge out of seemingly innocuous patterns of information processing. The emergent nature of this bias obscures the existence of the bias itself, making it difficult to identify, mitigate, or evaluate using standard resources in epistemology and ethics. I demonstrate these points in the case of mitigation techniques by presenting what I call 'the Proxy Problem'. One reason biases resist revision is that they rely on proxy attributes, seemingly innocuous attributes that correlate with socially-sensitive attributes, serving as proxies for the socially-sensitive attributes themselves. I argue that in both human and algorithmic domains, this problem presents a common dilemma for mitigation: attempts to discourage reliance on proxy attributes risk a tradeoff with judgement accuracy. This problem, I contend, admits of no purely algorithmic solution.

show abstract

Philosophy’s Diversity Problem

Cited by 35 publications

References 22 publications

Ideological diversity, hostility, and discrimination in philosophy

Ideological diversity, hostility, and discrimination in philosophy

Students’ perspectives on the ‘STEM belonging’ concept at A-level, undergraduate, and postgraduate levels: an examination of gender and ethnicity in student descriptions

Algorithmic bias: on the implicit biases of social technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About