The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

How to do interdisciplinary analytic philosophy, appealing to a wider audience?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I want to be interdisciplinary, and to appeal to wider audiences, especially in this precarious time for philosophers. But I have a problem whenever I try to do so. As an analytic philosopher, many of my papers so far take the form of, at least in the first part, presenting a problem that should trouble people (often arguing why it should). It might be a problem with existing accounts of X. Or it might be a philosophical puzzle or problem in its own right. More often than not I then offer a solution.

So the reaction I expect – if my audience gets the paper – is either being troubled, for the reasons I urged, or being troubled and then relieved (by my solution), or disagreeing that they should be troubled, or relieved, and so being at least a little troubled about that, instead. Generally, analytic philosophers who get the paper react in one of these ways.

But outside analytic philosophy, I never get any of these reactions. I maybe get well-intentioned feedback along the lines of “Ah, yes, that reminds me of X,” or “You should look at Y,” or “Is your sense of P (which the problem doesn’t turn on) the same as So-and-So’s sense?” They never seem troubled, or relieved, but they also don’t seem to disagree or find the argument underwhelming, trivial, or obvious. This just leaves me frustrated that they’re not playing ball, and my frustration shows, preventing fruitful interaction.

Is it just me? What should I do?

Good questions. I guess I'm inclined to think experiences like these may be good opportunities to see whether the kinds of questions we raise and arguments we give have the kind of interest and appeal to outsiders that they do within our own disciplinary silos–and, if not, to investigate why and (potentially) what to do about it. One of the things I've always admired of the Socratic model of philosophy in Plato's works is how Socrates engages with everyday people in dialogue. And I think there are some trends in this direction in philosophy (including analytic philosophy in particular), viz. "public philosophy." Beyond this, though, I'm not sure.

What do you all think? It would be great to hear from people who have (or haven't) had similar experiences, and what they took away from them!

Posted in ,

8 responses to “How to do interdisciplinary analytic philosophy, appealing to a wider audience?”

  1. Phil of Ed

    I am a philosopher of education. It is great that philosophers are trying to speak to new audiences. In my experience, a good starting place is to take a genuine interest in the fields you hope to appeal to. You may be surprised by how much good philosophical work already exists in the fields you are reaching out to. Learn from it, and also learn from generalist journals in the field. What are the issues people in the field find perplexing? See if you can’t be a co-worker on these issues. To put these points negatively, don’t talk down to your audience. Don’t assume they aren’t already thinking philosophically. Someone like Elizabeth Anderson is a great model. She does the work of reading widely in the fields she is reaching out to, and because of this, her philosophical contributions are met with interest and gratitude.

    Reply
  2. anon

    One thing that’s a bit unclear from the OP is what standard of success the OP is looking for, when it comes to being interdisciplinary. I’d have different advice for say, publishing in journals outside of or adjacent to philosophy.
    So given the above I might be wrong, but what the OP seems interested in is fruitful interactions with audiences outside of philosophy. And sorry if this is a bit of a silly take, but it sounds like from the audience side, the OP has succeeded at this already: non-philosophers are showing up to the talks, learning something about philosophy, and asking interested questions.
    The one thing left to change is for the OP to stop being noticeably frustrated with the unexpected questions, and instead have the conversation that the audience wants to have. Something that might help is attending talks held by the disciplines you are trying to be interdisciplinary with, and not asking questions for a while, but rather taking it as a chance to learn how those folks have conversations.

    Reply
  3. Lance S. Bush

    I have a vague sense consistent with this: that people outside of academic philosophy often haven’t reacted to philosophical concerns as though they’re problems. It may take a preexisting disposition, training in philosophy, or both for people to have those sorts of reactions.
    I also do interdisciplinary work in philosophy and psychology, and I’ve encountered somewhat different problem.s I’m not sure if raising a different (if perhaps vaguely related concern) would be of interest, but my guess would be that those of us who want to do interdisciplinary work encounter somewhat different challenges depending on the disciplines we want to work in.
    I work in psychology as well as philosophy, and some of the philosophical objections I raise regarding methodological concerns in psychological studies aren’t seen as being as serious as problems with, e.g., analytic decisions or other more conventionally psychological problems, even when the philosophical issue amounts to “this concept was operationalized so poorly there’s no way it could serve as a good measure of the construct.” Such an objection should be devastating (if correct), but it’s often not seen that way. I’m not suggesting people don’t recognize the problems, but I have the impression my concerns are peripheral to more central concerns.
    Another issue has to do with who you present your findings to. I haven’t found problems with the few conferences I’ve been to: they seem fine with presenting empirical findings at philosophy conferences, and philosophical ideas at psychology conferences. The issue has to do with journals. Aside from a small few, journals will reject papers as being “philosophy, not psychology” or “psychology, not philosophy” when it’s the same paper.
    I’m pretty much just speculating here, but I suspect that part of the issue may be the terms we use and the way we frame our concerns. If you frame an issue using the terms and ways of approaching issues from one discipline when presenting to an audience from a different discipline, the terms may fail to register due to lack of familiarity. That seems like an obvious and minor point though. I don’t know if I have any concrete ideas on what to do about it.

    Reply
  4. AnonymousL

    I know a lot of philosophers who don’t understand the concept of audience. If I’m lecturing to philosophers, I can pitch my talk in a certain way. If I’m lecturing to others, it usually looks different. You have to try to connect with people where they’re at. I know some philosophers who are always expecting others to meet them on their (the philosopher’s) terms and start the discussion from there, but this just leads to confusion because people have different starting points. You have to learn how other people think and engage with them on their turf. You may not like it but in the broader world communication is a two way street.

    Reply
  5. Overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer

    I’ve had success with interdisciplinary work and publishing in several disciplines. AnonymousL gets it right: be charitable and take the time to get to know people. This takes practice, and it is not always easy. I’ve found, for example, that working on building connections is more fruitful than “looking for problems” or “looking to find an objection.” Those are valuable skills in philosophy. Certainly, there is value in this perspective outside our discipline. However, it is often better to be collaborative than argumentative, particularly in the early stages of a relationship.

    Reply
  6. Robert M Wallace

    Training in “Nonviolent Communication” says that we should begin with showing empathy for where the other person is coming from. (Stating in our own language what they seem to be struggling with or caring about.) This establishes a bridge between us. Only when we can see that that bridge has been created, do we proceed to speak candidly about where we’re coming from. Thanks to the bridge, there is a good chance that the other party will be willing to make an effort to relate to us, to where we’re coming from. I’ve just restated what other writers above have said in commonsense terms. I find the NVC formulation helpful; others may too.

    Reply
  7. Working in other disciplines

    People describe much of my work as interdisciplinary. But I like to think that I work in different disciplines; I also draw on work in other disciplines in my work in philosophy. To do this sort of work effectively, you have to go some way to learning another discipline – I publish in three disciplines. This has allowed me to learn how to communicate effectively with people in even more disciplines. I have the advantage of working in an interdisciplinary unit, rather than a philosophy dpeartment. It is certainly not the type of job for everyone, but it suits my manners and ways.

    Reply
  8. assc prof

    Another thing to keep in mind:
    Philosophers are imperfect and sometimes we think that something is of intellectual interest (e.g., amounts to a puzzle worthy of extended attention) when it in fact isn’t. Dennett once said that he likes teaching undergrads because they keep him honest, with the idea being that grad students need less convincing of philosophy’s value, so there will be more false positives without exposure to undergrads. I’m not saying this is happening in the cases the OP describes, but surely it happens sometimes: interdisciplinary audiences fail to take up a problem simply because it’s not a genuine one.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading