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

Writing/publishing an exploratory paper?

In our January “how can we help you?” thread, a reader writes:

How does one write an exploratory paper?

I have come across a small but interesting phenomenon in my area (phil language/speech acts) that I’m pretty sure nobody has written about before. I want to write a paper which boils down to ‘X is interesting, and we should all talk about it more!’ wtih some comments on X and it’s variations. What’s the best way to do this?

I ask because, as a final year PhD student, all the writing I’ve done (especially the published writing) has been clearly *argued* for some position, generally against someone else’s position. The only more exploratory thing I’ve written is my thesis, which is obviously a very different beast.

Could people recommend:
– strategies for framing and structuring the paper
– existing work of this kind that they think works especially well? (good models)
– advice on finding/choosing publication venues

Does anyone have any helpful tips or thoughts about this?

Posted in

8 responses to “Writing/publishing an exploratory paper?”

  1. Anonymous

    Based on experience, I think exploratory papers are best-reserved for invited volumes or handbooks.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    I would say that these are acceptable papers to pursue *only if* you can show that the linguistic phenomenon makes problems for existing theories. This is because, maybe, this phenomenon is fairly easily explained by all of the main theories in the space. If that’s correct, then it becomes less clear why it would be something people should talk about more!

    (Additionally, for phil language in particular, interesting phenomena are a dime a dozen.)

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    C. Thi Nguyen is my go-to exemplar for exploratory philosophy, with Value Capture, Autonomy and Aesthetic Engagement, and Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles being particular favorites of mine. Lucky for us, Nguyen also wrote a DN guest post in which he discusses his approach to this sort of paper (https://dailynous.com/2025/07/15/beyond-argument-the-creative-craft-of-philosophy-writing-guest-post/). The few paragraphs near the end have some very interesting advice about adjusting your tone when switching from argumentative philosophy to exploratory philosophy.

    There is some truth to the idea that in philosophy of language specifically the most successful exploratory papers connect the phenomenon to some existing theory. Langton’s work on silencing is a classic example that I am sure you are aware of. But notice that it doesn’t really problematize speech act theory itself. It uses the theory to make the phenomenon philosophically intelligible.

    Given that you are still a PhD student, you probably won’t receive an invitation to contribute to a volume or handbook anytime soon. Still, life is too short to not to write about the stuff you want to write about.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    Frame it as a puzzle and suggest some possible answers. If no answers work, point this out, and suggest it needs to be paid more attention to. (Or maybe better: frame it as: “The Problem of X.”)

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Only frame it as a puzzle if it/there is one. Too many papers now pretend there are puzzles everywhere. A terrible trend in my view.

      Reply
  5. Anonymous

    My guess would be to present it as a dilemma/trilemma/n-lemma, such that there are costs to not dealing with the thing you think is worth everyone’s attention.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    Generally speaking, I would save exploratory pieces for invites only. But even if you move forward with it regardless, I’d recommend a “future research” section where you describe how the phenomenon makes trouble for other theories, or relates to this other phenomenon, or different directions for theorizing about it, etc. If you can show that there’s more promising research to be done–especially research that more clearly interacts with an existing literature–journals might be more interested.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    I would like to vehemently speak against all those discouraging you to save your exploratory paper for invited stuff. That we’re still reserving journal space for tiny little moves in debates so complex (and often needlessly so) that only a few self-important (vanity-starved) philosophers can understand them is a shame. I hope I am the referee that gets a chance to read your and more exploratory papers. Go read a bunch of articles from Phil Review, PPR, JPhil, Mind prior to 1970 and tell me how much literature they ‘cite’ in footnote one (if there are footnotes at all). We used to write ESSAYS – attempts, gestures, goings-out-on-a-limb. Too many posts above me represent the worst of what we’ve become as writers.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading