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 (2026-27)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2026-27)

recent posts

about

Thoughts on interdisciplinarity?

In our June “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks, “Thoughts on interdisciplinarity?”

Obviously, this is a broad question that can be interpreted in different ways. Philosophically, I think interdisciplinarity can be cool (my own work draws on history, behavioral neuroscience, social psychology, physics, dramatic literature, and film). But, as for the job-market? There I’m not too sure. I know some philosophers value interdisciplinarity, but others seem to view philosophy as a standalone, a priori discipline. So, I don’t know to what extent interdisciplinarity is helpful or not in terms of job-getting. Regardless, I say: do the the kind of work you value!

Thoughts from readers?

Posted in ,

8 responses to “Thoughts on interdisciplinarity?”

  1. Anonymous

    Things might be changing, but I think interdisciplinary profiles/work often strike many philosophers as “not philosophy”. I had this experience on the job market some years ago. One paper I used for job talks numerous times in one year (since published in a leading specialty journal, and now among the top 2 % of the cited articles in that journal), often led to questions about its philosophical significance. According to the Web of Science, 35 % of my papers are either interdisciplinary or published in another discipline. I have enjoyed my career, and have a strong research record, but in other ways my interdisciplinary work has not helped my career. So do it because you like to do it, or because the questions that interest you require it. There are very high start up costs in terms of time. etc. to properly engage in interdisciplinary research.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    On the job market my experience has been, speaking very generally, that an interdisciplinary profile sells better in Europe than North America (sorry to leave out the rest of the world but I don’t have enough experience). Especially in central Europe, most philosophical research is grant funded and interdisciplinarity goes over well with funding agencies that evaluate proposals across disciplines. In contrast, traditional American analytic research departments may view it as suspicious if your work doesn’t seem “philosophical enough.”

    More than interdisciplinarity per se, it seems to help if your work can connect to a trendy topic and if you can massage the presentation of your philosophical approach for particular audiences.

    Reply
  3. interdisciplinary anon

    I do interdisciplinary work and have published in a range of disciplines’ journals (some quite good ones) in my specific corner of interests. Over the past 5 years on the market, committees often tell me how impressed they are with that. On multiple flyouts I’ve been told how departments really need someone to bridge between the philosophy department and the rest of campus for enrollment and various other reasons, which of course, interdisciplinarity lends to in a concrete, demonstrable way, which is why I’m flown out, so they say. I am still on the job market and those jobs ended up going to more ‘pure’ philosopher-types (and very good, deserving ones at that – no shade on them). So, be careful to mind peoples words and then their actions when it comes to the job market. My advice is that when in doubt, if you want a philosophy job, you don’t want any doubts about how ‘philosopher’ you are.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Just wanted to chime in that I had the same experience for many years on the market! Lots of talk about how good and “important” my interdisciplinary work was from search committees, only for them to ultimately go with a more traditional candidate. My theory is that S.C. folks are told that interdisciplinarity is important for the health of their departments from the higher ups, and so they sometimes parrot these things on the fly outs even if they don’t really think it themselves. Hence the disconnect between words and actions.

      Reply
  4. Anonymous

    I had a visit this year in a Humanities Department, and despite the fact that I consider myself a humanist who draws on literature, history, film, and cultural studies in their work I still felt like the committee (which contained 0 philosophers) were not fully buying what I felt to be legitimately selling as to the non-narrow, interdisciplinary focus of my work & teaching. I won’t stop pursuing the work I do, of course (which I think is genuinely interdisciplinary). But yeah, not sure it’ll work on the market.

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    I think it depends on the mix in your portfolio, so to speak. If you have a couple of “pure” philosophy papers published then you may have shown (in the eyes of search committees) that you’re “philosophical enough” such that doing interdisciplinary work won’t count against you. It may also be helpful to distinguish between the interdisciplinary nature of (1) your extant work (2) your ongoing and future research plans and (3) how you portray (1) and (2) in job documents, talks, interviews, etc. You can’t control (1), but you have some control over (3).

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    I think the comment that mentions having a couple of “pure” philosophy papers is correct. That balances the concern that you are a “real” philosopher. At many teaching institutions, having breadth can be a very good thing, but it does need to be in the context of the field, not out of it. (Or else, why not let some other department hire you and we can get another philosopher.)

    Reply
  7. Charles Pigden

    I don’t want to contradict the testimony of several of the anonymi that having interdisciplinary interests and publications can actually be a handicap in the North American job market. Nevertheless I find this astonishing. After all, some of the biggest stars in analytic philosophy have been notable for their interdisciplinary interests. To begin at the beginning, analytic philosophy *originated* on the borders between philosophy and mathematics. Frege was actually employed as a professor of mathematics rather than philosophy and Russell’s 2nd, 4th and 6th books (An Essay on the Foundations of Geometry, the Principles of Mathematics, and Principia Mathematica) were obviously on the borderline between Mathematics and Philosophy. (His first book, German Social Democracy, was also interdisciplinary being on the borderline between Philosophy, Politics and Economics.) Both Mathematics and the Philosophy of Mathematics (which is often difficult to distinguish from Mathematics itself) have continued to be big business ever since. Ramsey taught and published on mathematics (as well as having a side-interest in economics) and Hilary Putnam, had ‘a second career’ as a research mathematician with forty or so papers to his credit including a contribution to the solution of Hilbert’s Tenth Problem. Other big-name American philosophers who have been notable for their interdisciplinary interests, include Alvin Goldman (psychology, cognitive science, economics) Daniel Dennett (psychology including animal psychology, cognitive science) John Searle , Elliot Sober the (philosophy of biology specifically evolutionary theory) and Martha Nussbaum (who was originally as much a classicist as she was a philosopher but who has subsequently published on the economics of development (being the co-creator of the capabilities approach), feminism, ethics, politics (including the politics of sexuality) the philosophy of literature, the philosophy of the emotions the philosophy of law and (surprisingly) the import and aesthetics of opera. There are many subjects X such that the Philosophy of X is a flourishing sub-discipline and in such cases (Philosophy of Biology being another good example) the line between X and the Philosophy of X is often both fuzzy and porous. So if there really are people with a hiring preference for ‘pure’ philosophers one can only say that they have a perverse idea of what makes for good philosophy, based an astonishing ignorance of the history of their subject. What’s more they are probably making a commercial mistake. A big growth area in academia is Philosophy Politics and Economics (We started a PPE program at Otago 27 years ago and there are now more PPE majors than Philosophy majors even though the numbers for ‘straight’ Philosophy have been holding fairly steady.) ‘Pure’ philosophers are likely to be a lot less use than ‘impure’ philosophers in developing lucrative (not to mention intellectually stimulating) interdisciplinary programmes. The purity-cult departments are probably investing in the wrong kinds of people.

    I would add that even if there is a cult of purity in North America it does not extend to Antipodes where impurity and interdisciplinarity have been all the rage, at least since I arrived in Australia 46 years ago. Its has been a long time since I was on the market, but one of the things I boast about when going for promotions or progressions is the large number extra-philosophic disciplines that cite my work. In Australia and New Zealand interdisciplinarity is a badge of honour.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading