The Racial, Ethnic, and Gender
Diversity of Philosophy Students and Faculty in the United States: Recent Data
from Several Sources
Eric Schwitzgebel
Department of Philosophy
University of California, Riverside
Riverside,
CA 92521-0201
USA
Liam Kofi Bright
Department of Philosophy, Logic, and
Scientific Method
London School of Economics and Political Philosophy
Houghton St, Holborn, London WC2A 2AE
United Kingdom
Carolyn
Dicey Jennings
Cognitive and Information Sciences Department
University of California at Merced
Merced, CA 95343
USA
Morgan Thompson
Department of Philosophy
Bielefeld University
Bielefeld 33501
Germany
Eric Winsberg
Department of Philosophy
University of South Florida
Tampa, FL 33620
USA
May 4, 2021
The Racial, Ethnic, and Gender
Diversity of Philosophy Students and Faculty in the United States: Recent Data
from Several Sources
Abstract: We explore recent data on the racial, ethnic, and
gender diversity of philosophy students and faculty in the United States,
drawing from the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the National Science Foundation (NSF),
and the Academic Placement Data and Analysis (APDA) databases, plus other
sources. We find that women are underrepresented
in philosophy at all levels from first-year intention to major through senior
faculty. The past four years have seen an
increase in the percentage of women philosophy majors at the undergraduate
level, but it remains to be seen if this recent increase in percentage of women
will eventually also show at more advanced stages. Temporal trends since 2000 also show
substantial increases in the
racial and ethnic diversity of philosophy majors at all levels of education
from first-year undergraduate through PhD, with substantial declines in the
percentage of non-Hispanic White philosophy majors and substantial increases in
all other commonly measured racial/ethnic groups except for Native American /
Alaska Native. Despite generally increasing
diversity,
people who identify as Hispanic (any
race), or non-Hispanic Native
American, Alaska Native, or Black remain substantially underrepresented in
philosophy at all levels compared to their presence in the U.S. population, and in
some cases also as compared to other majors.
The Racial, Ethnic, and Gender
Diversity of Philosophy Students and Faculty in the United States: Recent Data
from Several Sources
Since at least the 1990s, philosophy has been among
the least demographically diverse academic disciplines in the United States,
with substantial and well-documented imbalances at least in race and gender, as
well as likely imbalances relative to other academic specializations or the
population as a whole in ethnicity or national background, socio-economic
status, and possibly disability status.[1] In this article, we examine the most recent
data from multiple sources on race, Hispanic/Latinx
ethnicity, and gender in philosophy in the U.S., from first-year university students’
intention to major through entry into the professoriate. Where possible, we will also examine temporal
trends since the year 2000. We focus on
race, Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and gender due to
the availability of data from multiple databases over time for these
demographic characteristics, allowing both temporal analysis and analysis from
the beginning to the end of the academic “pipeline” into philosophy.
1. First-Year Intention to Major:
The HERI Database.
Every year, the Higher Education
Research Institute (HERI) conducts a “Freshman Survey” of entering college and university students in a large
number of institutions across the United States. The most recent available year with
discipline specific data, 2016, included 171,300 respondents from 253 colleges
and universities. (HERI provides only
summary data from more recent years, not breaking responses down by
discipline.) Weaknesses in the database
include (1.) variable institutional participation by institution type (for
example higher among relatively wealthy private institutions), (2.) failure to
report student response rates, which might be lower for some groups of students
or institutions, and (3.) an approximately 50% decline in institutional
participation and total responses since the year 2000.[2] Despite these shortcomings, the HERI data
provide unique information, not available from other sources, about nationwide
demographic trends among first-year students.
From Fall 2000 through Fall 2016, HERI collected first-year intention to
major from 4.9 million students (asking students to “please indicate your intended major”, with “Philosophy” as one
of several dozen options).
Race/ethnicity questions have varied over time, but students were always
able to respond with more than one race.
HERI currently aggregates all past and present race/ethnicity questions
into seven categories: American Indian (including Alaska Native), Asian
(including Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders), Black, Hispanic,
White, Other, and Two or More Races/Ethnicities (including Hispanic plus any
other race/ethnicity category). In this
database, a respondent would be marked as “Hispanic” only if they did not also
indicate another race/ethnicity. If they
indicated, for example, both “Hispanic” and “Black”, they would be classified
as “Two or More”. Overall, 0.35% of
students expressed an intention to major in philosophy.
Only a tiny percentage of first-year
students identified as American Indian: 0.2-0.3% overall, and 0.0-0.4% of those
intending to major in philosophy, with no obvious temporal trends. This is substantially lower than the 0.9% of
U.S. population age 15-19 that are estimated to identify as non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaskan Native alone in this time period by the U.S. Census Bureau.[3] Students responding in the “Other” category were also few and steady,
both overall (1-2%) and in philosophy (1-4%).
The percentage of students identifying as non-Hispanic White steadily
declined, both overall (from 74% in 2000 to 52% in 2016) and in philosophy
(from 76% to 48%).
Figures 1a-d show the percentage of
students in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Two or More categories by year,
both in philosophy and overall (excluding respondents without a valid answer:
3.6% overall and 2.4% among students intending to major in philosophy). As is evident from the figures, the
percentage of students entering college intending to major in philosophy who
identify as Asian, Hispanic, or multiracial approximately matches the overall
percentages across all majors. Until
recently, Asian students may have been a little underrepresented and
multiracial students a little overrepresented in philosophy compared to other
majors, but both groups are now near proportionality. In the early 2000s, Black students were about
7% of students overall but only about 3% in philosophy. By 2013, however, Black students are
approximately proportionately represented in philosophy relative to their
participation in the university as a whole.
The sharp spike in 2016 might be noise: With only 494 total philosophy
respondents that year, the estimate is only accurate +/- 2%. Despite the increase, the percentage of
philosophy majors identifying as Black remains lower than the approximately 15%
of the U.S. resident population aged 15-19 estimated to identify as
non-Hispanic Black alone in this time period by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Figures
1a-d. First-year intention to major
in philosophy by race/ethnicity since 2000.
Error bars indicate +/- one standard error.
HERI asks about sex or gender with
the prompt “your sex” and response options “male” and “female”.[4] Through 2016, there was no option for nonbinary or other.
In 2015, HERI added a “Do you identify as transgender?” with response options “yes” and “no”. Overall 0.3% of respondents and 0.7% of
students intending to major in philosophy answered “yes”. However, an
additional 12.5% of students (9.3% in philosophy) declined to answer, so it is
possible the “yes”
responses are a
conservative estimate. Figure 2 shows
temporal trends by gender. As is evident
from the chart, while the percentage of women students across all majors has
been approximately constant at slightly under 60%, the percentage in philosophy
has increased from the mid-30%s to the low 40%.
Figure 2.
First-year intention to major in philosophy by gender since 2000. Error bars indicate +/- one standard error.
In sum, the HERI data on first-year
intention to major show mostly encouraging trends, with increasing diversity
over time, most strikingly among Black students. However, the continuing low representation of
American Indian students is cause for concern, and first-year students
intending to major in philosophy are still disproportionately men compared to
the student body overall.
2. Completed Bachelor’s Degrees in Philosophy from the National Center for
Education Statistics.
We are not aware of any systematic
nationwide data concerning the proportion of students entering with an
intention to major in philosophy who then go on to complete that major as
opposed to some other major. Rates of
transfer both in and out of the philosophy major may be high. Our next dataset, the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), from the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES), provides approximately complete data on race and
gender for all graduating students at accredited four-year universities in the
United States, as supplied by university administrators. These data exclude a small, unknown
percentage of students who do not provide the relevant demographic information
to their college administrators. Our
analysis includes students completing their bachelor’s degree with philosophy as either a first or second
major, compared to all graduates.
NCES uses seven racial/ethnic
categories: “American Indian / Alaska Native”, “Asian”, “Black or African American”, “Hispanic or Latino”, “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” (starting
in the 2010-2011 academic year; before that, included with Asian), “White”,and “two or more races” (starting 2007-2008), separating out
those categorized as “nonresident alien”.
In contrast with the HERI data, all racial categories, including “two or more”, exclude
students identifying as Hispanic or Latino.
For example, a student who identified as both “Black” and “Hispanic”
would be included in the Hispanic category and not in the Black
category. Because of this, and also
because of the exclusion of students without permanent residency, the NCES and
HERI race/ethnicity numbers are not strictly comparable. We analyzed data from the 2000-2001 academic
year (labeled 2001 in the NCES database), through the most recent available
year, 2018-2019.
Over this period, the percentage of
nonresident aliens increased, from 3% to 5% of all bachelor’s recipients and from 2% to 6% of philosophy bachelor’s recipients.
Throughout the period about 3-5% of students, both overall and in
philosophy, were listed as race/ethnicity unknown. These two groups are not included in the analyses
below.
Among permanent residents with known
race/ethnicity, only a very small percentage of bachelor’s recipients identified as American Indian / Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander throughout the period:
0.5-0.8% and 0.2-0.3%, respectively, of students overall, and 0.4-1.0% and
0.1-0.3%, respectively, of philosophy students.
As in the HERI data, the percentage of students identifying as White
declined substantially over the period, from 72% to 57% overall and from 84% to
65% in
philosophy. Comparison with the HERI
data shows a higher percentage of White students, and a slightly higher
percentage of American Indian students, among bachelor’s degree recipients than among students entering with
the intention to major in philosophy.
However, it is unclear whether these differences are due to differences
in reporting techniques or categories, sampling problems in the HERI database,
disproportionate entry into or exit from the philosophy major, or higher
completion rates by students in these two groups.
Figures 3a-d show the percentage of
students in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Two or More categories by year,
both in philosophy and overall. As is
evident from these charts, and broadly fitting with the HERI data, the
percentage of Asian, Hispanic, and multiracial students has been increasing
steadily both in philosophy and overall.
Asian and Hispanic students are approximately proportionately
represented in philosophy relative to other disciplines (but not necessarily
relative to the overall United States population), while multiracial students
might be slightly more common among philosophy bachelor’s recipients than overall. We are hesitant to read too much into either
the sharp rise or the possible overrepresentation of multiracial students, due
to changes in reporting practices during the period.
The picture for Black students is
different. In the HERI database, Black
students were underrepresented among students entering college with an
intention to major in philosophy in the early 2000s, but by the end of the
period (the 2016-2017 academic year), Black students were approximately
proportionately represented. In
contrast, in the NCES database, Black students are substantially
underrepresented throughout the period.
It is possible that this is partly due to the temporal offset: Students
entering in 2016-2017 intending to major in philosophy would not yet normally
have completed their degree by the last available year in the NCES database,
2018-2019. Other possibilities include a
tendency for Black students disproportionately to exit (or not enter)
philosophy, difference in the questionnaire items or methods, or sampling
problems in the HERI database.
Figures 3a-d.
Completed bachelor’s
degrees in philosophy by race or ethnicity since 2001, U.S. citizens and permanent
residents only. Error bars indicate +/-
one standard error.
NCES classifies all students as “men” or “women”, with no reported nonbinary
categories and no unclassified students.
Figure 4 shows temporal trends by gender. As is evident from the chart, while the
percentage of women bachelor’s
recipients overall has been approximately constant at slightly under 60%, the
percentage in philosophy increased; after a long run in the low-30%s numbers
increased starting around 2015, crossing over 35% for the first time in 2019.
Figure 4. Completed bachelor’s degrees in philosophy by gender since 2001. Error bars indicate +/- one standard error.
In sum, the NCES IPEDS data on
completed bachelor’s
degrees, like the HERI data, show increasing diversity over time in both race
and gender. However, in contrast with
the HERI data, Black students remain strikingly underrepresented, even in the
most recent years. Also as in the HERI
data, compared to the student body overall, bachelor’s recipients in philosophy remain disproportionately
men.
3. Completed PhDs in Philosophy from
the National Science Foundation’s Survey of Earned Doctorates.
The National Science Foundation
(NSF) conducts a census of all people receiving research doctorates from
accredited U.S. institutions, the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED). The SED contacts doctorate recipients directly
by multiple contact modalities, achieving response rates of about 90-95%
throughout the period. NSF includes “philosophy” as a
subfield and “ethics” as a separate subfield starting in 2012. However, the number of “ethics” PhD recipients is small and merged with the philosophy
recipients in the NSF’s data
presentation. We examined data from the
2000-2001 academic year through the most recent available year, 2018-2019.
The SED’s race/ethnicity categories exclude temporary visa
holders, which was a substantial proportion of PhD recipients across all
majors, rising from 24% in 2001 to 33% in 2019, and rising from 12% to 18%
among philosophy PhD recipients. Only U.S. citizens and permanent residents are
included in the race/ethnicity analyses to follow. Among U.S. citizens and permanent residents,
NSF reports the categories “American Indian or Alaska Native”, “Asian”, “Black or African American”, “Hispanic or Latino”, “White”, “more than one race, not Hispanic or Latino” and “other or race not reported”. As in the NCES data, and in contrast with the
HERI data, respondents identifying as Hispanic or Latino were classified as
belonging to that category regardless of their response to the racial question.[5] “Other or race not reported” constituted
7-15% of students throughout the period (excluding temporary visa holders) and
1-6% of philosophy PhD respondents.
As in the HERI and NCES data,
American Indians were underrepresented among PhD recipients overall, 0.3-0.5%
throughout the period, compared to 0.8% of the U.S. population aged 25-34. American Indians were even more strikingly
absent from philosophy, constituting 0.17% of philosophy PhD recipients across
the period. In 10 of the 19 included
years, the NSF recorded no American Indian recipients of philosophy PhDs, and
11 were awarded overall.
Figures 5a-d show the percentage of
students in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Two or More categories by year,
both in philosophy and overall. As in
the NCES data, Black students remain underrepresented in philosophy, earning
approximately 1%-4% of philosophy PhDs throughout the period. Unlike in the NCES and HERI data, Asian and
probably also Hispanic students are underrepresented in philosophy compared to
other disciplines throughout the period, also earning about 2-4% and about 3-7%
of philosophy PhDs, respectively, possibly increasing toward the end of the
period. In contrast, and similarly to
what we see in the NCES and HERI data, multi-racial students are approximately
proportionately represented in philosophy relative to other disciplines, rising
both in philosophy and overall throughout the period.
Figures 5a-d.
Completed research doctorates in philosophy by race or ethnicity since
2001, U.S. citizens and permanent residents only. Error bars indicate +/- one standard error.
The SED uses the sex categories “male” and “female”, with
no nonbinary categories. Very few students remain unclassified: 0.07%
of PhD recipients overall and 0.06% of philosophy PhD recipients. Figure 6 shows temporal trends by
gender. As is evident from the chart,
and in keeping with the HERI and NCES data, philosophy PhD recipients remain
disproportionately men compared to PhD recipients overall.
Figure 6. Completed research doctorates in philosophy
by gender since 2001. Error bars
indicate +/- one standard error.
4. The Racial, Ethnic, and Gender
Diversity of Philosophy Professors.
There are several good sources of
recent gender data among philosophy professors in the U.S. Connecting PhD graduates to the
professoriate, Academic Placement Data and Analysis (APDA) has collected data
on recent PhD graduates from philosophy departments in the Anglophone world and
their placement outcomes since 2011.
Data are gathered and checked using both public (e.g. public placement
pages on departmental websites) and non-public sources (e.g. self-report by PhD
graduates). Gender is determined by
self-report whenever possible, otherwise assigned by first name using an Application
Programming Interface (genderize.io), or through publicly available information
when the API categorization is indeterminate. The APDA data are approximately complete for
the years 2012-2018. Excluding 4% “unknown” or “prefer not to answer”, 29% of these graduates were women
and 0.2% were nonbinary, with no striking temporal
trends over this short period. In terms
of placement, women make up 34% of those who graduated in this period who are now
in tenure-track or equivalent positions, 25% of postdoctoral or fellowship
positions, 23% of temporary academic positions, 28% of permanent lecturers and
instructors, 30% of nonacademic positions, and 29% of those with unknown or no
placement. APDA data from 2000 to 2020
for years outside the 2012-2018 range are incomplete, and so caution is
warranted when looking at longer range temporal trends in this data. Nonetheless, the percentage of women graduates
over this longer range does trend upward over this period, with a linear best
fit line moving from around 25% to around 30%.
In 2020, the American Philosophical
Association (APA) released a report, based primarily on 2017 data from the
Philosophy Documentation Center (PDC), which attempts to list all full-time
philosophy faculty in the United States (Nails and Davenport, 2020). The report employs the binary categories “male” and “female”,
drawing on the PDC’s binary
classifications and supplementing with online data when gender was not
specified by the PDC. According to this
report, as of 2017, 26% of philosophy faculty were women, including 34% of
assistant professors, 28% of associate professors, 21% of full professors, and
26% of contingent faculty.
The Demographics in Philosophy
project examined faculty lists on the department websites of 98 philosophy PhD
granting institutions in the U.S., as of Fall 2019, coding each individual as
woman, man, or nonbinary, based on pronoun usage,
other publicly available data, and opportunities for correction by department
heads and others. The data are not yet
finalized, but publicly available draft data find 24% women faculty overall
across all ranks and 4 nonbinary faculty (excluding 2
unclassified) (Peterson & Hustoft 2021). Among non-emeritus tenure track faculty, 28%
were women overall, including 43% of assistant professors, 32% of associate
professors, and 22% of full professors.
Data on race and ethnicity are more
difficult to obtain, and we know of no recent systematic reviews of the racial
composition of philosophy faculty in the United States. However, the APA conducts an annual
demographic survey, reporting summary data on race and other demographic
characteristics of the members who respond to that survey. Among 2,430 APA full-member respondents who
provided demographic information on race or ethnicity, 1% identified as Native
American / Alaska Native, 6% identified as Asian, 4% identified as Black /
African American, 5% identified as Hispanic / Latino, 0.1% identified as
Pacific Islander, 82% identified as White / Caucasian, and 2% identified as “something else”. However, given
that the Nails and Davenport report found 8,534 faculty in the PDC (6,647 in
traditional ladder ranks), the APA member self-report data constitute only a
possibly unrepresentative minority of faculty.
In particular, the 4% Black / African American might be an overestimate,
since it fits poorly with Botts and colleagues’
(2014) estimate of 1% and historical trends among PhD recipients in the NSF SED
database, consistently 1-3% until a few 4% years recently.
In a 2018 self-report survey of
recent PhDs (Jennings et al., 2019), APDA found that 6-9% of respondents
identified as Chicanx/Latinx/Hispanic. In a separate question on race with 896
respondents, 87% identified as White, either alone or in combination with
another race, 1% identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native, 7% identified
as Asian or Pacific Islander, 1% as Black or African American, and 8% as Other,
with 5% of respondents selecting more than one option. As with the APA data, caution is warranted due
to the small, self-selected, and possibly unrepresentative sample.
5. Pipeline or Cohort?
Although the data from the different
sources are not strictly comparable due to differences in collection method and
in some cases the category labels, the HERI, NCES, and NSF data are nonetheless
comparable for several target groups.
This enables a comparison of percentages from first-year intention to
major through receipt of the PhD. All of
the target groups except for White and Men (which rise) and American Indian or
Alaska Native (which remain approximately flat at less than 0.5%) constitute a
smaller percentage of philosophy majors at the PhD level than in first-year
intention to major, as displayed in Table 1.
This could be due either to a “leaky pipeline”, in which Asian, Black, Hispanic,
and women students are more likely to exit the major than White students and
men, or to a cohort effect, reflecting the fact that the demographics of the
completed PhD might be expected to match the demographics of entering students
approximately 13 years earlier.
Table 1: Percentage of philosophy majors by race and
gender at three different educational levels, aggregating over the most recent
three years’ data. Race/ethnicity categories exclude Hispanic or
Latino unless otherwise indicated.
|
Group |
First-year intention to major (2014-2016) |
Completed bachelor’s degree (2017-2019) |
Completed PhD (2017-2019) |
|
American Indian or Alaska Native |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Asian |
13% |
8% |
4% |
|
Black or African American |
9% |
6% |
3% |
|
Hispanic or Latino[6] |
11% |
14% |
6% |
|
White |
53% |
66% |
85% |
|
Multiracial6 |
11% |
5% |
3% |
|
Women |
41% |
36% |
30% |
|
Men |
59% |
64% |
70% |
Figure 7: A visual representation
of selected data from Table 1.
If we assume an eight year gap
between receipt of Bachelor’s degree
and receipt of PhD, then we can compare the demographics in three year period
from 2009-2011 in the NCES data with the 2017-2019 period in the NSF data. Asian students received 7% of philosophy
bachelor’s degrees in 2009-2011 compared with
4% of PhDs in 2017-2019. For Black
students, the corresponding percentages are 5% and 3%, for Hispanic students 8%
and 6%, for women students 31% and 30%.
(Multiracial was a new category in NCES in 2008 and likely underreported
for the first few years.) This approach
is too imprecise for confident assessment across the different measurement
techniques, but it suggests that the lower percentages of Asian, Black, and
Hispanic students at the PhD level are partly pipeline effects not entirely due
to cohort differences.
6. Conclusions.
We draw the following conclusions.
First, compared to their
representation in the student body overall, Asian, Hispanic, and multiracial
students are approximately proportionately represented in philosophy at the
undergraduate level, from first-year intention to major through completion of
the bachelor’s
degree. Moreover, these proportions are
increasing over time, tracking similar increases among undergraduates
overall. However, Asian and Hispanic students appear to be underrepresented among PhD
recipients in philosophy, compared to other disciplines, and Hispanic people
are probably also underrepresented among faculty, compared to the U.S.
population. Since 22% of the U.S.
population aged 20-29 are Hispanic, their underrepresentation among recent
philosophy PhDs (approximately 4%-9%) is especially striking.
Second, American Indians and Alaska
Natives are underrepresented in philosophy.
This is especially striking among PhD recipients, with only 11
non-Hispanic American Indian / Alaska Native PhD recipients recorded in the
Survey of Earned Doctorates from 2001 through 2019 (0.17% of philosophy PhD
recipients overall). Non-Hispanic American
Indians and Alaska Natives constitute 0.9% of the U.S. population aged 20-29.
Third, people who identify as non-Hispanic
Black are substantially underrepresented in philosophy at almost all levels,
constituting about 6% of philosophy bachelor’s degree recipients, about 2.5% of philosophy PhD
recipients, and based on the voluntary self-report of APA members possibly
about 4% of philosophy faculty, despite constituting 12% of the U.S. population. Still, the percentage of philosophy bachelor’s recipients who are Black has been steadily climbing
(from 4% in the early 2000s), and it appears recently to have risen sharply to
12% among first-year students intending to major in philosophy, though we have
some concerns about the representativeness of those data and to what extent
that increase will be reflected in bachelor’s degree recipients in a few years.
Fourth, women remain
underrepresented in philosophy relative to both the student body as a whole and
the U.S. population, constituting about 42% of first-year students intending to
major in philosophy, about 38% of philosophy bachelor’s recipients, about 30% of philosophy Ph.D.
recipients, about 34% of newly hired tenure-track faculty, and about 26% of
full-time faculty overall. In the most
recent year’s data
from the NCES, 38% of philosophy bachelor’s degree recipients were women, an encouraging rise
after having fluctuated mostly in a band from 30%-34% from the 1980s to the
mid-2010s (Schwitzgebel 2017b). A similar recent rise is evident in
first-year intention to major, but not (yet) among PhD recipients.
Fifth, despite encouraging gains for
some groups, especially at the undergraduate level, the “pipeline” into academic philosophy remains leaky, with
substantially lower percentages at each educational level for all groups
studied except White students and men.[7]
References
American
Academy of Arts and Sciences (2019).
Racial/ethnic distribution of degrees in philosophy. Humanities Indicators. https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/higher-education/racialethnic-distribution-degrees-philosophy.
American
Philosophical Association (1999). Report
from the Committee on Hispanics/Latinos.
Proceedings and Addresses of the
American Philosophical Association, 73 (2), 95-99.
Antony,
L. (2012). Different voices or perfect
storm: Why are there so few women in philosophy? Journal of Social Philosophy, 43 (3), 227–255.
Behrensen, M., & Kaliarnta, S.
(2017). Sick and tired: Depression in
the margins of academic philosophy. Topoi,
36,
355–364.
Botts, T., Bright, L., Cherry, M., Mallarangeng,
G., & Spencer, Q. (2014). What is
the state of Blacks in philosophy? Critical
Philosophy of Race, 2, 224-242.
Bright,
L. K. (2016). Publications by Black
authors in Leiter top 15 journals, 2003-2012.
Blog post at The
Splintered Mind
(Jan. 18). https://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2016/01/publications-by-black-authors-in-leiter.html.
Calhoun,
C. (2009). The undergraduate pipeline problem.
Hypatia
24,
216–223.
Chattopadhyay,
S., Myser, C., & de Vries,
R. (2013). Bioethics and its gatekeepers: Does institutional racism exist in
leading bioethics journals? Journal
of Bioethical Inquiry, 10, 7-9.
Contesi, F., & Terrone, E.,
(2018). Linguistic injustice and
analytic philosophy: Introduction, Philosophical Papers, 47 (1), 1-20.
De Cruz,
H. (2018). Prestige bias: An obstacle to
a just academic philosophy. Ergo, 5 (10).
https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0005.010
Gines, Kathryn T. (2011).
Being a Black woman philosopher: Reflections on founding the Collegium
of Black Women Philosophers. Hypatia, 26, 429-43.
Guerrero, Alex
(2015). Journals and diversity. Blog post at Discrimination and Disadvantage (May 29).
https://philosophycommons.typepad.com/disability_and_disadvanta/2015/05
Hutchison,
K., & Jenkins, F., eds. (2013). Women
in philosophy: What needs to change? Oxford University Press.
Jennings,
C. D. (2019). Graduate students on
diversity and inclusivity in philosophy.
Blog post at Daily Nous (Sep. 3).
https://dailynous.com/2019/09/03/graduate-students-diversity-inclusivity-philosophy-guest-post-carolyn-dicey-jennings.
Jennings,
C. D., Fronda, R., Hunter, M. A., Johnson King, Z.A.,
Spivey, A. C., & Wilson, S. (2019).
The Diversity and Inclusivity Survey: Final Report. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.apaonline.org/resource/resmgr/data_on_profession/apda_final_report_2019.pdf
Lee,
Carole J. (2014). Asian Americans,
positive stereotyping, and philosophy. APA
Newsletter on Asian and Asian American Philosophers and Philosophies, 14 (1), 2-7.
Lockard, C. A., Meskhidze, H.,
Wilson, S., Batchelor, N., Bloch-Schulman, S., &
Cahill, A. J. (2017). Using focus groups
to explore the underrepresentation of female-identified undergraduate students
in philosophy. Feminist Philosophy
Quarterly, 3 (4), article 4. https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2017.4.4.
Mills, C. W.
(2015). Blackness
visible. Cornell
University Press.
Outlaw,
L. T. (1996). On race and philosophy. Psychology Press.
Paxton,
M., Figdor, C., & Tiberius, V. (2012).
Quantifying the gender gap: An empirical study of the underrepresentation of
women in philosophy. Hypatia, 27 (4),
949-957.
Peterson,
G., & Hustoft, Z. (2021). Second wave survey of women’s representation in U.S. philosophy graduate
programs. Harvard Dataverse,
V1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IJZW8Y
Schwitzgebel, E. (2017a).
The racial diversity of philosophy majors. Blog post at Daily Nous (Dec. 21). https://dailynous.com/2017/12/21/racial-diversity-philosophy-majors-guest-post-eric-schwitzgebel.
Schwitzgebel, E, (2017b).
Women have been earning 30-34% of philosophy BAs in the U.S. since
approximately forever*. Blog post at The Splintered Mind (Dec. 8).
http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2017/12/women-have-been-earning-30-34-of.html
Schwitzgebel, E., Huang, L. T., Higgins, A., &
Gonzalez-Cabrera, I. (2018). The
insularity of Anglophone philosophy: Quantitative analyses. Philosophical Papers, 47 (1), 21-48.
Schwitzgebel, E., & Jennings, C. D. (2017). Women in philosophy: Quantitative analyses of
specialization, prevalence, visibility, and generational change. Public Affairs Quarterly, 31 (2), 83-105.
Thompson,
M., Adleberg, T., Sims, S., & Nahmias,
E. (2016). Why do women leave philosophy? Surveying students at the
introductory level. Philosophers’ Imprint,
16 (6),
1-36.
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0016.006.
Tremain, S. (2013).
Introducing feminist philosophy of disability. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33 (4). https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3877.
Tremain, S. (2018).
Philosophy and the apparatus of disability. In A. Cureton & D. Wasserman eds., Oxford
Handbook of Philosophy and Disability.
Oxford University Press.
Van Norden, B. W. (2017). Taking back philosophy. Columbia University Press.
Whyte,
Kyle (2017). Indigenous research and
professional philosophy in the U.S. Blog
post at Philosopher (Feb. 3).
https://politicalphilosopher.net/2017/02/03/featured-philosopher-kyle-whyte/