Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Specialization in philosophy: a preliminary study

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I examine the degree of specialization in various sub-fields of philosophy, drawing on data from the PhilPapers Survey. The following three sub-fields are highly specialized: Ancient philosophy, seventeenth/eighteenth century philosophy, and philosophy of physics. The following sub-fields have a low level of specialization: metaphilosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophy of probability, philosophy of the social sciences, decision theory, and philosophy of race and gender. Highly specialized sub-fields tend to require extensive knowledge in some area beyond the typical training of a philosopher, and outside of philosophy proper. In addition, there is a correlation between sub-field size and degree of specialization. Larger sub-fields tend to be more specialized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Graph 1
Graph 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. David Chalmers rightly pointed out that the degree of specialization may be, to some extent, a function of how large or small the areas are characterized. For example, if the area seventeenth/eighteenth century Philosophy were divided into two distinct areas, seventeenth century Philosophy and eighteenth century Philosophy, then we may have found that each area has a lower degree of specialization. Many scholars who claimed seventeenth century Philosophy as their primary area of specialization would likely claim eighteenth century Philosophy as an area of specialization, and vice versa. This would have the effect of lower the relative rates of specialization for each of these areas.

  2. It is worth noting that the size of a specialization is not equal to the number of people claiming it as their primary area of specialization. The data I am using, after all, are survey data, and only a sample of those working in philosophy answered the survey questions. I am though assuming that the survey respondents constitute a representative sample of the profession.

  3. It is worth noting that I also conducted an analysis where the size of a specialty was determined by the total number of philosophers claiming the area as an area of specialization, rather than as their primary area of specialization. Not surprisingly, the correlation between size of specialty and the degree of specialization was not as strong. Indeed, the value of R 2 was only 0.227. It seems more appropriate to treat the size of a specialization as determined by the number of people working in the area who regard it as their primary area of specialization.

  4. I thank one of the referees for Scientometrics for urging me to consider the distribution of rates of specialization, and whether they are distributed according to a Gaussian normal distribution.

  5. A referee for Scientometrics suggested this next step in the study of philosophical specialties.

References

  • Beaney, M. (2013). Twenty years of the British Journal for the History of Philosophy. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 21(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, J., & Collins, R. (1966/1991). Social factors in the origins of a new science: the case of psychology. In J. Ben-David (Ed.), Scientific Growth: Essays on the Social Organization and Ethos of Science (pp. 49–70). Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

  • Byron, J. M. (2007). Whence philosophy of biology? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58(3), 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (1998). Sociology of philosophies: a global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Solla, P. D. (1963/1986). Little science, big science … and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Menard, H. W. (1971). Science: growth and change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • PhilPapers Survey. (2011). Retrieved November 28, 2011 from http://philpapers.org/surveys/demographics.pl.

  • Wray, K. B. (2005). Rethinking scientific specialization. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wray, K. B. (2010). Philosophy of science: what are the key journals in the field? Erkenntnis, 72(3), 423–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank David Chalmers for constructive feedback on an earlier draft of the paper. I also thank the referees for Scientometrics for their thoughtful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, State University of New York ,Oswego, 212D Campus Center, Oswego, NY, 13126, USA

    K. Brad Wray

Authors
  1. K. Brad Wray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Brad Wray.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wray, K.B. Specialization in philosophy: a preliminary study. Scientometrics 98, 1763–1769 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1102-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1102-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation