Independent Research

[generativeIR]

I know that academics, especially philosophers, don't really respect independent research, but that could simply be because they have the badge (PhD) and independent scholars do not.  If someone outside of academia can teach themselves philosophic logic they pretty much just have to be able to read, comprehend, and conceptualize other's philosophical work and with the internet resources are almost endless.  This would even, to me, seem to be a true test of mettle since the biggest missing link would be the peer reviewing process.

 

I'm curious if anyone has simply written an essay or series of essays and attempted to have them published by a legitimate (even a private academic) publishing company.  Or maybe someone has tried to make it through the double blind to get a submission into an academic journal?  Or if someone in the gradspace has knowledge of an independent philosopher or sociologist, etc?  I would even be interested to see something from South End or Verso that is written by someone who lacks a proper academic education.

[Establishment]

I know that academics, especially philosophers, don't really respect independent research, but that could simply be because they have the badge (PhD) and independent scholars do not.  If someone outside of academia can teach themselves philosophic logic they pretty much just have to be able to read, comprehend, and conceptualize other's philosophical work and with the internet resources are almost endless.  This would even, to me, seem to be a true test of mettle since the biggest missing link would be the peer reviewing process.

 

I'm curious if anyone has simply written an essay or series of essays and attempted to have them published by a legitimate (even a private academic) publishing company.  Or maybe someone has tried to make it through the double blind to get a submission into an academic journal?  Or if someone in the gradspace has knowledge of an independent philosopher or sociologist, etc?  I would even be interested to see something from South End or Verso that is written by someone who lacks a proper academic education.

 

First, a publication in South End or Verso won't demonstrate anything.

 

Two, I think the order of explanation is as follows. It is more difficult to produce worthwhile philosophical work without (1) a philosophical background, and (2) financial support that would allow for one to focus on producing philosophical work. This should make intuitive sense. Philosophy has had a good century and some change for professionalization, and specialization tends to come with the territory. Without (1), it's much too difficult to gain enough specialty to contribute original work. As to (2), journals are already flooded with too many submissions. Your competition consists of tenured professors whose 9-5 job (with varying amounts of teaching responsibility) is to produce publications. Someone whose 9-5 job is something entirely different is facing a rather steep obstacle to create something in their spare time that equals that of the paid professional.

 

Thus then follows the reason why, "academics, especially philosophers, don't really respect independent research." It's a stereotype that academics have for independent research that is born out by the evidence. That's not to say it cannot happen. It has. But as a general rule, someone who doesn't meet (1) and (2), isn't going to have anything to contribute. But philosophers and academics are still able to recognize the work done by independents who do not meet (1) and (2) whenever an exception to the trend occurs.

 

Here are examples I am familiar with. One thing to note, you seem to make a distinction between independent scholar and PhD. I don't hold to this. You can be an independent scholar (i.e., not have a professional affiliation with a philosophy department) but have a PhD. And that is where most of my examples will consist in: people who did not both have a PhD in philosophy and were working as professors in philosophy.

 

(1) Lewis Carroll (yes, the author of Alice in Wonderland) published an article in the highly respected philosophy journal, Mind, one of the very first professional philosophical journals in the world. It was entitled, "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles." Now, I'm not sure what Carroll's credentials are as to (1), nor what exactly his financial commitments were to (2). That said, philosophy was in its professional infancy at about this time in England, what with Mind, the first English professional philosophical journal being founded in 1876, and so the specialization that comes with professionalization had not yet settled in, so it's not too hard of an exception to fathom. Not to take away from Lewis Carroll though. He in fact did rather solid original work in mathematics, as well as other work in logic. But, again, with Boole's work appearing in 1854, Lewis Carroll was around for the infancy of logic where there as ample room for contribution.

 

(2) Alan Turing. Published, also in Mind, in 1950 the article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence." Now, Turing was obviously not formally educated in philosophy as to (1), but he did fulfill the conditions of (2). His wartime efforts were long gone, and by this time he was an academic working for a university (in a non-philosophy department). Ample time to do this sort of work. And with the pioneering sort of work he was doing, there was room for someone like Turing to contribute.

 

(3) Lewis Creary. Published in 1981, in the Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, the article, "Causal Explanation and the Reality of Natural Component Forces." He meets (1). He got his PhD from Pittsburgh. And he meets (2). He was working as a research associate at Stanford at the time, funded by DARPA, in a non-philosophical department, I believe computer science, or something to that effect.

 

(4) Chomsky. He doesn't meet (1) in that his PhD is in linguistics. Then again, it's probably not surprising that one of the most famous professional linguists would have something to contribute to the philosophy of language and related matters. He meets (2). He's held an academic post in linguistics for decades now. He's published in Journal of Symbolic Logic, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, and elsewhere.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Establishment

[Establishment]

I'll post other examples I can think of or find by editing this post.

 

I do remember Thomas Kuhn. No PhD in philosophy (but rather physics), but he did work as a professor for a number of universities. Not at first, but eventually he'd be a professor in philosophy. He published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. But I much don't fancy Kuhn so I hate to mention him as an example. But there you go in any case for a fifth. (Or fourth. Lewis Carroll is perhaps pushing it. There are probably a wealth of other examples from around that time. I suppose we should look simply at 1950 and on, maybe.)

Edited July 18, 2014 by Establishment

[generativeIR]

Thanks for the response!

 

I was definitely thinking in modern times.  I'm familiar with Kuhn, Chomsky, and Carroll's works that you mentioned (reading Godel, Escher, Bach atm), but also recognize the ability for people outside of philosophy to contribute to philosophy and vice versa in some cases.  There is something to be said for ingorance/specialization and the resultant consideration that it is something extraordinary when a physicist contributes to the world of philosophy.  I am also aware of those that hold PhD's, but do not work as a "philosopher" or even an academic are considered indepedent scholars.  The idea that 9-5 philosophers publish so much (so that the journals are clogged) seems to me a silly idea; it reminds me of Searle and Chomsky's comments on French intellectuals always needing new ideas to keep the spotlight (in the US academic's case, funding) and most of them not being any good.  How many interpretations of the categorical imperative do we need before we hit that seemingly elusive margin of diminishing utility/returns?

 

Without (1), it's much too difficult to gain enough specialty to contribute original work.

 

This is a premise that I would like to challenge.  First, I'd refer to Schopenhauer's comments on dilettantes studying the arts and sciences as an end in itself and a professional studying the arts and sciences as a means to an end (of money).  (1) essentially assumes that people are incapable of reading books and scrutinizing what has been said in the literature.  If I collected a dozen renowned scholar's work on Kant in the last 50 years and poured through it and was able to originate, in my free time, an insight not present in their works (or just historiographed their work) then I have subverted (1).  (2) I cannot really argue with.  It is fairly difficult to find the time to read and write when you must make a living in another vocation.

 

I was more looking for examples similar to David Brooks who is a NYTimes columnist (professional journalist) and has published a few books in sociology, albeit neither are very academic, with just a BA in Sociology (from Chicago I think).  He is taken seriously enough that his books end up on undergrad reading lists.

 

Why so harsh on South End and Verso?  I have been looking into Bhaskar's transcendental realism recently (philosophy of social science), is there something I don't know?  Also, what about Routledge?  They seem to have the most interesting new work anyway.  I'd read more of it if the books weren't 40-180 bucks a piece (bookfi.org doesn't always cut it).

Edited July 18, 2014 by generativeIR

[Establishment]

Why so harsh on South End and Verso?

 

These presses were not created for the publication of academic works. They have neither the interest nor the capabilities to evaluate such works, as compared to academic presses such as Oxford University Press which are capable of vetting submissions to established philosophers to review and judge the merits of the submission. I know that Verso has published "philosophical" texts before. I own some. But they describe them own selves as a radical publishing house. Their choices to publish Althusser or Gillian Rose has to do with such authors falling into a certain tradition of radical thinkers than academic, peer-reviewed merit.

 

This is a premise that I would like to challenge... (1) essentially assumes that people are incapable of reading books and scrutinizing what has been said in the literature.  If I collected a dozen renowned scholar's work on Kant in the last 50 years and poured through it and was able to originate, in my free time, an insight not present in their works (or just historiographed their work) then I have subverted (1).

 

(1) really just falls out as a consequence of (2), insofar as (2) describes the time investment necessary to do philosophy broadly construed, such as being able to read and understand contemporary materials, to respond to said materials, and to do original research.

 

No one is saying that people are inherently incapable of reading books and scrutinizing what has been said... what (1) just says is that people are incapable of reading books and scrutinizing what has been said without the proper educational investment required to understand the piece.

 

Theoretically, I or anyone else on this forum could pick up the current issue of the Physical Review Letters, read the article, "Slow Kinetics of Brownian Maxima," and understand it, if given enough time. But that time is going to involve me teaching to oneself what a student will have spent 4 years of undergraduate courses being taught by expert professors, and 6 years of graduate coursework and research, again guided by expert professors who have decades of knowledge that they are able to impart on you. We're basically talking about 10 years, of full-time, really smart dudes teaching you some real difficult material. How long is it then going to take for a person to teach themselves, without access to such facilities, on their off time, simply to bring themselves up to speed?

 

Schopenhauer's comments on dilettantes studying the arts and sciences as an end in itself and a professional studying the arts and sciences as a means to an end (of money)

 

It would be criminally insane to go into academia for the money. Literally every person I have met who professionally studies philosophy (or any other academic discipline) chose so as an end in itself.