The purpose of this post is to provide some information about a group I started early this year, dedicated to DEI in philosophy of physics, as part of the Philosophy of Science Association’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Caucus (formerly the Women’s Caucus). So far, the group has existed in name only, so you’ve not missed anything.
The rest of this post will:
- Briefly explain the group’s existence (because it may seem weird to have an affinity group organized around a topic rather than a shared identity);
- Describe the project-based approach I have in mind;
- And introduce my idea for the first project, namely, the creation of a guide to building a more inclusive introduction to philosophy of physics course (including a modular, open-licensed syllabus).
1—Why philosophy of physics?
I see a few reasons for an affinity group organized around philosophy of physics:
- Physics is one of the least demographically diverse fields at all levels (e.g., women make up 16% of the astronomers and physicists in the U.S. according to Pew). This is considered a problem by organizations and government bodies, such as the European Union. There is reason to believe this affects not only the topics the field addresses but also the quality of work done, even beyond cognitive diversity (see, e.g., Fazelpour and Steel (2022) discussed here by Hannah Rubin). Insofar as philosophy of physics concerns physics as practiced, this affects philosophy of physics, too. Moreover, it is common for graduate students intending to work in philosophy of physics to enter with a background in physics. This influences the philosophy both directly—by priming the topics and methods common in physics education, especially at the undergraduate level—and indirectly—by recreating the demographic makeup of physics itself (not to mention the concomitant culture). The data we have suggests the latter is true (83% of pro philosophers of physical science who indicate gender on Philpeople are men; 74% of those who indicate race/ethnicity are white—accessed Aug. 21, 2023), and a cursory comparison of topics in physics vs. philosophy of physics suggests the former is even worse than expected (e.g., there is proportionally little philosophical work on condensed matter physics). (See Laura Ruetsche’s recent article for a discussion of these and related topics.)
- Feminist approaches appear to have much to offer to philosophy of physics, and making space for this approach seems valuable. See Maralee Harrell’s 2015 article, or Laura Ruetsche’s article above, to get a sense for what this work might look like.
- The experiences and needs of those in a subfield of philosophy of science are not guaranteed to be the same as the broader area. Given the demographics (see (a)) of philosophy of physics, and given that we know mathematics-heavy areas can present unique challenges for equity and inclusion, one could reasonably expect the experiences and needs of women and other minorities in philosophy of physics to be sufficiently distinguishable from other areas of philosophy of science.
- Many of the levers we could pull to address inequities or ensure inclusion exist at the subfield level. These include societies, journals, conferences, and news sources (e.g., blogs, forums, mailing lists). Organizing with this in mind could make it easier to address problems.
- There is community desire for a DEI-dedicated space. Obviously that doesn’t mean the group I’m proposing here will satisfy everyone (or anyone). Nevertheless, I’ve spoken to many early-career philosophers of physics who feel there are subfield-specific concerns and have wanted for a subfield-specific sense of community with likeminded individuals. (Incidentally, this has also motivated the organization of a feminist philosophy of physics “revolution.” Jingyi Wu and I are currently co-chairing the organizing committee for a workshop to take place in Spring/Summer 2024, so keep your eyes peeled for a call for papers/proposals/abstracts. (Credit to Jingyi Wu, Katie Robertson, and Laura Ruetsche for the idea and impetus for this revolution!))
2—A project-based approach
My thought is that the group will take a project-based approach. By this I mean to say that, at any given time, the group will be organized around and dedicated to the completion of a fairly specific, concrete project. In the long run I expect these projects will be decided upon by the whole group, based on the goals we see as most worth addressing and within the power of the group to address. To get the group off the ground, however, I am proposing the construction of a guide for an intro course (see 3). Of course, if the group that assembles rejects this idea, I’d be more than happy to see another take its place.
Many of the project ideas I’ve had are aimed at either making the opaque more transparent or making inclusivity and/or equity easier to implement in actual practice. Just to give a sense of what kinds of projects I have in mind, I’ll list a few here. Some projects of the former type include:
- A guide to the job market specific to philosophy of physics, including subfield-specific: data on postings, tips from candidates, sample documents, and other resources
- A guide to conferences: which to know about, when deadlines usually go out, what kind of work to send where, the usual costs and/or funding (including visa information)
- Publication and reviewing guides: before-and-after manuscripts in response to reviewer feedback; how to address conflicting or odd reviews; where to send different kinds of work; tips on “selling” your argument; how (and when) to write a good review; common pitfalls of submissions and reviewer feedback
Some projects of the latter type include:
- Creating diverse reading lists (author and topic)
- Creating documents addressing common problems encountered in teaching the topic (e.g., supplementary materials addressing background topics like functional analysis)
- Collecting classroom-tested activities
- Isolating common course goals/outcomes, based on the role the course serves in the university’s/department’s curriculum, and providing sample assessments that tend to be more equitable
- Creating simple surveys to determine a specific class’s preparedness (and outcomes) for different kinds of topics
- Creating or collecting assessments that account for the public availability of artificial intelligence
- Introductions to new tools, like Perusall, and how they can be used for philosophy of physics
- Introductions to topics/work that should be part of philosophy of physics, but aren’t traditionally so
- Ways to equitably support students in your courses, and how to decrease your workload so that you can dedicate more time to this support
- Briefs on literature and data relevant to DEI in philosophy of physics education, including recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups
- Tips for recruiting students into your classes
A lot of the ideas of the latter kind are calls to, basically, do the work for instructors so that they don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
My hope is that organizing around specific projects will have several benefits over more typical (ad hoc) group structures:
- The reasons for/against participation at any moment will be clearer. I’m hoping this makes it easier for folks to decide whether, for any given project, contributing is worth their time and energy.
- Contributing can be more flexible. Folks can determine how much time they put in and whether that includes coming to meetings, and their commitment level can vary over time without affecting the group (e.g., we shouldn’t run into the “shoot, I’m really busy and don’t want to go to the meeting, but I don’t know if anyone else will show up” problem).
- We can table discussion of big-picture problems while we make progress on projects we’ve all decided will have a positive impact. (Note: you might also consider this a negative. That said, I’d suggest that informal discussions of the big-picture problems not addressed by the project of the moment are also facilitated by the group insofar as it connects folks who would otherwise not be connected. And, these are certainly relevant when deciding which project(s) to pursue and how, so discussions of these problems will inevitably sneak back into the project.)
- Projects can be finished, and we can measure—even if informally—their impact.
- Projects like this seem like good practice for other kinds of service work.
3—The first project: a guide to making your intro course inclusive/diverse
This brings me to my proposal for the first project: a guide for making your intro philosophy of physics course more inclusive and/or diverse.
Why start with an intro course? For many, intro courses are where they learn what philosophy of physics is like and decide whether it’s for them. Thus, this is a good place to give a broader sense of what the field is or could be, as well as a good place to start implementing inclusive practices. But, at least in my experience, the biggest barrier to such an equitable course is not willingness or aptitude but sheer time and energy. It takes a lot of time to prepare a course, and it takes still more time to ensure equity once the course has begun. Moreover, the task is especially daunting for early-career folks who want to build inclusive/equitable courses: they either have to do everything from scratch, or they have to spend so much time modifying and supplementing old (presumably less equitable) materials that the course is effectively designed from scratch. This was the case for me, for example, when I taught a history of science and religion course at Nebraska Wesleyan University. While previous instructors were kind enough to share materials with me, and these were certainly helpful, I found them wanting and ended up completely redesigning the content and structure of the course.
Beyond time and energy, there will inevitably be some trial and error in finding content and structure that serves you and your students well. While there were definite positives to what I implemented for the course I just mentioned, it was nowhere near perfect. In particular, it left me with tons of prep each week, and I struggled for much of the term to find a daily structure that would connect with everyone (though, to be fair to myself, it was an incredibly odd term for everyone involved for a variety of reasons). If instead of effectively creating the course from scratch I had been able to adapt those materials shared with me, I have no doubt that my workload would have been lower and that I could have hit on a daily structure sooner.
So, what do I mean by “a philosophy of physics course”? At base, I mean a course covering philosophy of physics that is intended to be an introduction to (some of) the major topics, methods, and tools of philosophy of physics past and present, and, additionally, topics, methods, and tools that hold out promise for the future of philosophy of physics. This introduction could be at an undergraduate level—lower-division or upper—or even early graduate.
And what do I mean by “guide for designing”? By this I mean a set of concrete recommendations that promise to promote inclusivity in the classroom and give a diverse picture of philosophy of physics. Since the amount of time/energy instructors have varies, these recommendations will also range from the “simple but effective” to the “involved but perhaps worth it.” One thing I hope to create is a modular syllabus: i.e., a document or set of documents addressing what content the course will cover and when it will be covered, why that content is covered, and when and how students will be assessed. By “modular” I just mean that the syllabus will be designed in such a manner that parts can be swapped out in the event that they don’t serve the particular course’s needs.
Obviously no single set of recommendations, let alone syllabus, will serve the needs of every introductory course—departments, student bodies, and instructors vary in important ways. Rather, the recommendations and documents should be conceived of as a template, to be adopted or modified to suit an instructor’s needs. Our goal, then, would be to help instructors build the most inclusive/diverse course they can by: suggesting things like course titles and ways to advertise a course; delineating achievable/appropriate course goals and suitable structures and assessments; identifying common support needs and ideas for handling them; and collating readings that represent the field as it is and could be. The syllabus developed will respect, as far as possible, the current best practices in education; an accompanying explainer could highlight some of the more important such features and link to the relevant literature.
So all told, the project could:
- Suggest strategies for recruiting a diverse body of students
- Consider a handful of proposed course goals/outcomes
- Characterize course structures and assessment methods that match these goals/outcomes
- Develop a list of past and present topics, methods, and tools, including:
- Suggested readings for each topic/method/tool (drawn from a diverse authorship and from diverse topics)
- Brief summaries and a student difficulty rating for each suggested reading
- Develop a list of future topics, methods, and tools, including:
- Suggested new topics/methods/tools (drawn especially from feminist and indigenous scholarship, where possible)
- Brief descriptions of the literature surrounding these topics/methods/tools and how students might further engage this literature from within philosophy of physics
- Suggest common course policies (e.g., on attendance or late work) that balance student equity, commitment to course goals, and instructor burden
- Identify useful online resources and tools (e.g., Perusall) and describe how they could be used
- Provide tools for assessing the success of these recommendations (e.g., survey questions or a guide to holding an end-of-term class discussion on the course) and developing new classroom strategies
I want to stress that since the primary goal is to create materials that will ease the burden on those of us trying to develop more inclusive/equitable philosophy of physics courses, I am personally very open to deviations from the foregoing.
Why should you work on this? Personally, I find course design very rewarding: in addition to becoming more familiar with the relevant area, designing courses has also led quite directly to several of my research projects. It’s also, I think, a great opportunity to reflect on your motivations for teaching. So to those of you who might be thinking “but this won’t help me get a job!”: (a) your job will almost certainly involve teaching, so you need to know how to design a course, and (b) the “big picture” thinking you have to do about your field when designing a course is a great opportunity to develop new, or refresh old, lines of research. My guess is that this would be both less work, more educational, and more fun as part of a group!
——————————————
If any part of this sounds fun, or if you have a better idea for what the group might work on, please send me an email! I will be creating a mailing list for the group in the coming weeks. I am aiming to hold the group’s first meeting in early October 2023.
- Who cares about Haag’s theorem? - April 19, 2024
- The Book Report Problem - March 29, 2024
- Announcing the PSA DEI Caucus Affinity Group for Philosophy of Physics - August 24, 2023