Inclusion Criteria

From the start, we have struggled with questions about the scope of this project. We wanted to showcase the breadth and depth of EDI-Philosophy literature currently available, but we needed to keep it manageable, and we wanted to avoid duplicating related efforts. What follows is a summary of the inclusion criteria we’ve been using to date. These are a work in progress; we’d welcome suggestions for refining them, and support for expanding the scope of this project!

  • Format: We include published articles, book chapters and books, edited volumes and journal special issues, and EDI-Philosophy reports that are publicly available. We have not systematically included blog posts and periodical literature, but we have compiled a list of “websites that regularly address EDI-Philosophy issues”; you’ll find these on the Additional Resources page. We welcome recommendations of sites and resources to add to this list. 

  • Language: Thus far we have included only publications in English, several of which address EDI issues arising from the dominance of English. We would like to expand the scope of the Philosophy Exception database to include EDI-Philosophy publications in other languages and welcome offers of support to do this.

  • Topic: We have focused on EDI issues in Philosophy as a professional discipline. Here the distinctions are often hard to draw. A growing number of philosophers publish on topics that are clearly motivated by EDI-Philosophy concerns, but do not always address these directly. One example is the expansive body of work on philosophical topics, traditions, and figures typically left out of the historical canon, as well as vibrant research programs in feminist philosophy, critical race theory, and philosophy of disability, to name just a few. Many of these are well represented by active blogs and ongoing bibliographic projects. In these, we have tried to identify publications that explicitly address the EDI-Philosophy motivations and implications of the philosophical work. This criterion of inclusion has been the most difficult to navigate; we welcome recommendations of publications we’ve missed, as well as feedback on our working rationale.