Field” Philosophy and the Problem of Interactions Between Philosophers and Varied Social Groups

Svet­lana V. Shibarshi­na
Lobachevsky State Uni­ver­si­ty of Nizh­ni Nov­gorod

Field” Phi­los­o­phy and the Prob­lem of Inter­ac­tions Between Philoso­phers and Var­ied Social Groups

Abstract. This study describes the basic approach­es to the field phi­los­o­phy devel­oped by the Amer­i­can philoso­phers Robert Frode­man and Adam Brig­gle, and eval­u­ates the role of Nan­cy Tuana’s “ethico-epis­te­mo­log­i­cal analy­sis” in inter­dis­ci­pli­nary projects. The author explores these con­cepts in the con­text of a debate about the pos­si­bil­i­ties of apply­ing philo­soph­i­cal knowl­edge in real day-to-day activ­i­ties. The paper eval­u­ates Frodeman’s call for going be-yond the lim­its of inter­nal philo­soph­i­cal com­mu­ni­ca­tions and active­ly inter­act­ing with sci­en­tists, engi­neers, deci­sion-mak­ers and oth­er social groups on the issues of sci­ence and tech­nol­o­gy pol­i­cy, the envi­ron­ment, glob­al changes, etc. The prac­ti­cal expe­ri­ence of Brig­gle, regard­ing par-tic­i­pa­tion in the “field” project on pub­lic exper­tise of hydraulic frac­tur­ing in Den­ton, Texas, is also described. The idea of Tua­na about inte­grat­ed ethico-epis­te­mo­log­i­cal stud­ies is con­sid­ered as con­cep­tu­al­ly close and in many ways clar­i­fy­ing the “field” phi­los­o­phy. The final part of the study is a crit­i­cal assess­ment and dis­cus­sion of the above approach­es.  

Key­words: applied phi­los­o­phy; field phi­los­o­phy; sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ca­tion; medi­a­tion; exper­tise; inter­dis­ci­pli­nar­i­ty; under­stand­ing; cou­pled eth­i­cal-sci­en­tif­ic research.

DOI: 10.5840/dspl20181112


  1. Brig­gle A. A Field Philosopher’s Guide to Frack-ing: How One Texas Town Stood Up to Big Oil and Gas. New York: Liv­eright Pub­lish­ing Corp, W. W. Nor­ton & Com­pa­ny, 2015. 352 pp.
  2. Brig­gle A., Frode­man R., Hol­brook B. The Impact of Phi­los­o­phy and the Phi­los­o­phy of Impact: A guide to chart­ing more dif­fuse influ­ences across time, The LSE Impact Blog. May 26th, 2015. Avail­able at: (accessed on Decem­ber 7, 2017).
  3. Collins, H., Evans R. Inter­ac­tion­al exper­tise and the imi­ta­tion game. In: M.E. Gor­man (ed.). Trad­ing zones and inter­ac­tion­al exper­tise. Cre­at­ing new kinds of col­lab­o­ra­tion. Cam­bridge: MIT Press, 2010, pp. 53–70.
  4. Droz­do­va D.N. Eksper­i­men­tal­naya filosofiya 2.0: novoye vino v starykh mekhakh? [Exper­i­men­tal phi­los­o­phy 2.0: new wine in old furs?], Filosofiya i nau­ka: prob­le­my soot­ne­seniya. Aloshin­skiye cht­eniya – 2016 [Phi­los­o­phy and sci­ence: the prob­lems of their cor­re­la­tion. Aleshin Read­ings]. Pro­ceed­ings of the Inter­na­tion­al Con­fer­ence (Moscow, 7–9 Decem­ber 2016), ed. byT.A. Shiyan. Moscow: RGGU, 2016, pp. 73–78. (In Russ­ian)
  5. Dyu­val U. Utra­chen­nyye illyuzii: intellek­tu­al vo Frantsii [The Lost Illu­sions: The Intel­lec­tu­al in France], in: S.N. Zenkin (ed.). Respub­li­ka sloves­nos­ti. Frantsiya v mirovoy intellek­tu­al­noy kul­ture [The Lit­er­a­ture Republique. France in the World Intel­lec­tu­al Cul­ture], Moscow: Novoye lit­er­aturnoye obozreniye, 2005, pp. 337–349. (In Russ­ian)
  6. Frode­man R. (online) Exper­i­ments in field phi­los­o­phy. New York Times Opin­ion­a­tor, part of the stone series. 2010. Novem­ber 23. Avail­able at: (accessed on Novem­ber 16, 2017).
  7. Frode­man R. Phi­los­o­phy dedis­ci­plined, Syn­these, 2013, vol. 190, no 11, pp. 1917–1936
  8. Frode­man R., Brig­gle A. Socrates Tenured: the insti­tu­tions of 21st Cen­tu­ry Phi­los­o­phy. Lan­ham, MD: Row­man and Lit­tle­field, 2016. 167 pp.
  9. Frode­man R., Brig­gle A., Hol­brook J. B. Phi­los­o­phy in the Age of Neolib­er­al­ism, Social Epis­te­mol­o­gy: A Jour­nal of Knowl­edge, Cul­ture and Pol­i­cy, 2012, vol 26, iss. 3–4, pp. 311–330.
  10. Frode­man R., Thomp­son Klein J., Mitcham C (eds.). The Oxford Hand­book of Inter­dis­ci­pli­nar­i­ty. Oxford, New York: Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2010. 620 pp.
  11. Fuller S. The Soci­ol­o­gy of Intel­lec­tu­al Life: The Career of the Mind in and Around the Acad­e­my. Lon­don: Sage Pub­li­ca­tions, 2009. 192 pp.
  12. Goral­nik G., Nel­son M.P. Field phi­los­o­phy: envi­ron­men­tal learn­ing and moral devel­op­ment in Isle Royale Nation­al Park, Envi­ron­men­tal Edu­ca­tion Research, 2015, vol. 23, iss. 5, pp. 687–707.
  13. Katrechko S.L. Filosofiya kak pogranich­nyy fenomen [Phi­los­o­phy as a bound­ary phe­nom­e­non], Osoben­nos­ti filosof­sko­go diskur­sa [The fea­tures of philo­soph­ic dis­course]. The Pro­ceed­ings of the Inter­na­tion­al Sci­en­tif­ic Con­fer­ence (Moscow, 5–7 Feb­ru­ary 1998). Moscow, 1998, pp. 35–46. (In Russ­ian)
  14. Klein J. T. Inter­dis­ci­pli­nar­i­ty: His­to­ry, the­o­ry and prac­tice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1991. 336 pp.
  15. Kol­ka K. Yavlyayet­sya li filosofiya sluzhankoy poz­i­tivnykh nauk? [Is phi­los­o­phy a ser­vant of pos­i­tive sci­ences?], Filosofiya i nau­ka: prob­le­my soot­ne­seniya. Aloshin­skiye cht­eniya – 2016 [Phi­los­o­phy and sci­ence: the prob­lems of their cor­re­la­tion. Aleshin Read­ings]. Pro­ceed­ings of the Inter­na­tion­al Con­fer­ence (Moscow, 7–9 Decem­ber 2016), ed. byT.A. Shiyan. Moscow: RGGU, 2016, pp. 18–22. (In Russ­ian)
  16. Kocherov S.N. Yest li budushch­eye u filosofii? [Is there a future for phi­los­o­phy?], Cre­do New, 2015, no. 4 (84). Avail­able at: (accessed on Decem­ber 7, 2017). (In Russ­ian)
  17. Mari­noff L. On the emer­gence of eth­i­cal coun­sel­ing: con­sid­er­a­tions of two case stud­ies. In: R. Lahav, M. da Ven­za Till­manns (ed.). Essays on philo­soph­i­cal coun­sel­ing. MD: Uni­ver­si­ty Press of Amer­i­ca, 1995, pp. 171–192.
  18. Marx K. The­sen über Feuer­bach. In: K. Marx, F. Engels. Sochi­neni­ja: v 50 t. [Essays in 50 vol­umes]. V. 3. Мoscow: Gospoli­tiz­dat, 1955, pp. 1–4. (In Russ­ian)
  19. Mar­tishi­na N.I. Filosofiya nau­ki v inzhen­er­nom vuze: prak­tikooriyen­tirovan­nyy pod­khod [Phi­los­o­phy of Sci­ence in an Engi­neer­ing Uni­ver­si­ty: a Prac­ti­cal-Ori­ent­ed Approach], Vyssh­eye obra­zo­vaniye v Rossii, 2013, no.10, pp. 151–156. (In Russ­ian)
  20. Mirskiy E. M., Yudin B. G. Che­lovech­eskoye izmereniye NTP [The Human Dimen­sion of the Sci­en­tif­ic and Tech­ni­cal Progress], Inno­vat­sii. Obra­zo­vaniye, 2011, no.10, pp. 25–45. (In Russ­ian)
  21. Savkin N.S. Voz­mozh­nos­ti prik­lad­noy filosofii [Pos­si­bil­i­ties of Applied Phi­los­o­phy], Filosofiya i obshch­est­vo, 2015, no. 3–4 (77), pp.155–165. (In Russ­ian)
  22. Shes­tako­va E.G. Pub­lich­nyy intellek­tu­al – tsen­nos­t­naya osno­va mod­ernogo obshch­est­va i gosu­darst­va [Pub­lic intel­lec­tu­al – the val­ue basis of mod­ern soci­ety and state], Zhur­nal­ist­skiy yezhe­god­nik, 2015, no. 4, pp. 57–62. (In Russ­ian)
  23. Shew A. The Field of Field Phi­los­o­phy: Socrates Tenured by Robert Frode­man and Adam Brig­gle, Phi­los­o­phy of the Social Sci­ences, 2018, vol. 48, no 1, pp. 56–62. First pub­lished online: Decem­ber 6, 2017. Avail­able at: (accessed on Novem­ber 16, 2017).
  24. Tua­na N. Embed­ding Philoso­phers in the Prac­tices of Sci­ence: Bring­ing Human­i­ties to the Sci­ences, Syn­these, 2013, vol. 190, iss. 11, pp. 1955–1973.
  25. Tua­na N., Sriv­er R.L., Svo­bo­da T. et al. Towards Inte­grat­ed Eth­i­cal and Sci­en­tif­ic Analy­sis of Geo­engi­neer­ing: A Research Agen­da, Ethics, Pol­i­cy & Envi­ron­ment, 2012, vol. 15, iss. 2, pp. 136–157.
  26. Wein­berg J.M., Nichols S., Stich S. Nor­ma­tiv­i­ty and epis­temic intu­itions, Philo­soph­i­cal Top­ics, 2001, vol. 29, no 1, pp. 429–460.


Comments are closed.