Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:13:29.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

34 - Undergraduate Research in Philosophy

from Part III.4 - Humanities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2022

By
John Rudisill
Edited by
Harald A. Mieg ,
Elizabeth Ambos ,
Angela Brew ,
Dominique Galli  and
Judith Lehmann
Harald A. Mieg
Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Elizabeth Ambos
Affiliation:
Council on Undergraduate Research, Washington DC
Angela Brew
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney
Dominique Galli
Affiliation:
Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis
Judith Lehmann
Affiliation:
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Get access

Summary

Philosophy, like other disciplines in the humanities (and social sciences), is one of the “soft disciplines” with a low paradigm consensus. With the plurality of ideas about what counts as philosophy and what methods are appropriate to it, it comes a special challenge in articulating any broadly acceptable vision for how best to implement undergraduate research in philosophy. Although philosophical research involves much collaboration, including layers of peer review feedback and multiple presentations of works in progress, it continues to culminate almost exclusively in the single-authored manuscript.Certainly, a common perception among philosophers has been that one’s own research is most efficiently and successfully undertaken by oneself without the drag of overseeing more or less novice, apprentice collaborators. Where the undergraduate mentee takes on research that is not connected to one’s own, the drag productivity is expected to be even greater.

Keywords

undergraduate researchphilosophyreasonminimal conceptionscaffoldingcreativitywriting
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Undergraduate Research , pp. 329 - 336
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BAK (Bundesassistentenkonferenz) (2009). Forschendes Lernen – Wissenschaftliches Prüfen. Universitätsverlag Webler (German original in 1970).Google Scholar
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Society for Research into Higher Education. Open University Press.Google Scholar
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colbeck, C. L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend: How faculty integrate teaching and research. Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 647–671.Google Scholar
Concepción, D. W. (2004). Reading philosophy with background knowledge and metacognition. Teaching Philosophy, 27(4), 351–368.Google Scholar
Concepción, D. W., Messineo, M., Wieten, S., & Homan, C. (2016). The state of teacher training in philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 39(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, I., Orel, S. E., & Shanahan, J. O. (2014). How to get started in arts and humanities research with undergraduates. Council on Undergraduate Research.Google Scholar
de Beauvoir, S. (1945/2004). Existentialism and popular wisdom. In Simons, M. A., Timmerman, M., & Mader, M. B. (Eds.), Philosophical writings (pp. 203–220). University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Gauder, H., & Jenkins, F. W. (2016). The research skills of undergraduate philosophy majors: Teaching information literacy. Teaching Philosophy, 39(3), 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
Katkin, W. (2003). The Boyer Commission Report and its impact on undergraduate research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003, 19–38.Google Scholar
Kinkead, J. (2003). Valuing and supporting undergraduate research. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Marcus, R. (2019). Scaffolding for fine philosophical skills. In From research to learning. AAPT studies in pedagogy (Vol. 5, pp. 34–67). American Association of Philosophy TeachersGoogle Scholar
Mieg, H. A. (2019). Forms of research within strategies for implementing undergraduate research. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung [Journal for Higher Education Development], 14(1), 79–94.Google Scholar
Morrison, J. A., Berner, N. J., Manske, J. M., Jones, R. M., Davis, S. N., & Garner, P. W. (2018). Surveying faculty perspectives on undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative activity: A three-institution study. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 2(1), 43–54.Google Scholar
Mulnix, M. J., & Wilson Mulnix, J. (2014). Doing philosophy – The sooner the better. In Esch, E., Hermberg, K., & Kraft, R. E. Jr. (Eds.), Philosophy through teaching: A commemorative anthology from the American Association of Philosophy Teachers (pp. 244–249). Philosophy Documentation Center.Google Scholar
Robertson, J., & Blackler, G. (2006). Student’s experiences of learning in a research environment. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(3), 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudisill, J. (2011). The transition from studying philosophy to doing philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 34(3), 241–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudisill, J. (2014). Reply to Turgeon, Mayer, and Mulnix and Mulnix. In Esch, E., Hermberg, K., & Kraft, R. E. Jr. (Eds.), Philosophy through teaching: A commemorative anthology from the American Association of Philosophy Teachers (pp. 251–257). Philosophy Documentation Center.Google Scholar
Schliemann, O. (2019). Inquiry-based learning in philosophy. In Mieg, H. A. (Ed.), Inquiry-based learning – Undergraduate research: The German multidisciplinary experience (pp. 311–319). Springer (open access). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14223-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walvoord, B. E., & Anderson, V. I. (1998). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×