Many thanks for all the excellent feedback so far on the first iteration of the draft faculty lists for the next PGR survey–I should have a second draft by Tuesday or Wednesday of this week.  I want to address a question that has come up from a number of philosophers:  namely, who belongs on the list of cognate (or "affiliated") faculty?   I've seen them described on homepages, variously, as "affilaited," "associates," and "resource faculty," among many other titles.  But the title isn't the issue:  the key issue is do the faculty in question regularly work with philosophy PhD students and are they open to doing so?  In the past, I've queried departments, and sometimes cognate faculty, about their inclusion, to find out if they were bona fide listings.   All the evidence I have suggests it is a serious mistake for departments to try to pad these lists–long lists of 'cognate' faculty that no one in philosophy has ever heard of adversely affect evaluations (and also dilute the effect of the cognate faculty who really are well-known among philosophers).  If you have linguists, biologists, medical ethicists, jurisprudents in law schools, political theorists, cognitive scientists, classicists, and others who really do work with your philosophy PhD students, then they should be listed.  Otherwise not.

ADDENDUM:   The official instructions on the draft faculty lists read:  "Cognate Faculty and Philosophers in Other Units:  (1) listed as affiliated/cognate/resource faculty and/or PhD in philosophy and tenure-stream appointment in another unit and (2) actually available for work with PhD students."   All I am emphasizing in the above is that *actually* being available to work with philosophy PhD students (as evidenced, for example, by regularly working with them!) is the most important consideration.   At the same time, cognate faculty must teach at the institution in question–faculty elsewhere can't count.