It's interesting how they seem to be popular in some sub-fields and in some departments, but not others. At Rutgers, Andy Egan, Barry Loewer, Branden Fitelson and Jason Stanley, among others, have pages, and so does Brian Weatherson, who used to be at Rutgers. Other "Lemmings" types in that circle have them, such as Keith DeRose (Yale), Daniel Bonevac (Texas), Robert Koons (Texas), David Chalmers (NYU/ANU), Benj Hellie (Toronto), Tom Kelly (Princeton), and Stephen Yablo (MIT).
Relatively few senior philosophers have them, but Daniel Dennett (Tufts) and Ned Block (NYU) do, as do Block's somewhat younger colleagues Paul Boghossian and David Velleman, as well as Timothy Williamson at Oxford, Derk Pereboom at Cornell, Mark Lance at Georgetown, and Mohan Matthen at Toronto, among philosophers more-or-less in their 50s. Besides Matthen, I didn't come across many philosophers of science with Google Scholar pages–Michael Weisberg (Penn) has one, and so too Hans Halvorson (Princeton), Andre Ariew (Missouri), and Roberta Millstein (UC Davis).
Daniel Garber (Princeton) is one of the few philosophers working mainly in history of philosophy to have a page (maybe because historical scholarship is just cited less?). Other philosophers working primarily in history with pages include Susanne Bobzien (Oxford) and Roger Ariew (South Florida).
And relatively few value theorists have one, though I came across David Brink (UCSD), Peter Vallentyne (Missouri), Samuel Freeman (Penn), and Mark Schroeder (USC). I have one, though I first heard about it from law colleagues, rather than philosophy colleagues (and I was annoyed to discover one of the weaknesses of Google's automated system for compiling these–it doesn't distinguish between "and" and "on" [Nietzsche and Morality versus Nietzsche on Morality, it lumps almost all of the latter under the former]; I imagine there are other bugs in the program that affect other people's counts).
Finally, I was struck initially by the relative paucity of women, but in fact there turn out to be a fair number. I came across Cristina Bicchieri (Penn), Jennifer Nagel (Toronto), Sarah McGrath (Princeton), Katalin Balog (Rutgers/Newark), Rebecca Kukla (Georgetown), and Berit Brogaard (Missouri/St. Louis), among others.
One interesting fact about Google citations (which only picks up cites on-line) is that any philosophers who work in fields that touch on cognitive science and linguistics do quite well because in those latter two fields scholars seem to put all their stuff on-line! [UPDATE: Comments, below, indicate this remark was unclear. The point is that Google Scholar uses a limited database–only stuff that makes it on-line. I've noticed that in some fields, like linguistics, the norms for putting work on-line is very strong, more so than in other fields. The shape of the database affects the citations, but of course, very good work is not necessarily heavily cited, and heavily cited work is not necessary the best work in a subfield!]
Other interesting Google Scholar pages? Feel free to add them in the comments.
UPDATE: The remarks in the last long paragraph now seem to me mistaken. For more on Google Scholar, see here.
Leave a Reply