Should philosophy help address the problems of non-philosophers or should it be something isolated both from other disciplines and from the lay public? This question became more than academic for philosophers working in UK universities with the introduction of societal impact assessment in the national research evaluation exercise, the REF. Every university department put together a submission describing its broader impact in case narratives, and these were graded. Philosophers were required to participate. The resulting narratives are publicly available and provide a unique resource permitting a more comprehensive, empirically based consideration of philosophy’s influence outside the academy than has hitherto been possible. This paper takes advantage of this data to develop a cartography of the ways in which philosophers engage society in their work. We identify five approaches: dissemination, engagement, provocations, living philosophy, and philosophy of X. We compare these along the six dimensions proposed by Frodeman and Briggle to characterize the ideal field philosopher. We conclude that there are multiple ways of being a field philosopher, which vary in their emphasis. This pluralism bodes well for the expansion of philosophy’s societal influence, since there are routes available to suit different preferences.

中文翻译：

---

哲学与社会交往的制图

哲学应该帮助解决非哲学家的问题，还是应该与其他学科和普通大众隔离开来？随着在国家研究评估活动 REF 中引入社会影响评估，对于在英国大学工作的哲学家来说，这个问题不仅仅是学术问题。每个大学部门都提交了一份报告，描述其在案例叙述中的更广泛影响，并对其进行评分。哲学家被要求参与。由此产生的叙述是公开可用的，并提供了一种独特的资源，允许对哲学在学院外的影响进行更全面的、基于经验的考虑，而不是迄今为止可能的。本文利用这些数据来绘制哲学家在其工作中参与社会的方式的制图。我们确定了五种方法：传播、参与、挑衅、生活哲学和 X 哲学。我们沿着 Frodeman 和 Briggle 提出的六个维度对这些方法进行比较，以描述理想的田野哲学家的特征。我们得出的结论是，成为一名田野哲学家有多种方式，它们的侧重点各不相同。这种多元化预示着哲学社会影响力的扩大，因为有适合不同偏好的路线。我们得出的结论是，成为一名田野哲学家有多种方式，它们的侧重点各不相同。这种多元化预示着哲学社会影响力的扩大，因为有适合不同偏好的路线。我们得出的结论是，成为一名田野哲学家有多种方式，它们的侧重点各不相同。这种多元化预示着哲学社会影响力的扩大，因为有适合不同偏好的路线。