Our books

Become a Fan

« Query on IHS | Main | CFP: New Mexico - Texas Philosophical Society »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Malcolm Keating

While I agree with you about the practicalities of tenure and promotion, I would push back on the use of the term “original research,” which was rightly put in scare quotes in the original inquiry. Philosophical translations involve “original research” in the sense of the translator’s decisions about how to render difficult concepts into the target language, and how to understand them in the source language. It involves history of philosophy and understanding of philosophical conversations at the first-order level in the source and target contexts.

Conversely, single-authored monographs usually also involve interpretation of previous work, so that if the “original” part in “original research” is meant to distinguish work that is entirely new to the author, I imagine much philosophical work would not pass that test, either. If we can talk and think differently about these boundaries, perhaps eventually, tenure/promotion standards will shift.

In my field (Indian/South Asian Philosophy), I think translation is crucial, and I would second the academic commentary strategy, which is a direction I went with my recent book. I had an interpretive argument about an important but relatively little-known Sanskrit text, and drew connections between it and some contemporary philosophy, but without the translation of the text, these points were inaccessible to most readers. If only a handful of people have access to the text you’re translating, and only in the source language, if you write stand-alone papers on it, few people can appreciate the value of your philosophical contributions. However, just a translation on its own may only be of interest to those few already working on the topic (who already can read the text in the original, so why the need for a translation?).

I do think, though, that unless the translation project is clearly presented as philosophical, and you have other papers which are more recognisably single-author “original” research, focusing too much on translation may be unhelpful for an individual’s career, no matter how crucial such work is for philosophy as a whole.

Martin Shuster

As someone who has published a few translations, I would say: only do it if you are really excited about doing it. They're entirely thankless tasks, require an immense amount of effort, and are generally unappreciated. Nonetheless, I think they're important and if you are excited about translating something, then do it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

University of St. Andrews Grants

Job-market reporting thread

Current Job-Market Discussion Thread

Philosophers in Industry Directory

Cocoon Job-Market Mentoring Program