I’ve got PhDweblogs linked over there on the side (as of 6/03, at least), and I just submitted this weblog to it, because it seems to be just about the only resource of its kind, but I’m put off by the hard science bias of the site. I’m hoping that this ungracious post of mine might be a way to ask the site’s authors, implementers, and maintainers (Antonio Granado, Catarina Norton dos Reis, and Antonio Lobo) to rethink their categories, which, according to the site’s “About” page, “follow the field definitions of the Institute for Scientific Information.” This apparently means that PhDs in, say, history, languages, classics, comparative literature, women’s studies, art history, linguistics, philosophy (we seem to have forgotten the source of the abbreviation PhD: philosophiae doctor), and any number of other disciplines somehow don’t count. Unfortunately, phdweblogs doesn’t include an email link on their site, so I can’t thank them for their rather myopic perspective. Sigh.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Indeed.
We are working on it…