Juan R. Loaiza<p>There is a difficulty in academia (or at least in philosophy) regarding standard taxonomies of a debate. As you gain expertise, you might become skeptical about standard taxonomies and you might come up with your own division of ideas and views on a given topic. However, when it comes to using your taxonomy in papers/grant proposals/etc., you quickly run into a dilemma: defend your taxonomy in detail, which might make your argument annoyingly reconstructive, or don't defend it in detail, and risk being evaluated as completely ignoring the standard taxonomy and as not knowledgeable enough. </p><p>How do you tackle these problems? </p><p><a href="https://hcommons.social/tags/AcademicChatter" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>AcademicChatter</span></a></p>