"Causal theories of reference" looks interesting from an AI perspective. Do you know how it relates to the math discipline, causality (eg. Pearl)?
Philosophers working in metaphysics and especially causation are aware of Pearl, and the literature on causation in Philosophy is very large, old, and active. It is also clear that Pearl is also aware of the literature in Philosophy on causation and conditionals as he does cite people like Robert Stalnaker and David Lewis.
However, there is a slight difference in concerns on the topic of causation/causality. Philosophers are usually interested in providing a reductive account of causation by providing necessary and sufficient conditions for causation, as apposed to modelling known causal structures to predict what interventions might have on novel systems. That said I do know that L.A. Paul, Ned Hall, Hitchcock, and Menzies have done some work trying to incorporate the insights from the causal modelling approach done by Pearl and colleagues.
Some links in case you want to explore further. Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an amazing free resource if you want to look something up:
http://www.philosophybites.com/
Check out Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is free and edited by active research philosophers on pretty much every major topic and figure.
Naming and Necessity by Kripke is about reference and the causal theory of reference, but it assume a decent amount (in case that is what you were asking for specifically).
The Very Short Introductions series have some really good booklets if you want quick ways to jump into a topic.
A few other books:
B Russell The Problems of Philosophy. OUP (dated, but a classic general introduction)
Simon Blackburn Think. Oxford (nice general introduction)
Tim Crane The Mechanical Mind. Penguin (Nice introduction to phil of mind)
A J Ayer Language, Truth, and Logic. Penguin (dated, but a classic)
D Hume Enquiries
T Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Univ of Chicago Press
And you are right to do so, for the reasons I explained in my post above.
When you talk of current research, then sure, you talk of modern philosophers. But that's still studying a tradition: just the latest versions of it. When teaching students you reach further back in time (just as maths students learn ancient theorems rather than modern ones).
The conceptual barriers to entry that you say face Asian contributions are a consequenceof the whole discipline having learned more Aristotle than Kongzi in philosophy 101. Because the 101 class (in any field) is what sets the terminology and background assumptions behind even modern research.