Science beyond frontiers: Rearming social sciences for the
twenty-first century and beyond
Sujay Rao Mandavilli
Founder-director, Institute for the study of
the globalization of science (ISGOS), and Scholars and Intellectuals of mankind
(SCHIMA). Author of over 170 research papers and 15 books
Abstract
The
objective of this paper is to demonstrate and show why, unlike the natural
sciences, most fields and disciplines forming a much broader component of the
social sciences and the humanities are largely dependent on culture-specific
and context specific data. However, most paradigms and frameworks in the social
sciences are still largely Eurocentric as would be obvious to most, and these
are sometimes blindly extrapolated and adopted to other contexts without
modification. It is time to set this anomaly right, and produce more inclusive
research in various fields of the social sciences, and this includes social and
cultural anthropology and sociology to name a few. Also, relatively few
researchers from developing countries participate in social sciences. This
paper extends an invitation to other researchers in India and elsewhere to
contribute to the social sciences, and our one hundred and fifty plus papers
and publications in the social sciences should serve as a useful benchmark and
a reference point.
Main
paper
We
may begin this paper by defining what science is. Science may be defined as the
systematic study of both the physical and the natural worlds through structured
and systematic observation, experimentation,
and the continuous revalidation of theories and hypothesis against new evidence
obtained. Science therefore comprises both a body of knowledge and a systematic
process which can be further broken down into frameworks, paradigms,
postulates, axioms, and concepts. The latter must be termed as scientific method,
which uses an empirical process to build continuously on human knowledge, and
expand it. Science can never be complete in all respects because science
advances and progresses continuously. Science is also a global human endeavor,
and people from all over the world must participate in scientific activity for
science to reach a pinnacle of success. Science must also serve society fundamentally
and foundationally, and science must serve the education system too. Science
must also be responsibly used and make the world a better place to live in;
thus science must constitute an ethical activity and endeavor.
Scientific
knowledge must also always be grounded in testable and observable phenomena and
must be capable of being verified constantly by the same researcher or by other
researchers without any bias or prejudice. There are several branches in the
sciences and these are often also referred to as scientific disciplines of
subfields within science. These are most commonly divided into three
major subgroups, namely the formal sciences, the natural sciences, and the
social sciences. The formal sciences are represented by the study of logics and
mathematics, the natural sciences encompass the study of natural factors and
examples include geology, astronomy, cosmology, and the like. Social sciences
encompasses the scientific study of human
behavior in its social and cultural aspects. We also then have
basic sciences and the applied sciences, and the latter extends theoretical
knowledge in practical directions. Another emerging are is multidisciplinary
science or interdisciplinary science; in this case, knowledge and expertise
from multiple disciplines and fields of study are put to use to solve,
practical and real-world problems.
Let
us now discuss the history of science in brief. The earliest form of scientific
activity may be traced to prehistoric times. Prehistoric science mostly involved practical
and survival-based knowledge passed through oral traditions, such as increasingly
complex tool-making, fire control, and even agriculture, and animal
domestication after the Neolithic revolution that occurred some twelve thousand
years ago. Knowledge of basic astronomy pervaded, and oar-propelled boats were
often built too. Science also flourished in early ancient Mesopotamia, and
mathematics, metallurgy, and astronomy too progressed impressively. Likewise,
ancient Egypt is remembered for its hieroglyphs and mummification techniques.
The Harappans also developed metallurgy and complex urban system with
impressive trade networks to the western part of Asia. Latter, several
scientists emerged in India, and examples were Aryabhata, Sushruta, Brahmagupta,
Charaka, Kanada and others. It is therefore fallacious and erroneous to claim
that science was western-centric from the very beginning; western science
pulled off impressively only after the renaissance and enlightenment. It is
therefore, not impossible for the rest of the world to catch up.
Social
science as an important and fast developing sub branch of the sciences
represents the academic study of human society, social and cultural relationships,
and human behavioral patterns using scientific methods and techniques. Its
avowed objective is also to solve social problems, and allow societies to
thrive mature, flourish and blossom. There are many important and vital
subfields of the social sciences such as sociology, social and cultural
anthropology, psychology, political science, economics, and historiography. We
also often talk about the humanities. The humanities are academic
disciplines that attempt to study the breadth and diversity of human culture,
history, and the human experience through the use of qualitative methods such
as analytical methods and techniques, and critical methods and techniques. Examples
of such fields of study include literature, philosophy, and the arts. Most fields
in the social sciences began in the eighteenth century, and further evolved and
matured during the course of the nineteenth century, particularly after the enlightenment.
Social sciences were also catapulted to a higher league after the French
revolution and the Industrial revolution. August Comte and others laid the
foundation for sociology, while Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall laid the
foundation for economics in the classical sense of the term.
However,
we have always argued that most branches of the social sciences are heavily
Eurocentric. The reason why we believe that reform in the social sciences is
required is that data in social sciences is culture dependant and context
dependant. This is unlike the natural sciences; for example, the law of gravity
applies all over the world, and so does Avogadro’s law. On the other hand, psychologists
and psychiatrists in Kerala must understand the cultural and emotional makeups
of local people, instead of blindly imposing western-centric models. Even
economic models are mostly suited for developed countries, and have not been
generally adapted for other situations. This kind of a “globalization of the
social sciences” has mostly not been accomplished, and existing research in
many fields of the social sciences are driven by Eurocentric paradigms for the
most part. Eurocentric paradigms were often extrapolated and imposed on other
people without any extra or additional validation. For example, the entire
science and field of historiography may need to be fine tuned for other
contexts and situations, but this has mostly not been done.
Much
of the social sciences are still driven by Europeans exploring other parts of
the world, and the study of primitive tribes and “other” cultures. For example,
we have had the Second Kamchatka Expedition of the Eighteenth century, and the
anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski studying the Trobriand Islanders, and AR
Radcliffe Brown likewise studying the people of the Andaman Islands. Social
science must be used for uplift of other people, and the progress of other
cultures, and in spite of some efforts such as action anthropology, the latter
has not yet reached its full potential. Old ideas still prevail. For example, Lucien
Levi Bruhl spoke about the primitive mentality and the inability of many
traditional people to think logically and rationally, and many people still
swear by his ideas. Many people in the west still think people from developing
countries cannot contribute to science meaningfully and pragmatically. All this
must change during the course of the present century.
Researchers
must be strong in scientific method, and scientific method may also need to
mature and change with the times. The same goes for the philosophy of science
as well. We must also proceed towards ideology free science, and science free
from dogma, bias and prejudice. Ideologies unfortunately still exist in
science, and this has been observed by the likes of Georges Canguilhem as well.
For this, cross-cultural research design may be necessary, but has often not
been adopted; we also need emic perspectives, and these need to be reconciled
with etic perspectives to produce etmic perspectives. We may also need grounded
theory and data and context driven theorization wherever possible. Grounded
theory was first developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm
Strauss way back in the 1960s, but is not always adopted or
used. Inductive approaches are also extremely useful, with data drawn from
diverse contexts as opposed to top down research models. We may also need to
reduce the over-reliance on mathematics and statistics in the social sciences
and use quasi-statistical research design instead; valid and bonafide social
science research techniques such as ethnography, participant observation
methods, focus group discussions etc must also be used more effectively. We
also need practicalism and pragmatism, and social sciences should be a force
for social good. It must also solve social and cultural problems not just in
one part of the world, but in different parts of the world without prejudice or
discrimination.
There
are still many problems with western centric science the way we see it; for
examples, too much importance given to academic freedom over social
responsibility. There is still too much careerism – bitter academic feuds rivalries
still prevail in many parts of the world, and the over-emphasis on publish or
perish culture ensures the subpar research often gets published. Concrete and
rock solid research models are not often built, and researchers tend to think
in bits and pieces, adopting knee-jerk reactions as and when new data is
discovered. Collaboration between researchers is sometimes lacking, and there
are often some vested interested involved; for example, researchers in western
nations may want to preserve and maintain their status quo, and may not welcome
the rise of other nations in science. Developing countries and the global south
can also lead in science, though they must strictly adhere to universal and
ethical scientific principles and scientific method. We can also have horizontal
collaboration between developing nations, in addition to the traditional
vertical model of technology and knowhow transfer from developed countries to
developing countries.
We
need more intellectual multipolarity in science, and more and more voices
should be heard in science from all over the world. Only this will ensure that
all forms of vested interests are routinely and systematically eliminated. We
have had the rise of Japan, South Korea, China, and India in the recent past,
though many of these countries are still weak in foundational and fundamental
sciences. We need a culture of science everywhere, and perhaps intellectual
revolutions in different parts of the world just as the happened in the west
during the renaissance and the enlightenment. This is because many Indians
still remain highly superstitious and ultra-conservative even to this day. We also
need to replicate the success of the American research ecosystem elsewhere, as
only this can lead to intellectual multipolarity. Indian researchers and
researchers in other countries must also diversify to as many fields of the
sciences as possible, including the social sciences. We have written
extensively on all these topics, and request other researchers to take on the
challenge and take the lead.
References:
Ziman,
John (1978c). "Common
observation". Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the
grounds for belief in science. Cambridge University Press
Gauch,
Hugh G. (2012). Scientific Method in Brief. New York: Cambridge University
Press
Kuhn,
Thomas S. (1970). The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago
Press
Votsis,
I. (2004). The Epistemological Status of Scientific Theories: An
Investigation of the Structural Realist Account, University of London,
London School of Economics
Bunge,
Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science:
Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York:
Routledge. pp. 3–50
Labels: Abhilasha: This is not utopia, Sujay Rao Mandavilli
