Science beyond frontiers: Rearming social sciences for the twenty-first century and beyond

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