As a social scientist, I often take issues of activism as the start point of my research. I'm interested in doing work that supports the research needs of activists trying to address wicked problems. The main thing for me is that objectivity itself is a social construct (an idea that we use to explain a set of practices and beliefs), and objectivity as a value is culturally situated (emerges from a particular set of historical circumstances -- in this case the development of scientific method as an arbiter of knowledge production). I value scientific method for the knowledge it has helped us produce -- but I also want to recognise it's limits.
In my book, I look at how scientific knowledge about bodies is irrevocably culturally produced -- and how when scientists don't recognise this, they miss opportunities to do things differently. The main example is infant toileting -- which despite being widespread in many parts of the world, until recently was not supported by scientific research which had found the sphincter muscle did not develop until age 2, therefore infant toileting was 'impossible'. Of course, the population studied was a cultural population that already believed children could not control their sphincter muscle into age 2, so did not carry out any practices that challenged that.
A different example from climate change -- but the point remains: when we recognise how culture and society (including activism and values and ethics) shapes our scientific research, it gets BETTER.
I love this, Kelly! Thanks for sharing your perspective. As you can probably tell from my previous posts, I'm keen to embrace much more than the historical approach to science, with the lone scientist squirrelling away in their private office on their own siloed ideas. I think we need a lot more than that these days to overcome the massive global problems we're facing. I think truly transdisciplinary (or even post-disciplinary as I heard in a discussion this morning) approaches are needed. These approaches start with a problem, not a discipline -- that could be a problem that starts with activism, as you say. The real solutions come when different world views are brought together. Very cool to hear your perspective here!
A great article, and for a non academic like myself, I feel it is vitally important for scientists and other academics to communicate their field more broadly so that information does reach the general public. We all need to have lively debate and listen to different perspectives and it is absolutely vital that the data behind those perspectives is robust. Without the correct data behind a public communication it is so easy for people to travel down that rabbit hole. Keep these articles flowing!
Great post. In economics, the problem is quite prevalent. Economics can show impacts of policies and what can happen if we do thing X (at least in some narrow scope). Economics also has 'welfare' functions to determine how society welfare changes. Most research often is agnostic about it (i.e. we don't really discuss welfare outcomes much).
But naturally, whether to enact a policy depends on the welfare function we are trying to maximize. Society should get to choose the welfare function it wants to maximize. However, we also see economists advocate for policies as if they're 'objective' improvements. Often though, the economists have their own welfare function in mind, but they don't state it upfront. I think if they would clarify their underlying welfare function, then the problem of academic vs activist (in economics) would be somewhat resolved.
Super interesting! Thanks for sharing. A very tough issue for economics given the tight ties to society! Really useful to get this perspective. Hadn’t heard of the welfare functions before.
Jonathan, what do you think of scientists, who are often the ones knowledgeable about how to address various problems in the world, run for politics as a form of activism? On a personal note, would you ever consider it?
I think that’s great but their role obviously changes from scientist to politician. The main thing of importance to me is diversity in politics. And no, it’s not something I’m interested in personally. Doesn’t look like a healthy lifestyle to me!
Great piece, know from working on participatory research projects that scientists are passionate about application but can feel like they're being asked to stand in for missing links (like advisory services) without fully supportive training / funding.
So true. We're juggling so many balls and wearing so many hats. I did some media training recently but it doesn't make up for the fact I'm teaching, mentoring, running a lab group, managing finances, writing papers, researching, applying for grants etc.
The traditional approach to science has resulted in the public’s increasing distrust of scientists—their motives, values, and business interests. The science should be a joint enterprise between scientists and the public to demonstrate the value of science in people’s lives. Each player will be able to integrate science more easily into civic decisionmaking and target problems more efficiently and at lower costs. This collaborative work will create new opportunities for civic action and give the public a greater sense of ownershipmaking it their science.
Thanks Ermira. To me, there's absolutely room for both. We 100% need continued investment in investigator-led basic science. It's a shame this mistrust has developed but bad eggs are rare. Nonetheless, scientists need to earn the trust of the public.
Thanks for this post! I've been thinking about what you've written a lot, particularly in conversation with Indigenous methodologies and decolonizing research. It seems to me that there's a lot of settler colonial privilege attached the history and even the notion of pure objectivity... For many Indigenous scientists, omitting themselves or their cultural positionality from the equation isn't an option, or even desirable! Not that should one come to research with a predetermined outcome in mind, but rather that one recognizes that the research process is intrinsically a relational one. I like to discuss the public statement shared by Indigenous scientists during the 2017 March for Science with my students.... helps to get at some of these complexities. Thanks again for this thoughtful post! https://cnpe.home.blog/2017/04/18/indigenous-science-statement-for-the-march-for-science/
Thank you, Suzanne! This is so true. Your point is right on regarding the key is just recognising any relationship so you're aware of any potential biases. Blindly believing we're 100% disconnected from our research at all times is unrealistic and unhelpful.
I cast my vote for scientists becoming as objective as possible about the assumptions which form the foundation of their enterprise. One core assumption is the widely held belief that we should seek as much knowledge as possible.
Where in the science community can I find discussion and debate which examines all sides of that assumption?
Thanks Phil. Yes, certainly we should be aiming to be as objective as possible, while being aware of any implicit biases we may harbour. Good question -- I guess there's a lot of stuff out there on the philosophy of science but I haven't looked hard as yet. Cheers!
A very crucial topic. Scientists are not occupants of black boxes and hermetically sealed off from the non-academic world. There is the primary duty, coming before every other consideration, of getting the data right. Present the data and then draw conclusions. Science's public credibility is getting the data right and importantly not editing out what doesn't fit on the curve or seems outliers. The data, the whole data and nothing but the data. Let others draw their conclusions, and they will, but if you don't misrepresent and don't worry too much about mistaken interpretation, than things should sort themselves out, even if you do seem an advocate in some social issues. People don't mind opinions at variance with their own so much as they mind being lied to.
As a social scientist, I often take issues of activism as the start point of my research. I'm interested in doing work that supports the research needs of activists trying to address wicked problems. The main thing for me is that objectivity itself is a social construct (an idea that we use to explain a set of practices and beliefs), and objectivity as a value is culturally situated (emerges from a particular set of historical circumstances -- in this case the development of scientific method as an arbiter of knowledge production). I value scientific method for the knowledge it has helped us produce -- but I also want to recognise it's limits.
In my book, I look at how scientific knowledge about bodies is irrevocably culturally produced -- and how when scientists don't recognise this, they miss opportunities to do things differently. The main example is infant toileting -- which despite being widespread in many parts of the world, until recently was not supported by scientific research which had found the sphincter muscle did not develop until age 2, therefore infant toileting was 'impossible'. Of course, the population studied was a cultural population that already believed children could not control their sphincter muscle into age 2, so did not carry out any practices that challenged that.
A different example from climate change -- but the point remains: when we recognise how culture and society (including activism and values and ethics) shapes our scientific research, it gets BETTER.
I love this, Kelly! Thanks for sharing your perspective. As you can probably tell from my previous posts, I'm keen to embrace much more than the historical approach to science, with the lone scientist squirrelling away in their private office on their own siloed ideas. I think we need a lot more than that these days to overcome the massive global problems we're facing. I think truly transdisciplinary (or even post-disciplinary as I heard in a discussion this morning) approaches are needed. These approaches start with a problem, not a discipline -- that could be a problem that starts with activism, as you say. The real solutions come when different world views are brought together. Very cool to hear your perspective here!
A great article, and for a non academic like myself, I feel it is vitally important for scientists and other academics to communicate their field more broadly so that information does reach the general public. We all need to have lively debate and listen to different perspectives and it is absolutely vital that the data behind those perspectives is robust. Without the correct data behind a public communication it is so easy for people to travel down that rabbit hole. Keep these articles flowing!
Thanks Kim! Yes, if we don't say it, we leave a void for others to say it in different ways.
Great post. In economics, the problem is quite prevalent. Economics can show impacts of policies and what can happen if we do thing X (at least in some narrow scope). Economics also has 'welfare' functions to determine how society welfare changes. Most research often is agnostic about it (i.e. we don't really discuss welfare outcomes much).
But naturally, whether to enact a policy depends on the welfare function we are trying to maximize. Society should get to choose the welfare function it wants to maximize. However, we also see economists advocate for policies as if they're 'objective' improvements. Often though, the economists have their own welfare function in mind, but they don't state it upfront. I think if they would clarify their underlying welfare function, then the problem of academic vs activist (in economics) would be somewhat resolved.
Super interesting! Thanks for sharing. A very tough issue for economics given the tight ties to society! Really useful to get this perspective. Hadn’t heard of the welfare functions before.
Jonathan, what do you think of scientists, who are often the ones knowledgeable about how to address various problems in the world, run for politics as a form of activism? On a personal note, would you ever consider it?
I think that’s great but their role obviously changes from scientist to politician. The main thing of importance to me is diversity in politics. And no, it’s not something I’m interested in personally. Doesn’t look like a healthy lifestyle to me!
Great piece, know from working on participatory research projects that scientists are passionate about application but can feel like they're being asked to stand in for missing links (like advisory services) without fully supportive training / funding.
So true. We're juggling so many balls and wearing so many hats. I did some media training recently but it doesn't make up for the fact I'm teaching, mentoring, running a lab group, managing finances, writing papers, researching, applying for grants etc.
The traditional approach to science has resulted in the public’s increasing distrust of scientists—their motives, values, and business interests. The science should be a joint enterprise between scientists and the public to demonstrate the value of science in people’s lives. Each player will be able to integrate science more easily into civic decisionmaking and target problems more efficiently and at lower costs. This collaborative work will create new opportunities for civic action and give the public a greater sense of ownershipmaking it their science.
Thanks Ermira. To me, there's absolutely room for both. We 100% need continued investment in investigator-led basic science. It's a shame this mistrust has developed but bad eggs are rare. Nonetheless, scientists need to earn the trust of the public.
Thanks for this post! I've been thinking about what you've written a lot, particularly in conversation with Indigenous methodologies and decolonizing research. It seems to me that there's a lot of settler colonial privilege attached the history and even the notion of pure objectivity... For many Indigenous scientists, omitting themselves or their cultural positionality from the equation isn't an option, or even desirable! Not that should one come to research with a predetermined outcome in mind, but rather that one recognizes that the research process is intrinsically a relational one. I like to discuss the public statement shared by Indigenous scientists during the 2017 March for Science with my students.... helps to get at some of these complexities. Thanks again for this thoughtful post! https://cnpe.home.blog/2017/04/18/indigenous-science-statement-for-the-march-for-science/
Thank you, Suzanne! This is so true. Your point is right on regarding the key is just recognising any relationship so you're aware of any potential biases. Blindly believing we're 100% disconnected from our research at all times is unrealistic and unhelpful.
I cast my vote for scientists becoming as objective as possible about the assumptions which form the foundation of their enterprise. One core assumption is the widely held belief that we should seek as much knowledge as possible.
Where in the science community can I find discussion and debate which examines all sides of that assumption?
Thanks.
Thanks Phil. Yes, certainly we should be aiming to be as objective as possible, while being aware of any implicit biases we may harbour. Good question -- I guess there's a lot of stuff out there on the philosophy of science but I haven't looked hard as yet. Cheers!
I found this recent contribution from Esther Turnhout to be a guiding light on this issue: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124000637
Thanks Adam! Will give it a read.
A very crucial topic. Scientists are not occupants of black boxes and hermetically sealed off from the non-academic world. There is the primary duty, coming before every other consideration, of getting the data right. Present the data and then draw conclusions. Science's public credibility is getting the data right and importantly not editing out what doesn't fit on the curve or seems outliers. The data, the whole data and nothing but the data. Let others draw their conclusions, and they will, but if you don't misrepresent and don't worry too much about mistaken interpretation, than things should sort themselves out, even if you do seem an advocate in some social issues. People don't mind opinions at variance with their own so much as they mind being lied to.
"Scientists are not occupants of black boxes and hermetically sealed off from the non-academic world." -- Well put, Michael!
Agreed, thank you!
My pleasure, Rena. Thanks for reading!