Making the (Funding) Cut: The NSF, Anthropology, and the value of social science

Social science research isn't on the firmest ground in these days of economic malaise, but it's not like this news is exactly exploding into the headlines across the nation.  Funding cuts, like the recent "trimming" of the Fulbright program,* seem to take place somewhat under the radar.   The same can be said of the recent debates about the value of social, behavioral, and economic (SBE) sciences that took place about a month ago in a congressional hearing on June 2, 2011 (this link has PDFs of the introductory statements and the testimony of all the witnesses).  The social sciences face an uphill battle, in part, because some folks see them as mere "soft sciences" that do not merit public support.  The House panel subcommittee meeting was about assessing the relative merit of the social sciences and how federal funding should or should not be allocated to researchers.  Did you hear about this?  Well, I didn't--at least not until just a few days ago.  Funny what can happen in the middle of the summer, isn't it?  Anyway, here's a recap of what went down according to a summary from the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA):

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) chaired the panel, which included the testimony of four witnesses:  Myron Gutman (Assistant Director for NSF's SBE directorate), Hillary Anger Elfenbein (Olin School of Business at Washington University, St. Louis), Peter Wood (President of the National Association of Scholars), and finally Diana Furchtgott-Roth (Senior fellow at the Hudson Institute).  Here's how Brooks described the basic purpose of the hearing:

The goal of this hearing is not to question whether the social, behavioral, and economic sciences produce interesting and sound research, as I believe we all can agree that they do. I come from a social science background. I have a degree in political science and economics. Rather, the goal of our hearing is to look at the need for federal investments in these disciplines, how we determine what those needs are in the context of national priorities, and how we prioritize funding for those needs, not only within the social science disciplines, but also within all science disciplines, particularly when federal research dollars are scarce.

Brooks' language sounds cool, rational, and impartial.  However, according to journalist Jeffrey Mervis:

Brooks may have been pulling his punches. In comments to ScienceInsider after the hearing, Brooks expressed serious doubts about the value of the social sciences. The freshman legislator said he "understands the value of basic research" because his constituents in and around Huntsville, Alabama, make up "one of, if not the most, highly educated districts in the sciences." Brooks did say that "my priorities would be to protect basic research in the sciences as much as possible, even to the extent of cutting entitlements, in order to generate enough funding for basic research." But his definition of the term "basic research" turns out to be synonymous with the so-called hard sciences, and to exclude the social sciences.

It all depends on how you handle it

Daniel Lende wraps up the long and the short of the recent issue with AAA, science, and all of the reactions--from anthropologists to ill-informed journalists. Indeed, the way some folks reacted you would have thought it was the end of the world (0r that this was some new issue). It's not the end of the world, and the whole debate about the division about whether or not anthropology is or is not a "science" goes way back.

All said and done, I still think there is a lot to be learned from this--and one of the most interesting (to me) lessons has to do with communication and media. News about changes to the Long Range Plan got out, and then the "issue" turned into a "heated controversy" when rumor and exaggeration took over (the NY Times article and posts on gawker being prime examples). Not to say that there isn't something to be discussed about this--but it was never really the end of the world. In fact, the changes to the LRP never really made any sense to me. But then, I have been completely brainwashed into thinking that a four field approach makes perfect sense--and I have no problem with the fact that different perspectives or frameworks don't always add up to one easy answer. For me, this is not a problem.

Part of the problem was that the LRP document was publicized without associated documents that would have made the intentions of the AAA more coherent. There were other documents released at the same time by the AAA that clearly include references to the scientific side of anthropology--so the excision of that term from the LRP document was somewhat confusing and contradictory. And, since it was meant to be a "long range plan," I can see why some anthropologists felt it was the wrong way to go. So many of the reactions were understandable--especially since this isn't exactly a new conversation or issue. I think the LRP just acted as a kind of catalyst for discussion (which is a good thing, even if some folks don't feel it was a very interesting discussion!).

Some early clarification from the AAA--via various forms of media--would have gone a long way toward putting out the proverbial fires. So, overall, I think this is a good chance for the AAA to rethink and retool how they engage with some other forms of media. The AAA blog is great for announcements and a certain amount of content--but it's still very much a one-way interface, all said and done. So what IS anthropology? Is it defined by the official documents of the AAA? Not exactly. Anthropology includes a multiplicity of voices in a multiplicity of places--so it might make sense to find some different ways to explore some of those views through various forms of media. Journals are great. But, like the formal statements, they only reflect a fragment of "anthropology" as it is practiced and understood today. After all of this, one key question sticks out to me the most: who defines "anthropology"?

Franz Boas quote

Well, considering all of the recent uproar about anthropology and its relationship to science...how about a nice quote?

"The historical development of the work of anthropologists seems to single out clearly a domain of knowledge that heretofore has not been treated by any other science."

-Franz Boas, "The History of Anthropology," 1904.

Anthropology MINUS science?

You know, I really like the whole history of science. I mean the kind that looks at scientific practice as yet another human social and cultural system. Fascinating stuff. And when it comes to those wonderful discussions about truth, the limits of objectivity, and the fallibility of science...I think it's all very relevant, fascinating, and important to think about.

At the same time, I am by no means against science. Everything has its shortcomings and faults. But then, we don't simply abandon each and every endeavor or term or idea simply because it has some drawbacks. While there are certainly plenty of drawbacks to science, there are also more than enough strengths. I mean, do we really need to talk about germ theory and cell biology and DNA studies and, well, everything that IS science? Doesn't everyone know about the value of science? Don't all anthropologists agree that science matters? Why am I even talking about this?

Because the American Anthropological Association decided to remove any and all references to science in their mission statement:

Is anthropology a science? Don’t ask the American Anthropological Association (AAA), which recently voted to strike the word “science” from its long-term mission statement.

At the society’s annual meeting in New Orleans two weeks ago, the AAA’s executive board voted to change its long term goal statement from: “The purposes of the Association shall be to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects” to: “The purposes of the Association shall be to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects.”

Three other mentions of science were removed from the three-paragraph statement, while teaching and promoting public understanding were emphasized.

This makes no sense to me. Sure, I am a cultural anthropologist--you know, the type that is usually blamed for this sort of thing because of an overly opaque interest in postmodernist intellectual ping pong (or something like that). But while I read my fair share of Foucault and James Clifford and Donna Haraway and Latour and all of that good stuff, I am also a devout fan of science. I mean, I credit Stephen Jay Gould for my current intellectual path just as much as anyone else. I understand the clashes and disagreements between the so-called hard sciences and the so-called soft sciences. But overall I think these divisions are pretty silly, if not outright stupid. There is a reason why anthropology is, at least in some places, a four field approach. The basic idea being that each perspective can inform the other. This means that more biologically inclined anthropologists can gain something from the "cultural" folks, and vice versa. Archaeologists can get something from linguists. It's all about cross-fertilization. And to me, it's a good way of going about things, instead of constantly closing ourselves off into little disciplinary corners.

Overall, I think this is a bad call. I understand why the AAA made some new references in the statement, and why they wanted to emphasize particular foci, but I completely disagree with the decision to remove all references to science. What were they thinking? And what do the more scientifically inclined anthropologists think about this? For the record, I vote NO on this decision, "cultural" anthropologist or not.

UPDATE 12/3: Here are a couple more posts that discuss this issue:

1. Savage Minds-Alex Golub provides one response to the issue.
2. BANDIT: Another good discussion of the issue from Julienne Rutherford writing for the Biological Anthropology Developing Investigators Troop (BANDIT).
3. Daniel Lende over at Neuroanthropology has the ROUNDUP of ALL ROUNDUPS for this issue--and he provides a valuable (and calm) lens through which to look at this issue.

UPDATE 12/8:

Check out Colleen Morgan's response to this issue over at Middle Savagery.

Quote of the Day: Science and Education

This comes from "Why I am Not a Scientist," by Jonathan Marks:

"If science is a process of knowledge production, then is science education best expressed as teaching students the process or as teaching them the knowledge itself? If we focus on teaching students the accumulated knowledge, the facts of science, then we are not actually teaching them science. Rather, we are teaching them science's products, and indeed we are misleading them by substituting the teaching of scientific facts, as if it were the teaching of science itself."*

Marks' statement about teaching science applies to all kinds of teaching, if you ask me. The facts (dates, times, results) are less important than knowing how to get to the facts. Knowing how to solve problems, find information, and challenge assumptions is more important than knowing superficial content. There is a substantial difference between jamming information into students heads and teaching them how to go about finding information according to particular scientific (or other) methodologies. I think that part of the reason why I was continually bored in high school was because it was more about making me memorize information (and subsequently get a good score on the SATs) than anything else.

How about a little more from Marks, hmmm? Here you go:

"[L]et us focus on science as a method of knowledge production. Then learning science in not principally about learning what scientists think but how scientists think."

Yep, I like that. This means that if a student happens to not know a thing about a particular foundational text, or a particular experiment, all is not lost. Information can always be located, as long as people know how to find it. So when a student comes up to me in class and hasn't heard anything about Homo erectus, I can either lament the general knowledge of students these days or I can work on teaching them how to go about filling in the gaps of knowledge. The overall goal, I think, is teaching and inspiring people to learn how to go about answering particular questions.

*That's on page 22 for those of you following along at home. The second quote is on the next page.