The scope of the four chapters discussed in this contribution goes beyond humanities and social sciences and delves into the very nature of science and scientific research, offering readers inspiring and unique cognitive lenses through which we can exam- ine science . The four contributions on which I have drawn remind us about the most crucial issues for science, such as its socio-political positioning, divisions, disciplin- ary boundaries and hierarchies within science, or normative presumptions that may stand behind certain practices and views. At the same time, they speak to and complement each other and have certain features in common. All chapters derive from the Western tradition of scientific practice and from secular philosophical thought, and have been authored by male scholars. They are also rooted in Scandinavian academia, in which philosophy of sciences is recognized as essential for scholarly practice.
Philosophy of science invites scholars to reflect upon foundations, methods, and implications of science. I suggested in this essay that anthropology can contribute to this with its long tradition of practicing reflexivity as a part of scientific inquiry.
Anthropological reflexivity includes acknowledgment that science is shaped and practiced by humans who are themselves socioculturally and institutionally posi- tioned. Being transparent about one’s own positionality, research methods, and pro- cesses contributes to the quality of research and helps others comprehend what kind of science we practice, what is the source of our data, and the positions from which we speak as scholars.
I also implied that discussion of the relationship between science and society (Carre, 2019; Reber & Bullot, 2019) would greatly benefit from problematizing and contextualizing both concepts. In problematizing the notion of science, the ideas of scientificity, credibility, and usability are as much important as the ques- tion of ethics and responsibility for potential impact of research: its process and further publication of outcomes. In line with contributions to this volume I sug- gested that although disciplinary boundaries and cognitive specialization (Strand, 2019) are extremely useful and essential to the practice of science, explaining complex phenomenas requires a broader scope of multidisciplinary collaboration
106
(Watzl, 2019). It may also entail critical rethinking of the world, society, and
‘science(s)’. Regarding society, instead of applying rhetoric that reproduces soci- eties as wholes, I proposed to recognize existing diversity with its stratifications and hierarchies of power. Following the presumptions of non-dualistic approach, it may be worthwhile to rethink the common understanding of societies as limited to humans, becasue we cohabit and correlate with other species and the environ- ment. Furthermore, perceiving non-humans, including the Earth, as agents rather than passive subjects of study can enrich our explanations and expand the scope of our understanding of the impact of our research. Finally, the boundaries between society and science are blurred, especially but not exclusively in the case of social sciences.
One of the conclusions that emerge from the chapters is how crucial it is to find a balance between diversity of voices and practices in science while remaining com- mitted to academic standards. Awareness of strengths and limitations of own disci- pline, of our cognitive conditioning (Strand, 2019), held viewpoints and beliefs (Reber & Bullot, 2019) can positively facilitate the quality of science and lead towards a holistic approach towards studied phenomenon (Watzl, 2019). Philosophy of science can aid such process and facilitate dialogue between different disciplines (Strand, 2019) and worldviews. Being reflexive in science means giving more atten- tion to the principles of academic practice, rather than to the current fashions, politi- cal expectations, or administrative frameworks that (try to) shape the ways we do science.
Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to the organizers, lecturers, and partici- pants of the course “philosophy of sciences” held in Deecember 2017 at the University of Oslo. I am indebted to Murat Somer for his comments and suggestions regarding my draft version of this paper. I also thank Gül Üret for her friendly support during the writing process.
References
Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing against culture. In R. G. Fox (Ed.), Recapturing anthropology:
Working in the present (pp. 466–479). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.
Abu-Lughod, L. (2002). Do Muslim women really need saving? Anthropological reflections on cultural relativism and its others. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 783–790.
Amelina, A., Nergiz, D., Faist, T., & Glick-Schiller, N. (2012). Methodological predicaments of cross-border studies. In A. Amelina, D. Nergiz, T. Faist, & N. Glick-Schiller (Eds.), Beyond methodological nationalism: Research methodologies for cross-border studies (pp. 1–22).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Amit, V. (Ed.). (2000). Constructing the field: Ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world.
London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Barth, F. (Eds.) (1969) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen: Univertsitetsforlaget, Scandinavian University Books.
Bergandi, D., & Blandin, P. (1998). Holism vs. reductionism: Do ecosystem ecology and land- scape ecology clarify the debate? Acta Biotheoretica, 46, 185–206.
Beyerchen, A. (1992). What we know about Nazism and science. Social Research, 59(3), 615–641.
A. Zadrożna
Boas, F. (2005). Scientists as spies. Anthropology Today, 21(3), 7.
Brown, M. F. (2008). Cultural Relativism 2.0. Current Anthropology, 49(3), 363–383.
Campbell, J. R. (2010). The problem of ethics in contemporary anthropological research.
Anthropology Matters Journal, 12(1), 1–17.
Carre, D. (2019). Social sciences, what for? On the manifold directions of social research. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Social philosophy of science for the social sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 197–222.
Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and translation in the late twentieth century. Boston, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). The SAGE encyclopedia of action research (Vol. 1–2).
London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406
Crasnow, S., Wylie, A., Bauchspies W. K., & Potter, E., (2018). Feminist perspectives on science.
In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). https://
plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/feminist-science/.
de Gialdino, V. (2009). Ontological and epistemological foundations of qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(2). Art. 30, http://nbn-resolving.de/
urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0902307
Derrick, G. E., Faria, R., Benneworth, P., Budtz-Petersen, D., & Sivertsen, G. (2018). Towards characterizing negative impact: Introducing Grimpact. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators in Transition, 12–14 September 2018, Leiden, pp. 1199–1213.
Eriksen, T. H. (2009). Norwegian anthropologists study minorities at home: Political and academic agendas. Anthropology in Action, 16(2), 27–38.
Fabian, J. (1990). Presence and representation: The other and anthropological writing. Critical Inquiry, 16(4), 753–772.
Fluehr-Lobban, C. (1995). Anthropologists, cultural relativism and universal human rights. The Chronicle of Higher Education, (June 9): B1–2.
Fluehr-Lobban, C. (2008). New ethical challenges for anthropologists. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(12), B11–B12.
Fluehr-Lobban, C. (2013). Ethics and anthropology: Ideas and practice. New York, NY: AltaMira Press.
Gaad, E. (2004). Cross-cultural perspectives on the effect of cultural attitudes towards inclusion for children with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(3), 311–328.
Gallas, A. (2018). The Precarisation of Academic Labour: A Global issue, published at http://
column.global-labour-university.org/2018/02/the-precarisation-of-academic-labour.html.
Accessed on June 28th, 2019.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Greaves, W. (2018). Colonialism, statehood, and Sámi in Norden and the Norwegian high north. In K. Hossain (Ed.), Human and societal security in the circumpolar arctic, studies in polar law (Vol. Vol. 1, pp. 100–121). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond culture: Space, identity and the politics of difference.
Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 6–23.
Haila, Y. (2000). Beyond the nature-culture dualism. Biology and Philosophy, 15, 155–175.
Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin.
Environmental Humanities, 6, 159–165.
Hastrup, K. (1992). Writing ethnography: State of art. In J. Okeley & H. Callaway (Eds.), Anthropology and autobiography (pp. 116–134). London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Hastrup, K. (1995). A passage to anthropology. London: Routledge.
Herschberg, C., Benschop, Y., & van Brink, M. (2018). Precarious postdocs: A comparative study on recruitment and selection of early-career researchers. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 34(4), 303–310.
Ivancheva, M. (2015). The Age of Precarity and the New Challenges to the Academic Profession.
Studia Ubb. Europaea, LX(1), 39–47.
108
Jakimow, T., & Kilby, P. (2006). Empowering women: A critique of the blueprint for self-help groups in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 13(3), 375–400.
Kempny, M. (2012). Rethinking native anthropology: Migration and auto-ethnography in the post- accession Europe. International Review of Social Research, 2(2), 39–52.
Kokot, W. (2006). Culture and space – anthropological approaches. EthnoScripts, 10–23.
Kyllingstad, J. R. (2012). Norwegian physical anthropology and the idea of a Nordic master race.
Current Anthropology, 53(5), S46–S56.
Kyllingstad, J. R. (2017). The absence of race in Norway? Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 95(2017), 319–327.
Langaas, R. F. (2017). New policies, old attitudes? Discrimination against Roma in Norway.
Master thesis submitted at University of Bergen.
Latour, B. (2014). Agency at the time of the anthropocene. New Literary History, 45(1), 1–18.
Law, J., & Lien, M. E. (2012). Slippery: Field notes in empirical ontology. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 363–378.
Lehtola, V. (2015). Sámi histories, colonialism, and Finland. Arctic Anthropology, 52(2), 22–36.
Lewis, D. (1973). Anthropology and colonialism. Current Anthropology, 14(5), 581–602.
Malnes, R. (2019). Explanation: Guidance for social scientists. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Social philoso- phy of science for the social sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
Marcus, G., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.
Mathews, A. S. (2017). The Problem of the Anthropocene. When did it happen, what do we call it?. Lecture notes. The Politics of Nature in the Anthropocene: Anthropology as Natural History. Oslo Summer School in Comparative Social Science Studies 2017. Delivered on 31 July 2017.
Mullings, L.; Heller, M., Liebow, E., & Goodman, A. (2013). Science, advocacy and anthropology, post at the American Anthropological Association blog published at https://blog.americanan- thro.org/2013/02/17/science-advocacy-and-anthropology/. Accessed at June 7th, 2019.
NESH (National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities) (2006). Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Law, and the Humanities.
Nibert, D. (2003). Humans and other animals: sociology‘s moral and intellectual challenge.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(3), 4–25.
Noske, B. (1993). The animal question in anthropology: A commentary. Society and Animals, 1(2), 185–190.
Okely, J. (1992). Anthropology and autobiography: Participatory experience and embodied knowl- edge. In J. Okeley & H. Callaway (Eds.), Anthropology and autobiography (pp. 2–28). London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Okely, J. (2012). Anthropological practice: Fieldwork and the ethnographic method. London and New York, NY: Berg.
Okely, J., & Callaway, H. (Eds.). (1992). Anthropology and autobiography. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Peregrine, P., Moses, Y. T., Goodman, A., Lamphere, L., & Peacock, J. L. (2012). What is science in anthropology? American Anthropologist, 114(4), 593–597.
Pérez, M., & Montoya, A. (2018). The unsustainability of the neoliberal public university: Towards an ethnography of Precarity in academia. Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares, LXXIII(1), A1–A16.
Rappaport, J. (2008). Beyond participant observation: Collaborative ethnography as theoretical innovation. Collaborative Anthropologies, 1, 1–31.
Reber, R., & Bullot, N. (2019). Conditional objectivism: A strategy for connecting the social sciences and practical decision-making. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Social philosophy of science for the social sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
Richardson, S. (2010). Feminist Philosophy of Science: History, Contributions, and Challenges.
Synthese, 177(3., “Making Philosophy of Science More Socially Relevant”), 337–362.
Roll-Hanses, N. (2017). Some thoughts on geneticss and politics: The historical misrepresentation of Scandinavian eugenics and sterilization. In H. I. Petermann, P. S. Harper, & S. Doetz (Eds.), A. Zadrożna
History of human genetics: Aspects of its development and global perspectives (pp. 167–188).
Springer: Cham (eBook).
Salzman, P. C. (2002). On reflexivity. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 805–813.
Steffen, W., Persson, Å., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., … Svedin, U. (2011). The Anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio, 40(7), 739–761.
Strand, R. (2019). Vitenskapsteori – What, why and how? In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Social philosophy of science for the social sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
Streeby, S. (2018). Imagining the future of climate change: World-making through science fiction and activism. Oakland, California: University of California Press.
Thornton, R. J. (1988). The rhetoric of ethnographic holism. Cultural Anthropology, 3, 285–303.
Verdery, K. (2012). Observers observed: An anthropologist under surveillance. Anthropology Now, 4(2), 14–23.
Watzl, S. (2019). Culture or biology? If this sounds interesting, you might be confused. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Social philosophy of science for the social sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
Young, A. (2014). Western theory, global world: Western Bias in international theory. Harvard International Review, 36(1), 29–31.