31
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
J. Valsiner (ed.), Social Philosophy of Science for the Social Sciences, Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33099-6_3
Vitenskapsteori: What, Why, and How?
Roger Strand
Norway is a small country that remains outside the European Union while in many ways acting as if it were within it. In 1942, during WWII, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously exclaimed: “Look to Norway!” Norwegian patriots often interpreted Roosevelt’s speech as a tribute to the courage of the Norwegian resis- tance movement. A more modest and analytical interpretation, however, can be sug- gested: In order to understand Europe, it may be useful to study its smaller and more peripheral countries. At the periphery, more is possible: the solutions may be a bit more exotic, a bit easier to analyse in terms of their historically contingencies, and perhaps even a bit more telling about the mainstream European culture. The emer- gence of vitenskapsteori in Norwegian academia and higher education is such a story. This story displays Norway as a proper part of Europe and at the same time a special one, deeply influenced by interplay between societal sectors, above all between state officials and popular movements, creating opportunities for dialogues without steep hierarchies (Skirbekk, 2018).
32
all EU directives apply and they are upheld with a high degree of compliance.
Norway is part of the European Research Area (ERA) and participates in the Framework Programmes for research and innovation, and the country is committed to the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and its Bologna Process.
Specifically, this means that Norway has adopted the EHEA Qualification Framework (sometimes called “the Dublin Descriptors”). At the Ph.D. level – the so-called “third cycle” – there are six such descriptors. Three of them describe the qualifications to be expected from carrying out the dissertational work, such as mas- tery of research methods and the ability to carry out a research project. Two descrip- tors focus on communication skills and the participation in society. And then there is one descriptor that indicates the legacy of the European Bildung tradition, the history of Western philosophy perhaps, and traditional academic virtues: the suc- cessful Ph.D. student is “capable of critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis of new and complex ideas”.1 In this way, and through other descriptors, the EHEA underlines that the Ph.D. and the master’s degrees are educations in breadth and depth and not just a device to bring manpower to European research.
From the Norwegian perspective, we2 have implemented the Bologna Process, albeit with national adaptations as was anticipated by the EHEA. Unsurprisingly in a Scandinavian welfare state with a strong planning tradition, a state institution plays a major role in the Norwegian implementation of Bologna. The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education holds 140 employees as well as the power to grant accreditation to Norwegian higher education institutions and pro- grammes. Indeed, the Norwegian State enjoys a monopoly on higher education in the sense that private universities and university colleges can only award bachelor, master’s, or Ph.D. titles if they have been accredited by the mentioned Norwegian Agency. Without such accreditation their study programmes are actually illegal.
The yardstick against which Norwegian study programmes are measured is our national Qualification Framework – our own adoption of Bologna and mandated by law. At the Ph.D. level it includes 11 descriptors, which are not very different from the EHEA original though somewhat more comprehensive. The descriptor equivalent to
“capable of critical analysis” is found already in the first of the set of 11. It states that the successful Ph.D. candidate is:
i kunnskapsfronten innenfor sitt fagområde og behersker fagområdets vitenskapsteori og/eller kunstneriske problemstillinger og metoder.3
1 See e.g. http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/WG_Frameworks_qualification/71/0/050218_
QF_EHEA_580710.pdf
2 I will write “we” in this chapter to signify a series of ever more narrowly construed subjects:
Norway, the Norwegian university sector, Norwegian vitenskapsteoretikere – practitioners of vitenskapsteori. The author of this chapter belongs to and cannot help represent each of these sub- ject positions.
3 The official document is found on the server of the Norwegian government: https://www.regjer- ingen.no/globalassets/upload/kd/vedlegg/uh/utbyttebeskrivelser_kvalifikasjonsrammeverk_
endelig_mars09.pdf
R. Strand
which will be difficult to translate; indeed, this difficulty is why we at all are looking to Norway in this chapter. The semi-official translation is in need of considerable explanation:
in the forefront of knowledge within his/her academic field and masters the field’s philosophy of science and/or artistic issues and methods.
The strange passage on “artistic methods” is easy to explain. It is simply the result of a regulatory patchwork as it became possible to obtain a Ph.D. in performing arts, in which the dissertational work is not necessarily research as such but rather a fine arts, music, or design project. For a non-Norwegian the passage on “the field’s phi- losophy of science” may seem even stranger, though. Why in the world should all Ph.D. students in Norway, say, within biology, master the philosophy of biology? At this point, someone like me – a Norwegian, a Norwegian university teacher, a Norwegian teacher of vitenskapsteori – would intervene: no, they are not supposed to master philosophy of science, by all means. What they should learn is vitenskap- steori, to the extent that most Norwegian Ph.D. programmes include mandatory courses, typically 5, 10, or even 15 ECTS credits, with this subject. Vitenskapsteori may include some philosophy of science but is definitely not the same. It is some- thing different, just as Norway is different from the European Union.
What Is Vitenskapsteori?
It is almost unethical to keep the reader of this chapter in such a suspense. What is vitenskapsteori, then? State the definition! This should be an easy task, in particular for the present author, who has worked at a Senter for Vitenskapsteori for 25 years and was appointed professor in vitenskapsteori 13 years ago. Alas, even at our cen- tre we had an internal seminar series for years called “What is vitenskapsteori?”, with heated, never-ending discussions.
German and Dutch readers will recognise the word itself. In German, there is Wissenschaftstheorie. In Dutch, there is Wetenschapstheorie. Wissenschaft, weten- schap, vitenskap, vetenskap (Swedish), and videnskab (Danish) are all words for science, that is, with an inclusive definition of science. In the verbiage of Germanic languages, sociology, philosophy, theology, the study of law, history, and anthropol- ogy are all Wissenschaften – sciences, as well as the natural and medical sciences, of course. Hence vitenskapsteori means “theory of the (diverse set of) sciences”.
This allows us to complete the next iteration to the question of what Norwegian Ph.D. students are supposed to master. They should learn the “theory” of their academic discipline or field. What kind of theory? Duden, the excellent German dictionary, defines Wissenschaftstheorie as follows:
Teilgebiet der Philosophie, in dem die Voraussetzungen, Methoden, Strukturen, Ziele und Auswirkungen von Wissenschaft untersucht werden.4
4https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wissenschaftstheorie
34
which we might translate as follows:
Subfield of philosophy, in which the presuppositions, methods, structures, goals and impacts of science are examined.
Indeed, the German Wikipedia page of Wissenschaftstheorie describes it as a subfield of philosophy: philosophy of science, or even simply epistemology. It is an activity mostly performed and owned by professional philosophers. Important parts of that activity include the rehearsal of the debates over realism and constructivism (“Are scientific theories true? Do theoretical concepts correspond to real-world enti- ties?”) and the debates about the unity of scientific method, the logical structure of explanations, the styles of scientific reasoning, etc.
In Scandinavia – Norway, Sweden, and Denmark – however, the term vitenskap- steori is used in two quite distinct ways. One usage is equivalent to Wissenschaftstheorie and denotes philosophy of science, in that broad definition of science as explained above. It is an activity that philosophers own and that quite a few scientists and citizens also like to engage in, discussing a canon that includes authors such as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn (whom they are likely to have read) and many others such as Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, Imre Lakatos, Larry Laudan, and Paul Feyerabend (whom they are less likely to have read). The second and main usage, however, of vitenskapsteori denotes a heterogeneous and interdisciplinary academic field. The Danish Wikipedia page on videnskabsteori is radically different from the German one (and Norwegian one, which follows the first usage). I have translated its opening below5:
Videnskabsteori is an interdisciplinary area that has the science itself as its object. In Denmark, one also talks about “research on research”, and sometimes the looser term
“science studies” is used.
Classically, videnskabsteori is divided into these areas:
• Philosophy of science
• History of science
• Sociology of science
In Norway, a national conference in 1975 (at Jeløya, South of Oslo) gave an even broader definition which included the economics, anthropology, pedagogics, and psychology of science together with science policy studies, research ethics, and the study of ethical aspects of science (NAVF, 1976). The Jeløya conference was highly influential in structuring the field in Norway, and in genealogical terms there goes a straight line from the conference to the mandatory requirement of vitenskapsteori in the Norwegian Ph.D. qualification framework.
Since 1975, the universe of “research on research” has changed. Following Kuhn and Feyerabend, philosophy of science has moved somewhat in the direction of empirical studies, in what Werner Callebaut dubbed the “naturalistic turn”, with philosophers such as Nancy Cartwright and Ian Hacking doing original historical work and historians such as Peter Galison and Lorraine Daston making profound philosophical contributions. Furthermore, science and technology studies (STS)
5https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videnskabsteori
R. Strand
have grown and developed into a very real academic field at many universities, with its own centres and departments and study programmes. Its history began in the 1960s with the formation of radical political awareness and criticism of the role of science in society (when STS still meant “Science, Technology and Society”). A period of intellectual radicalism followed, with the SSK – Sociology of Scientific Knowledge – movement that often claimed strong if not extreme positions on the social construction of knowledge. Since then, STS matured, institutionalised, and grew in volume and academic prestige at the expense of philosophy of science. STS concepts and methods have gained influence in a variety of social sciences and humanistic research fields. To quote Zia Sardar, STS has changed from a low church community to high church (Sardar & van Loon, 2011). The influence of STS is clearly seen in a recent job advertisement at Gothenburg University in Sweden, which has a section for vetenskapsteori in one of its multidisciplinary departments.
In the advertisement, vetenskapsteori is defined as:
[…] part of a post-Kuhnian tradition and has a distinct orientation towards empirical study. Research and teaching is primarily focused on epistemological and social aspects of the production and use of scientific knowledge. Differences in epistemological and method- ological presuppositions across disciplines and fields of research are accentuated and ana- lyzed, with the humanities and social sciences as well as medical and natural sciences being objects of study. Theories and methods are usually drawn from the field of science and technology studies (STS).6
So we may conclude this step of iteration as follows: vitenskapsteori seems to be the name of a Scandinavian brand of interdisciplinary research on research that combines philosophy, history, sociology, etc. of science with STS, science policy studies, and research ethics and research on ethical aspects of science. And science is to be taken in its broadest sense, including the humanities and social sciences.
Two mysteries remain, however: If this is how it is, why did my colleagues at the Senter for Vitenskapsteori engage in “heated, never-ending discussions” about the identity of the field? Secondly, again, why in the world should this subject be taught to all Norwegian Ph.D. students? Towards the end of this chapter, we shall see that these two questions are deeply related.
Why Vitenskapsteori?
When asked “why vitenskapsteori?” we might choose to reply with causes, with historical events, and with institutional structures that can explain the presence of a mandatory requirement in Ph.D. training in the small country of Norway in contrast to other European countries. The Jeløya conference was already mentioned. The relatively strong presence of philosophers at Norwegian universities is another explanatory factor, which again can be explained by the four century–old tradition
6https://www.gu.se/english/about_the_university/job-opportunities/vacancies-details/?id=3453
36
of examen philosophicum, a more or less mandatory first year course in Norwegian university education that usually includes a course in the history of philosophy.
Examen philosophicum is an important part of the Norwegian version of Bildung and also, on a more trivial note, an abundant source of employment opportunities for philosophers in this country.
Being a participant rather than a neutral observer to the institution of vitenskap- steori, my main contribution to answering “why vitenskapsteori?” will not be to offer much more of sociological explanation. Rather, I shall try to state our reasons for believing in the importance of vitenskapsteori. I have found it useful to divide them into three groups: Reasons that are bland, reasons that I don’t believe in myself, and reasons that I actually believe in. Let us do the tour.
Reasons that are bland point in the direction of what the Dublin Descriptors call
“critical analysis”. By gaining a theoretical understanding what science is and how science works, the student may be equipped to critically evaluate scientific work, including her or his own. There is nothing wrong with this idea, but it is primarily stating a desirable purpose of vitenskapsteori than making an argument about how this purpose may be fulfilled.
Reasons that I don’t believe in revolve around the direct utility of vitenskapsteori as judged by internal scientific criteria. For instance, this has been argued in support of philosophy of science. If one knows the logical structure of explanations, or the workings of the scientific method, the argument goes, one will be a better scientist who will reason with a higher degree of conceptual and inferential clarity. I have not seen other than anecdotal evidence to support this claim, and the mere heterogeneity of scientific practice speaks against it. What we do see in our teaching practices, however, is that some Ph.D. students find a need for conceptual clarification in their dissertational work, and a course in vitenskapsteori may serve that need because it provides an opportunity to work on the concepts in question. In such cases, the course may prove useful also by internal scientific criteria. I shall return to this point later.
Finally, there is a set of what I consider good reasons for vitenskapsteori in the training component of the Ph.D. study. Their common denominator was eloquently expressed by Gunnar Skirbekk, the founder of Senter for Vitenskapsteori at the University of Bergen:
Modern societies are science-based in a variety of ways. Hence it is important to under- stand what the various sciences can, and cannot, deliver, and to understand how, and why, this is so. More specifically, due to specialization in contemporary research there is a need for vitskapsteori both at the universities so they can live up to their name of uni-versity, and in societies in general in order for them to be able to cope with the different professions and experts, each with their specific approach and perspective.7
In order to appreciate Skirbekk’s argument, it is useful to know his philosophical outlook. A scholar in the Apel-Habermas tradition, Skirbekk has been interested in how modern societies are characterised by a division of labour that calls for
7https://www.uib.no/en/svt/21651/history-centre
R. Strand
specialisation and differentiation of expertise. Modern society has a myriad of sec- tors, institutions, and tasks, and for each specialised task a particular form of exper- tise may be required. Now, it is a fact that experts from different fields sometimes disagree. Imagine a controversy, say, about regulations of sick leave from work. The right wing party cites experts from welfare economics who have constructed a model that in that particular case suggests stronger negative incentives, for instance, that the first day of the sick period becomes a waiting day without compensation.
The unions emphasise studies by occupational health researchers that show a recent increase in stress due to higher work pace. A sociologist then enters the debate with an analysis of how neoliberal policies and ideologies have shifted the balance between employers’ and employees’ responsibilities for maintaining a well- functioning workplace and so on. How can society sustain an enlightened debate between these perspectives in its public sphere? Part of Skirbekk’s answer is that there is a need to understand “what the various sciences can, and cannot deliver”, that is, to understand the respective domains of the various validity claims being made and the underlying theoretical and methodological assumptions that have to be fulfilled for the claims to be valid. What assumptions are being made in the economist’s model and the sociologist’s theory?
In this vision, vitenskapsteori serves democracy by opening up the black boxes of expertise and thereby rendering it accountable. The economist should understand the theoretical assumptions of the sociologist in order to be able to appreciate the latter’s knowledge but also the limits to that knowledge and vice versa. Even more important, the economist (or any other specialist) should appreciate the limits to her or his own knowledge, in order to develop the appropriate reflexivity and humility on behalf of her or his own expertise. This is important in society in general but should begin already at the university, in critical and self-critical interdisciplinary encounters.
Gunnar Skirbekk (2018) has traced this argument in the Norwegian public sphere back to the eighteenth century. For historical reasons, Norway entered the Enlightenment era (almost) without nobility but with a class of state officials educated (mainly in Copenhagen) into enlightenment thinking. What is charac- teristic of Norway’s development in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, towards political independence in 1905 and towards a new golden era of litera- ture (Ibsen, Hamsun, Undset) and art and music (Munch, Grieg), is intellectual and political interplay between these “enlightened” state officials who represented the political power in the country, with a diversity of popular movements that often had a basis in Christianity but nevertheless were pro-Enlightenment. A similar argument was continued after WWII, when the philosopher Arne Næss renewed the examen philosophicum university institution with the explicit purpose of promoting clear though and speech and thereby lay the grounds for accountability in the public sphere.
There is no fixed set of tools within vitenskapsteori that can open up any black box of expertise. I will give examples of didactics below, but a glance at curricula and learning activities at Norwegian universities shows a variety of resources being