Investing in "Science" Means the Humanities Too

If you got your college degree in one of the disciplines that falls under "Humanities", as I did, you probably had a series of similar experiences.  1) Many stairwell/lounge arguments about the value of what you were interested in studying vs. the skeptical engineering/math/science "our stuff is so much more difficult and important and useful" students.  2)  Going to class in old, weird, buildings (my college was an old car garage and the elevators could fit 2 cars in them) while watching billion-dollar state-of-the-art biology, physics, chemistry etc. buildings going up all around you. 3) Zillion dollar alumni donations to science/technical programs while your own program barely could keep its ancient computers functioning.  4) Etc. etc. etc.

So, you could say I am a little sensitive to the ongoing (often subliminal) denigration of the value of humanities/social sciences that shows up every day in the media as more programs for investments in science are introduced, apocalyptic studies about how the US is falling behind are discussed, etc.  I rant about this occasionally here, so I thought I'd rant again today.

Let us state this truth:  There are practically no (I'd argue zero, but maybe there are a couple obscure ones) disciplines that can function today without scientific/technical knowledge and techniques of practice.  And NO discipline functions without societal/people issues.

To draw a line between groups, that says "this is science" or "this is technics", leaving everyone on the other side scrambling for crumbs is completely ridiculous and will only hurt our countries' competitiveness in the end.

All you have to do is look at business, for example, where it is becoming increasingly clear that people issues are the greatest challenge they are facing.  How do we share knowledge in teams?  How do people cooperate?  How do we increase productivity of knowledge workers? How do we make better decisions?  In fact, science laboratories are facing the same questions.

Answers to these questions will demand a thorough integration of scientific, mathematical and humanities disciplines.  Just now, when the challenges we face as humans on a shrinking globe are increasing in complexity daily, breaking down the artificial boundaries between science and social is the most important thing we can do.  That is where enormous amounts of public and private funding should be invested.

If you have worked, as I have, in high technology PR, you have been a bridge -- a translator -- between engineers and laypeople.  You have had to understand technology and understand human persuasion.  I have learned that even the most technical of knowledge can be explained in a way that non-technical people can understand its importance and its benefits, if not its details. By constantly telling people they are stupid (falling behind etc.) we are reinforcing the mythic power of science/technology. 

The rhetoric--the ideology--of science/technics must be challenged if we are truly to be able to solve our problems. 

Rant over.

Comments

[Tina]

My experience has been that many humanities majors have a much easier time in crossing over to a new field - be it technology or biotech - than people who've been educated in technology and science. I am not sugessting that technically inclined people or scientists or engineers can't do the same thing, I am merely saying that many professionals who studied humanities probably have been forced at some point in their careers to consider a change. We can't all be academics, become famous authors or ponder the meaning of life and get paid for it. Many of us originally educated in the humanities have therefore moved on to communications jobs where we can thrive and do what Elizabeth suggested: bridge the gap between laypeople and who ever it is, on the other side. In today's complex and often hostile world, that's not such a bad job to have!

[Katie]

I know exactly what you are ranting about. My boyfriend and I are both seniors at Auburn University. While I am taking more classes than he is currently taking, he still insists that he has to work harder; after all, I just sit around and write something or argue with someone about something in class. Every time I get frustrated with the amount of work I have to do, he simply laughs and says something about how easy my major is compared with his; if my workload is as big as it is, I should imagine how much bigger his is. Blah! Those in the sciences or technical fields assume that not only are their fields more difficult than anything a liberal arts graduate could do, but that they are more intelligent because of it. I am tired of being portrayed as an outsider, simply a rambling intellectual not really accomplishing many concrete tasks.

What these technical or scientific people do not understand is that no matter how outstanding they are, no one would appreciate or understand their accomplishments if there was not a knowledgeable person present who could clearly explain those things to everyone else. I would be interested to see how long it would take them to realize our worth if we ceased to be around, and I imagine it would be rather quickly. Instead of professionals from each side bickering about who has the most important job, however, we should be working hand in hand. That way we could all accomplish so much more. Imagine the possibilities.

As a side note, after hearing the description of your college building, it makes me very appreciative for the way Auburn has provided for its Journalism/Communications majors.

[David Phillips]

Ouch... a very raw nerve!

My PhD fees are $1500 per year plus living costs and travel etc. You MUST have a second career to do a degree in the UK.

If you are then unfortunate enough to want to do research the cost goes through the roof and so you must have a business that generates enough by way of profits to pay the costs and provide time available for research.

The software I built to prove George Simmel cost $18,000. The proof for the Value Model currently costs about $1,800 per month plus hosting costs etc.

There is no salary, and no funding so add another $24k for time taken out to research each year. Add also the cost of conferences and add a big chunk just for administration for publishing academic papers (which take over a year to get published – so the whole deal is at a snail's pace) and the costs become significant.

For a fast moving and developing area of social and management development such as Public Relations, there is no funding for pure PR research in Europe. None.

The nearest we get is Agencies and corporates happy to put money into non University 'think tanks' like Henley but even that tends to be for research into behavioural studies of Disney characters (Mickey Mouse is a favorite).

And then... cheeky lot, the PR industry wants it on a plate for free.