Stephen Miles Sachs Wrote:

"If one interviews enough scientists from a broad selection of disciplines,
commonalties and trends may always be identified about the culture of the
population interviewed. The methodology is fine for art and cultural
discussion but not necessarily for science. There is a big difference
between speculating about the results and cultural impact of scientific
works and the making of original discoveries about
nature (including culture)."

I agree that some versions of critical interdisciplinary studies of the
scientific process can produce horrible pseudo-science, but so does the
blind acceptance of science as a detached activity with no history or
context.  With all due respect--and I don't mean that tongue-in-cheek, I
admire the political commitments underlying this view--this statement
illustrates an unfortunate illiteracy on the part of Sachs with regards to
social science methods.  If interdisciplinary scholars are not engaging
those trained in a narrower set of "harder" methods and techniques well
enough (and I agree that this is often the case), the reverse is also true
in this case. He says the methodology is not appropriate for science, and
that it is "pseudo-science," because they are not employing the very
particular methods generally accepted in the "hard" sciences, or as if
"original discoveries in nature" were the only thing science is about.  As
any rigorous scholar and researcher knows, different methods produce
different results.  This means that if we cling to methods that lead us
astray, we mislead ourselves and others.  To dismiss such things out of hand
is not rigorous critique because it falsely generalizes and dodges the more
difficult task of engagement and pointed, specific, empirical critique.  I
urge Sachs to do what he thinks these scholars are not doing well enough and
be more specific about what his critique is, and of which scholar, and in
which context.  What methods work is itself an empirical question.  Science
is not a method, it is a field of study with many subdisciplines and methods
that may usefully inform each other and (gasp!) encourage scientists to
question their assumptions--and all assumptions--embedded in the methods
they choose.  Speaking of "science" as if it were some abstract unified
entity.  It may take different analytic approaches to understand different
phenomenon.  What works for studying physics may differ from what works for
studying molecular biology, and different subfields in biology employ
different research strategies and methods.  Peer reviews would be good as
Sachs discusses, but it would require scholars who are able to think outside
their own research methods.  All research methods are limiting, better for
some things than others.  But if peer review means people who are already of
like mind methodlogically and theoretically, then underlying theoretically
weaknesses go uninterrogated.  This is true of all knowledge producers.
Besides, since Sachs surely knows the historical context of Darwin he must
realize that evolution was/ is a metaphor as well as a theory, and that it
arose out of traffic in ideas between political economists and natural
historians, among others. Qualitative research on such aspects of scientific
processes is not equally useful in every scientific context, but to dismiss
it blanket is no better than blanketly dismissing "science."  Similarly, to
blanketly embrace "science" without specifying what is meant by the term is
to ignore the diversity of methods, sites, goals, and theoretical
underpinnings that exist within this broad interdisciplinary field.  If
Sachs doesn't want to do this engagement work that is fine, I only ask that
he be more specific in his critique.  But that doesn't make "hard
scientists" or anyone else the arbiters of truth.  That is as ludicrous as
saying quantitative methods are superior to qualitative, or vice versa.
They produce different results, they are helpful in different ways and for
different research questions. Why these two groups get continually portrayed
as two polar groups is beyond me, but it is part of the stubborn arrogance
of disciplinary/ methodological tunnel vision.






_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com