Social scientists, health practitioners, and policymakers from around the country will converge at Silliman University in Dumaguete City this week (July 27-29) for the 10th National Social Science Congress.
Organized by the Philippine Social Science Council, and held initially every five years since 1983, and every three years since 2013, the current Congress is a venue for sharing research findings that center on the social sciences in addressing public health imperatives.
But why is social science at the center, one may ask?
Social science studies human society, and social relationships, comprised of several specific fields of investigation concerning human well-being. These fields include anthropology, sociology, history, economics, geography, political science, archaeology, communication, linguistics, psychology, social work, and are further divided into sub-fields of specialization.
Except for Psychology and Social Work which are regulated professions, the social sciences, unfortunately, are not popular college degrees and career choices for young people today. My fields — Sociology and Anthropology — usually have limited enrollment at Silliman University because such courses are perceived to pay less professional fees and compensation.
I would debunk such uninformed perception because various work and service opportunities are in fact, available to social scientists, outside of teaching or the academe. These just have to be recognized and appreciated by the labor market, especially today’s youth.
Another reason for the unpopularity of the social sciences is the fact that it’s usually contrasted with the natural sciences or physical science — where the latter are labeled as “hard science”, while the social sciences are associated with soft science.
Such a distinction creates a “hierarchy” in the sciences where NatSci is erroneously viewed as superior to SocSci. Less research opportunities and grants are then made available to the social sciences.
In fact, of the 41 designated Filipino National Scientists as of 2020, only nine come from the field of the social sciences, which include rural sociologist Dr. Gelia Castillo.
This attribution must consider that what makes a field of study a true science is the method of inquiry where systematic procedures matter more than the topics being addressed. How a study is conducted makes it a science rather than by the subject under investigation. Studying nature and natural processes is similar to investigating humans and their interactions.
A biologist or physicist is a scientist. Also, a sociologist or anthropologist is a scientist. They all adhere to same scientific principles but differ in their tools, which are carefully examined if appropriate to provide answers to the research questions. Both could be good or bad, depending on the quality of their research outputs and products.
Among other things they do, the natural and physical sciences produced technologies designed to promote societal growth and development, supposedly to improve human well-being. In an ideal sense, this connection between machines and humans positively implies that the quality of life of people is primarily a result of science and technology. But science here excludes social science in the minds of people.
Discoveries, inventions, and innovations offer modern ways of living characterized by convenience, accessibility, speed, abundance, and so on. Gone was the time of foraging and hunting to survive. But modern life has also been considered destructive compared to the past when extracting food from nature was only done according to need and not the accumulation of surplus.
But specific technology produced may not only function according to what this was intended for when designed, developed, and applied. For instance, although the steam engine built during the first Industrial Revolution, followed by the internal combustion engine during the second period, resulted in more money that improved lives, this also caused social disruptions and environmental damage.
Today, we are experiencing the unintended consequences of machines through the pollution produced that contributes to global warming. Labeled as climate change impacts, severe typhoons, frequent droughts, hotter temperatures, and sea level rise have harmed food production and human health.
But why do humans still insist on threading the apocalyptic path of global destruction despite the adverse conditions of industrialization and modernization? Why do we still burn fossils, produce and burn plastics, cut the remaining forests, reclaim the seas and coasts, and so on without realizing the need to preserve or restore nature and cushion climate change impacts? Why do we not think of doing this if not for now but for future generations?
In the past, the social sciences were always in the background of development works. Most often, social scientists were consulted late and only when problems arose due to the unintended consequences of development projects. Or when the community resisted accepting a good-intentioned project that failed to capture the sentiments and needs of the host community.
These scenarios suggest how social scientists are needed even in the conceptualization of a project, in community preparation before the introduction of the said project, and in evaluating its impacts on the community. In unexpected situations like the COVID-19 pandemic that put authorities and technical experts off-guarded, social scientists have the lens, data, and tools to make society understand, critically think, and act upon health concerns.
The NSSC 10 will prove these. Let’s welcome the Congress participants.
____________________________________
Author’s email: enriquegoracion@su.edu.ph
