Abstract
Reflexivity, which includes awareness of strengths and limitations of own discipline as well as potential implications of academic endeavor, plays crucial role in developing critical thinking and in proper understanding of scholarly expertise in society. In anthropology, the notion of reflexivity expands to concern positionality of a scholar both as a researcher and as a writer, as well as the awareness of the socio-political context and institutional environment in which one is situated. At the same time, the reflective turn becomes a “paradigm shift” from a “scientific” to a hermeneutic or interpretative approach (Salzman, 2002). In my commentary chapter to this volume, I critically engage with contributions to this section of the volume, while remaining attentive to constrains and assets of my own positionality as a scholar and reflecting on the notions of scientificity, society, and reflexivity from anthropological perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Source: https://web.stanford.edu/class/symsys130/Philosophy%20of%20science.pdf (“Philosophy of Science: Part of a Series on Science”, educational materials published online by Stanford University, p. 1–14).
- 2.
Such idea of “social wholes” has been overdetermined in social science, and there is a risk that rhetorical wholes will be taken for social entities, which they are not (Thornton, 1988).
- 3.
For example, some medicines are withdrawn from the market because they caused risk to patients.
- 4.
Some anthropologists decide to postpone publications (e.g. Verdery, 2012).
- 5.
The Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Law, and the Humanities published by the National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway advises reaching out to a broader research community which shall help to clarify which ethical standards apply and what is or is not ethical (NESH, 2006, p. 6). Assessing potential harm, however, is more complex, because it is based on prediction and requires, again, a deep knowledge of the socio-political context.
- 6.
As an example, Reber and Bullot (2019) refer to social sciences, where faculty members tend to be left-oriented and liberal. However, it might be relevant to the Western context, which is the subject of Reber and Bullot’s article, but not necessarily to everywhere else in the world.
- 7.
There have been significant differences between sociocultural attitudes towards children born with “disabilities.” As an example, whereas the early Christian Church associated the birth of an “intellectually disabled” child with “sin,” the Olmec of ancient Mexico have seen such children as gifted and having religious and superhuman significance (Gaad, 2004).
- 8.
In Rajasthan, not killing any animals is among the main sociocultural principles.
- 9.
In their research on salmon farming, Law and Lien explore how salmon is made through different practices oriented towards producing a healthy salmon, juxtaposed to a “nearly salmon” which is otherized and killed in consequence of different modalities of practice.
- 10.
Within social sciences, many terms have proliferated beyond their original usage and their understanding changes across time and sociocultural contexts, not to mention differences between disciplinary practices and traditions. The example can be debates over terms such as “identity,” “memory,” or “diaspora” and different disciplinary approaches to these terms within social science. Most readers have witnessed at least one conference debate when the discussion evolved over different conceptualizations of specific concepts, and misunderstandings resulted from taking particular terms for granted.
- 11.
Source: http://cognitionandculture.net/blog/benson-salers-blog/anthropology-is-not-a-science-says-the-aaa/ (Accessed on May 15th, 2019). The quotation comes from an open letter of Professor Eric C. Thompson of the National University of Singapore to AAA.
- 12.
Ibid.
- 13.
During his lecture in Oslo in December 2017, Watzl critically examined the idea of “brain gender,” which was popularized after publicizing brain scans that suggested differences between male and female brains. However, as he demonstrated, behind categories applied when designing research and interpreting such scans stood presumptions on gender roles and norms.
- 14.
Chakrabarty explores the link between exploitation of fossil fuels and freedoms that were made possible through capitalism.
- 15.
The project website “From racial typology to DNA sequencing” can be accessed at https://www.ethnicityandrace.com/
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 landscape 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.
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.
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 philosophy 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.americananthro.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 knowledge. 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.), 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.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude to the organizers, lecturers, and participants 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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zadrożna, A. (2019). Towards Reflexivity in the Sciences: Anthropological Reflections on Science and Society. In: Valsiner, J. (eds) Social Philosophy of Science for the Social Sciences. Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33099-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33099-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33098-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33099-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)