In a thought-provoking editorial recently published in the International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology, scholars Hui Cai and Jian Chen spearhead a critical examination of the evolving discourse surrounding the status of the humanities and social sciences as sciences. Their special issue, provocatively titled “In what sense can the humanities and social sciences become sciences distinct from and independent of the natural sciences?”, invites readers and researchers alike to grapple with the intricate demarcation lines that differentiate these academic fields. The editorial’s timely release on June 23, 2025, signifies a significant moment in the ongoing debate over epistemological boundaries and methodological paradigms that define scientific inquiry in our modern age.
Fundamentally, the editorial challenges the conventional hierarchy that often privileges natural sciences as the gold standard of scientific legitimacy, questioning the capacity and necessity of the humanities and social sciences to assert independence while maintaining distinct scientific rigor. Cai and Chen draw attention to the conceptual and practical difficulties in neatly categorizing humanistic and social inquiries within traditional scientific frameworks, yet highlight the potential for these fields to develop methodologies and epistemologies that satisfy the stringent demands of scientific inquiry on their own terms.
This special issue emerges against a backdrop of increasing interdisciplinary collaboration and blurring of the lines between scientific disciplines. Cai and Chen point out that the humanities and social sciences grapple with unique objects of study—human behavior, culture, language, and meaning—that are often resistant to the kinds of quantification and reproducibility emphasized in natural sciences. Despite these inherent complexities, the editors argue for a reimagined notion of science that accommodates qualitative methods, interpretative frameworks, and context-dependent analyses without losing rigor or objectivity.
One of the editorial’s core technical discussions revolves around the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes science. Drawing from epistemology and philosophy of science, Cai and Chen revisit the criteria of falsifiability, empirical verification, and theory building, questioning their applicability as universal standards across disciplines. They underscore that whereas natural sciences emphasize experimental repeatability and predictive power, humanities and social sciences prioritize explanatory depth, contextual understanding, and normative implications, demanding tailored evaluative metrics.
Moreover, the editorial touches on the methodological plurality inherent within social sciences and humanities. It underscores how qualitative techniques such as ethnography, hermeneutics, discourse analysis, and phenomenology contribute robust insights into social phenomena by embracing complexity and subjectivity. Cai and Chen argue for leveraging these approaches in ways that reinforce, rather than undermine, scientific validity, advocating for rigorous methodological reflexivity and transparent analytic processes.
Central to the discourse is the notion of autonomy and independence from natural sciences. The editors propose that while interdisciplinary integration is valuable, maintaining epistemic autonomy is crucial for the humanities and social sciences to preserve their unique contributions. This stance challenges tendencies to subsume social studies under the umbrella of natural scientific methodologies, cautioning against epistemic imperialism that can marginalize humanistic perspectives and ethical considerations essential for understanding human societies.
The editorial also highlights innovations in computational social science and digital humanities that exemplify new frontiers where traditional humanities and social science methods intersect with quantitative data analysis. Cai and Chen contend that such technological advancements offer promising pathways toward establishing scientifically credible practices within these fields, fostering a hybridized scientific culture that honors the specificity of human subject matter while embracing systematic inquiry.
Further, the special issue explores the sociopolitical implications of categorizing humanities and social sciences as sciences. The editors note that scientific status often confers increased legitimacy, funding opportunities, and societal influence. Thus, redefining what is accepted as science has tangible consequences for academic institutions, policy frameworks, and public perceptions. Cai and Chen urge stakeholders to critically assess these dynamics to avoid instrumentalization and commodification that could distort scholarly aims.
The editorial also addresses ongoing debates about the reproducibility crisis and standards of evidence, arguing that such discussions traditionally anchored in natural sciences should be recalibrated when applied to social science and humanities research. They emphasize the importance of contextual reproducibility, narrative coherence, and intersubjective verification as alternative benchmarks consistent with disciplinary norms yet upholding scientific integrity.
Importantly, Cai and Chen’s editorial serves as an academic manifesto advocating for a pluralistic epistemology that respects disciplinary diversity without sacrificing rigor or critical scrutiny. They champion an inclusive vision of science that transcends rigid compartmentalization, enabling humanities and social sciences to emerge as distinct yet equally scientific domains with their own validated methodologies and theoretical contributions.
This nuanced articulation of the humanities and social sciences’ position vis-à-vis natural sciences stands to ignite vibrant scholarly discussions and recalibrate prevailing perceptions within and beyond academic circles. By reframing science as a multifaceted endeavor rather than a monolithic enterprise, the editorial paves the way for more equitable recognition of knowledge production that encompasses human experience in its full complexity.
In conclusion, the editorial by Cai and Chen presses for a paradigmatic shift that acknowledges the epistemic legitimacy of humanities and social sciences in their own right. Through careful, technical, and philosophically informed arguments, it invites the academic community to rethink entrenched assumptions and co-create a scientific landscape that realizes the potential of diverse intellectual traditions. As science itself evolves, so too must our understanding of what it means to study, explain, and transform the world.
Published in the International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology, volume 9, issue 11, this special issue is accessible via DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-025-00134-w and marks a landmark contribution to ongoing efforts to articulate a coherent and compelling identity for the humanities and social sciences amidst a rapidly shifting epistemic terrain.
The implications of this editorial extend beyond theory, bearing on practical challenges such as curriculum development, interdisciplinary research agendas, funding priorities, and public engagement strategies. By fostering dialogue and reflection around the question of scientific status, Cai and Chen open new avenues for building epistemic bridges that respect disciplinary particularities while promoting collaborative knowledge generation.
As the humanities and social sciences continue to adapt to technological, methodological, and societal transformations, this editorial signals a critical juncture inviting scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to embrace complexity and pluralism in defining science itself. The dialogue it initiates promises to be pivotal in shaping the future contours of academic inquiry and the broader quest for understanding the human condition.
Subject of Research: The epistemological and methodological status of the humanities and social sciences as distinct and independent sciences compared to the natural sciences.
Article Title: Editorial: Special issue on “In what sense can the humanities and social sciences become sciences distinct from and independent of the natural sciences?”
Article References:
Cai, H., Chen, J. Editorial: Special issue on “In what sense can the humanities and social sciences become sciences distinct from and independent of the natural sciences?”. Int. j. anthropol. ethnol. 9, 11 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-025-00134-w
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1186/s41257-025-00134-w
