In an era where scientific disciplines are increasingly intersecting and often overlapping, a pivotal question arises: Can the humanities and social sciences establish themselves as sciences that are both distinct from and independent of the natural sciences? This inquiry lies at the heart of a groundbreaking special issue recently unveiled in the International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology, edited by Cai H. and Chen J. The editorial sets the stage for an urgent and intricate discourse surrounding the epistemological boundaries, methodological frameworks, and intellectual autonomy of the humanities and social sciences vis-à-vis the natural sciences.
The usual narrative that pits the natural sciences—the realms of physics, chemistry, biology—as the paragon of objectivity and rigor, contrasted against the qualitative and interpretative nature of the humanities and social sciences, is being critically re-examined. This collection of essays poses not only philosophical but also methodological questions about what it means to be “a science.” It challenges scholars to reflect deeply on whether the humanities and social sciences can attain a scientifically rigorous status without merely mimicking the paradigms and techniques of their natural science counterparts.
The special issue embarks on an exploration of the conceptual differences in what constitutes knowledge production in these divergent fields. Traditional natural sciences prioritize empirical data, reproducibility, and the formulation of universal laws. By contrast, humanities and social sciences often engage with context-dependent, interpretative, and historically situated knowledge. The editorial suggests that these epistemic approaches should not be viewed through a hierarchical lens but rather appreciated for their unique contributions to understanding human experience and social complexity.
Central to this exploration is the question of methodology. The editorial emphasizes the development of methodologies within humanities and social sciences that affirm their scientific legitimacy while respecting their specific intellectual traditions. For example, ethnography and qualitative research are highlighted as robust, systematic methods that generate valid and reliable social scientific knowledge. These methods exemplify how empirical rigor can coexist with the interpretive nuance necessary for examining human culture and society.
Moreover, the special issue addresses the interdisciplinary exchanges that occur at the boundaries between natural sciences and social sciences. While interdisciplinary research is celebrated for its integrative potential, Cai and Chen’s editorial cautions against the uncritical adoption of natural science models in humanities and social sciences, which could lead to epistemic colonialism—the imposition of one scientific worldview at the expense of others. The autonomy of knowledge domains is a critical theme, arguing that intellectual independence ensures methodological pluralism and innovative scholarship.
Technological advancements, especially in data analysis and computational modeling, are also reshaping the possibility space for humanities and social sciences to assert scientific credibility. Digital humanities, computational social science, and other emerging fields exemplify how technology enables new modes of inquiry that blend qualitative insight with quantitative rigor. The editorial acknowledges this transformative potential while advocating for a balanced integration that does not dilute the distinctiveness of humanistic and social scientific perspectives.
Philosophical traditions underpinning the natural sciences and the humanities/social sciences are meticulously compared in the special issue. The editorial highlights how positivism, with its emphasis on observation and hypothesis testing, dominates the natural sciences, while interpretivism and constructivism guide humanities and social sciences towards meaning-making and contextual understanding. These philosophical orientations shape not only methodologies but also the very criteria by which scientific status is evaluated across disciplines.
The authors also delve into the implications of this debate for education and training within academia. If the humanities and social sciences are to claim scientific legitimacy distinct from the natural sciences, curricula must evolve to integrate methodological rigor, critical reflexivity, and an appreciation for epistemic diversity. Graduate programs across disciplines face the challenge of preparing scholars who can navigate these complexities without reducing the richness of disciplinary identities.
A crucial consideration presented involves the societal impact and relevance of humanities and social sciences research. Cai and Chen argue that the unique contributions of these fields—insights into culture, identity, power relations, and social change—are indispensable for addressing complex global challenges. Their scientific independence allows them to probe dimensions of human life inaccessible to natural scientific methods, reinforcing their indispensable role in a comprehensive scientific ecosystem.
The editorial further acknowledges debates about measurement and objectivity, noting that while natural sciences aim for precise quantification, social sciences and humanities sometimes work with ambiguous, fluid phenomena that resist straightforward measurement. The question then becomes how to develop epistemic standards that respect the intrinsic qualities of social and cultural phenomena while maintaining scientific rigor. This calls for innovative paradigms that transcend the conventional metrics of verification.
Underlying many discussions in the special issue is the dynamic tension between maintaining disciplinary boundaries and fostering fruitful interdisciplinary engagement. The editorial reflects on how fluid these boundaries have become in recent decades, raising questions about the future identities of the humanities and social sciences. By positioning themselves as sciences with distinct but complementary epistemologies, these fields can carve out new academic territories replete with novel questions and methods.
The editorial also grapples with the politics of knowledge production. It highlights how institutional structures, funding priorities, and public perceptions can influence the recognition and valorization of different scientific domains. The autonomy of humanities and social sciences as sciences is thus not only an intellectual pursuit but also an institutional and cultural struggle that shapes the direction of future research agendas.
Ethical considerations emerge as another focal point; the editorial underlines that research in humanities and social sciences inherently involves human subjects, ethical dilemmas, and normative judgments. These aspects necessitate a scientific framework that integrates ethical reflexivity without compromising methodological soundness. This interplay illustrates how distinct scientific approaches can coexist within a shared ethical landscape.
Importantly, Cai and Chen’s editorial refrains from prescribing a single model for the scientific status of the humanities and social sciences. Instead, it opens a dialogue inviting scholars to reimagine science as a pluralistic endeavor, accommodating different epistemologies, methods, and objectives. This vision challenges entrenched disciplinary hierarchies and promotes inclusivity in what counts as legitimate knowledge.
The editorial concludes with a clarion call for continued scholarship that interrogates and elaborates on the foundational questions posed. By doing so, the humanities and social sciences can reinforce their scientific credentials on their own terms, fostering innovative thought and impactful research. The relevance of this conversation will only intensify as global challenges demand more integrated, yet epistemically diverse, scientific responses.
In sum, this special issue edited by Cai and Chen represents a significant intervention in contemporary debates about the nature of science and the position of humanities and social sciences within it. Its ambitious scope, rigorous philosophical engagement, and methodological seriousness provide a vital platform for envisioning a future where all scientific domains are valued for their unique capacities to expand human knowledge.
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?” International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology 9, 11 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-025-00134-w
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-025-00134-w
Image Credits: AI Generated
