So far in Science Shoeoff, a number questions have been raised around trying to define science. Does one have to be directly involved in research to be called a scientist? If so, at what stage in one’s career does one acquire the title?
In this installment, we hear from my friend David, who I met whilst on Erasmus in Germany. He does not define himself as a scientist, although I think some would argue he is in social science: does that “count”? Or are these subjects “humanities”?
My name is David Nemer and I’m a PhD student in Social Informatics at Indiana University. You are probably wondering what kind of science I do. Well, let me start by saying that I’m not a scientist. Social Informatics can be seen from two perspectives:
- 1) It addresses sociological issues through computational methodologies, like issues around Big Data and the Data “deluge”; and
- 2) It is the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of digital technologies that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural context, this view works with Anthropological and Sociological methodologies in order to understand the relationship between Society and Digital Technologies.
I find myself immersed in the second perspective. I don’t do science, but I study science. Does that make sense to you? I follow an Science and Technology Studies ideology to critique science as the only way of building knowledge. I try to go beyond and analyze how social, political, and cultural values affect technological innovation, and how these, in turn, affect society, politics and culture.
Oh… about the shoes… of course…. I feel like in the scientific world there is too much ego, too much bitterness and this may scare people willing to make conversations. Since I’m a “people” person and I’m always engaging into conversations, I feel like these shoes represent my openness and welcomeness to new ideas and dialogues.
Thanks David!
Personally, I think some subjects which are traditionally lumped in with the arts (two cultures klaxon!) can be carried out with just as much rigour as the natural sciences.
For instance, I remember being taught how to write history essays in terms of evidence and hypotheses. Different sources had to be ranked according to how likely they were to be reliable and give access to true information.
If that’s not a scientific way of thinking, I don’t know what is.
