“la Caixa” Foundation doctoral fellows at the training week in Girona 2024.

I believe the key to the success of the training sessions in Girona for the “la Caixa” Foundation doctoral fellows was the fact that the organisers had designed this conference without separating us by discipline and without dividing us into science and humanities. From the outset, “la Caixa” had understood that we're all part of the same scientific community and it's vital to be able to come together for discussion because it's precisely within such a shared setting that we realise how much we have in common. 

Having the chance to listen to experts from the natural sciences in the training helped me to realise that our methods may differ in form but that, fundamentally, the entire community of scientists (both social/humanist and natural/formal) carry out their work in the same way: by analysing the social or natural environment. And our ultimate goal is exactly the same: to help create a better world.

 (Re)cognising the differences

Today there are still those who insist on separating "science" from "humanities". I believe this idea has amplified the belief that only the former require research and therefore more funding. In my opinion, such a belief is based on the misconception that, while there are many unresolved mysteries and phenomena to be discovered related to natural phenomena, all those regarding language, history, philosophy, law, etc. have already been determined. Accordingly, humanistic aspects need to be presented and discussed but not investigated; they have to be developed but not discovered.

“la Caixa” Foundation doctoral fellows at the training week in Girona 2024.

I consider this a flawed premise. If natural sciences explain natural phenomena, then social sciences explain social phenomena. Believing we know everything about humanities demonstrates a misunderstanding of social phenomena, which are always changing. And so are the laws people make, their languages, their art... As long as human beings exist, there will always be objects (or rather subjects) to be analysed by social scientists.
A second reason often used to justify greater funding for the natural sciences is that they require complex equipment and expensive infrastructure. But this forgets that funding isn't solely, or even primarily, intended to pay for equipment; funding is above all a recognition of the scientist's time and work, making the field of research more professional.

Anna Vilà Cuñat, doctoral INPhINIT fellow

Another received wisdom in the same vein is the idea that only the investigation of physical-natural phenomena is truly useful. This is based on a capitalist conception of knowledge that measures its value in terms of its usefulness or material output. The results produced by social sciences are more intangible and perceptible in the long term; in a way, while natural sciences harvest fruit, social sciences plant seeds. Funding for social sciences is therefore an investment that translates, not into such an immediate material object but rather something more abstract, embodied by those values that shape the personality of our citizens and guide them, like a moral compass, in their decision-making.
 
Given such circumstances, it's logical to assume that the different nature of the object of study for "science" and "humanities" means they employ different procedures, albeit all of them aimed at generating knowledge. Some compare geological phenomena, others phonological; some induce principles from the observation of natural reactions, others deduce sociological or economic trends in the face of political changes. Whatever the case, we all put forward hypotheses with conclusions to be reached.

“la Caixa” Foundation doctoral fellows at the training week in Girona 2024.

In the same way, both "scientific" and "humanistic" scientists believe we are agents of change and that we can offer our own view of the world. Reaching out to the recipient, building bridges for natural and social scientists to transfer their results to the professional and social spheres should form part of the personal mission of any scientist who fully believes in the purpose of their research. The scientific community is still perceived as being far removed from reality and engrossed in its technicalities: nothing could be more counterproductive to achieving our mission. Apart from producing knowledge, the duty of academia is to pass on this knowledge, making it accessible and not keep it solely to itself in order to gain in stature among one's peers. Failure to pass on knowledge results in alienation, not only from citizens but also from the institutions we're meant to assist, helping them to draw up better policies. There's little point in producing our ideas intellectually if they cannot be applied materially or passed on to those whose lives we seek to improve. In addition to channels of dissemination, we must also have common channels of production.

Towards an active (re)union

As well as reintegrating the study of social and natural sciences, we also need to bring together the professional sectors that implement their results. The different phases in this process have been broken down and attributed to people who aren't normally invited to the discussions held among scientists, but such debates will never be completely fruitful if they're missing one of the dimensions inherent in the process. Assuming our remit has nothing to do with the prestige afforded one discipline compared with another, or the ego of one type of work compared with another, then why don't we do what would maximise and nurture our respective quests for results and their application?
Academic and professional forums must not only be transversal in terms of disciplines but also in terms of the diversity of the people involved in the same work, albeit in different phases of the process (intellectual production, transfer, execution, application...); a process that must be considered as a whole. The channels to transfer results should not be conceived as a linear sequence separated by stages but as a circular network between entities that mutually nourish each other. 

“la Caixa” Foundation doctoral fellows at the training week in Girona 2024.

The dream of every scientist is for their research to have an impact on the decision-makers who can implement it. It would therefore be more direct and effective to create opportunities for communication, if not for the value of sharing and building common knowledge then at least for the sake of efficiency.
 
Last but not least, we must also engage citizens. Common citizens must be involved not only in the creation of policies that will be aimed at them but also as a consumer, as a recipient of the knowledge generated in their society. Such knowledge makes citizens aware and more critical. "Joe Public" must have the right to receive and understand the knowledge produced by the scientific community. If it's not the scientific community that directly approaches society, to whom both natural and social scientists are beholden, then such transfer is merely potential and distant. Moreover, having the pragmatic input of ordinary citizens and knowing their real needs first-hand make the decisions taken more legitimate in democratic terms. 

Achieving full (re)integration

 
In view of all the above, the conclusion is that it's vitally important to (re)cognise the differences between science and humanities and take advantage of them, rather than trying to or even them out or eliminate them. It's desirable that both exist. Both are committed to the same end: to better understand our world; some in its more physical, structural aspect, others its more social, human facet. That's why our studies are neither incompatible nor replaceable; they complement and need each other. It's therefore not a matter of striving for homogenisation, for we realise we're not the same nor do we want to be. Instead of focusing on what differentiates us, inviting compartmentalisation, we should start from what links us, what tends to (re)unite us.

It's necessary to repair a separation that, on some occasions, results in "science" being placed above "humanities". This leads to non-cooperation, damaging interaction not only between the two but also between the disciplines and people involved in the different phases of the same process. Such a division is counterproductive, both for the complete production of knowledge and for the optimisation of resources through multidisciplinary channels.

Remember that it's not a specific method that makes us scientists but our common goal of developing knowledge and our commitment to society. Not separating ourselves into an imposed dichotomy that must be overcome will help us to remember that our debt isn't to ourselves or to any external body but to the community: yesterday, today and tomorrow.
 
Creating opportunities for reflection among the young scientists of tomorrow, who'll be major players in our community, as "la Caixa" Foundation has done during the training week, is a crucial step towards true (re)integration and unlimited progress.
 

  
Anna Vilà Cuñat