Hampered by ’scientism?’ University of Toronto researcher examines the history of American social science

Early in the Cold War era, "social sciences were criticized for not being really scientific - for being ideological and political in ways that may seem to have been disguised as science," says Mark Solovey , a professor in the Institute for the History & Philosophy of Science & Technology at the University of Toronto. "[At the time], there was animosity in the U.S. towards socialism and communism. This caused a lot of problems for social scientists and their supporters, who argued for a science of society which was separate from ideology and politics."  Social scientists were also pressed about the social relevance of their work regarding problems such as racism, income inequality, and crime, and threats to democracy, Solovey adds. Solovey's latest book,  Social Science for What?: Battles Over Public Funding for the ''Other Sciences'' at the National Science Foundation,  explores the historical mistrust of social science, which he says continues to this day. He argues that when it comes to funding for academically oriented research, American social scientists have been more dependent on the U.S. National Science Foundation than their counterparts in natural science - the latter also find strong support from other science patrons. Yet, at the NSF the social sciences have had to contend with less respect over many decades due to critical attitudes toward the field. Solovey has long studied the development of the social sciences in the U.S. In the case of the NSF, he says, support has always been hampered by "scientism," the perception that natural science, governed by immutable laws and grounded in rigorous methods of inquiry, existed on a more elevated plane that the social sciences needed to emulate.