A Human Science Approach to Engaging in Transformational Social Chang

JoAnn McAllister, PhD

Abstract

This essay outlines a framework grounded in the Human Science tradition for sensitive and engaged participation in addressing today’s critical environmental and social justice challenges. Elements of this tradition – acknowledgment of multiple perspectives, appreciation of the meaning of ordinary human experience, and social theory/praxis dependent on context – are identified as essential to engaging in transformational social action. While definitions of Human Science are often vague, clarity is offered here with an emphasis on these three elements focused on understanding and responding to contemporary issues.

Keywords: Human Science, Epistemology, Transformational, Social Change, Critical Theory, Qualitative Inquiry

In this first issue of Human Science Perspectives, we begin a conversation about how the Human Science Institute (HSI) can support those who are committed to creating a more humane and ecologically sustainable future. In presentations at the Institute’s first conference in September, 2015, the philosophical and theoretical concepts – questions about knowledge, research methods, and social theory – that have characterized the historical Human Science conversation were highlighted in relation to facilitating transformational change. The characteristics drawn from these conceptual dialogues include: 1) an appreciation of multiple ways of knowing and diverse belief systems, 2) the use of modes of inquiry focused on understanding the meaning people attribute to their experience, and 3) a commitment to theories of change that are emancipatory and dependent on the context of people and their communities. We propose that these are also the basis of a framework for sensitive and effective engagement in contemporary environmental and social justice issues. Additionally, these concepts suggest the essential capacities of individuals and organizations that wish to participate in, or facilitate, efforts that contribute to both incremental change and cultural transformation. Given the urgency of contemporary environmental and social issues – for example, the increasing destruction of habitat and the loss of biodiversity (Wilson, E.O., 2016) and climate change and the resulting displacement and conflict in human communities (Wheeling, K., 2016) – effective short and long-term efforts are essential.

This essay offers an outline grounded in the historical Human Science conversation about knowledge, inquiry, and social theory that can support such engagement and lead to substantive and systemic change. You may ask, “Why do we need a framework?” Many of us already appreciate the multiple perspectives represented in the global community, understand that inquiry into human experience must be shaped by an appreciation of these differences, and know that we need to act collaboratively to create meaningful and systemic change. Indeed, great strides have been made in many places ensuring basic human rights and legislating environmental protection. There are millions of individuals and thousands of organizations around the world dedicated to addressing environmental and social justice issues. Many of these work from principles very much aligned with philosophies and theories drawn from the Human

Science tradition, as well as from non-Western traditions. Yet, it is often difficult to understand different viewpoints, to ask the right questions, or hear the answers, and engage in appropriate actions.

We are also aware that both domestic and global efforts have promoted, and often imposed, Western privilege-based models, strategies, and practices that have not been effective and have even caused harm. Increasingly, the work of non-profits, NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and government programs are being scrutinized. Not because of malfeasance, but because their solutions and programs are not effective and do not appear to address the root causes of problems. Initiatives that seek to respond to our 21^st century challenges could benefit from an applied framework that facilitates a deeper understanding of the complexity of human experience, expressions, actions, and cultural contexts.

Our intention in founding the Human Science Institute is to provide support to scholars, practitioners, researchers, advocates, and activists – all those who want to make a difference in the world – to engage thoughtfully and effectively as change agents. We hope the conversations in Human Science Perspectives will highlight the importance of understanding ordinary human experience and the meaning that human beings attribute to their experience as part of effectively responding to today’s environmental and social challenges. This essay, then, is my attempt to outline a Human Science framework for transformational social action that is informed, affirmative, and strategic by weaving together the concepts of how we know, how we learn, and how we act. It will take shape only as others bring their insights and experience to these pages.

We Begin: Some Background

What is Human Science? This is the first question I am asked when I tell people “I am a Human Scientist.” It is the question my students have asked over the years even as they intuited it was the intellectual territory they needed to inhabit in order to ask their questions about what it means to be human. They wanted to understand human beings: their beliefs, behaviors, social structures, why they went to war, why some were privileged, why others were oppressed, why they despoil their world – the whole realm of human phenomena. These questions filled their imaginations, fired their curiosity, and fueled their passion to create change. I was not unlike these students when I found the Human Science degree program at Saybrook University in 1993 and “knew,” as someone engaged in environmental and social change, that I needed this approach to understanding the complexity of the human condition. What I didn’t know then and could not have told anyone was that what I needed to understand was knowledge itself if I was to understand why we believe and behave the way we do.

When I enrolled in the Human Science program the description was, we might say, aspirational instead of descriptive with the kind of student learning outcomes we now expect. But, perhaps, this is why it appealed to me as an activist and to all the students who enrolled in the degree over the many years it was offered. I wanted to change the world and it promised to help me understand the human realm – the intersection of history, culture, philosophy, science, religion, politics, psychology, art – that is, the creations of humanity. I did not have to stay in disciplinary silos that offered thin slices of the human enterprise, but could range across the scholarly world to find the answer to my question: how could I make a difference in the world? Of course, I also did not know then that there was not an answer, but a multiplicity of answers and, even more importantly, more questions. Nonetheless, it was clear that through a Human Science lens I could ask questions about the human condition that would allow me to participate more thoughtfully in making the world a better place.

Still, we have the question: What is Human Science? It is often difficult to find a succinct definition. The origins of Human Science are to be found in the late 19^th and early 20^th century dialogue about the sufficiency of the methods of the natural sciences, empirical and quantitative, to shed light on questions of purely human phenomena – the world of human ideas, artifacts, and social arrangements. Donald Polkinghorne (1983) in Methodology for the Human Sciences: Systems of Inquiry carefully takes the reader through these historical conversations and offers as a definition that “the term human science (italics in the original) is used to refer to an inclusive approach to human phenomena that uses multiple systems of inquiry” (p. 288). And, as “a science which approaches questions about the human realm with an openness to its special characteristics and a willingness to let the questions inform which methods are appropriate” (p. 289). The phenomenologist van Manen (1990) describes it as a term that “collects a variety of approaches and orientations to research,” and explores “meaningful expressions of the active inner, cognitive, or spiritual life of the human being in social, historical, or practical contexts…………. ”

Then, quite simply, he summarizes, saying, “human science is the study of meaning” (p. 181).

It is not surprising that the focus of Polkinghorne and van Manen and many others writing in the human sciences and seeking to define Human Science has often been on modes of inquiry because that was the nub of the original debate with the natural sciences. That argument, which continues even today with the current emphasis on STEM education and resulting decline in support for social science and the humanities, is about methods that are appropriate to learning about human phenomena that are not amenable to measurement. These were simply described by Merleau-Ponty (1962) as the “basic experience of the world” (p. ix).

A Human Science Framework: The Essentials

While the ongoing dialogue about modes of inquiry that best reveal the meaning of our experience of the world is essential, the other two domains of the conversation about what is Human Science – epistemology and critical theory – are equally important. I begin with epistemology as the first step in developing a model for engagement, not only because it has been a significant concept in my own experience, but because it is central to understanding the process of inquiry and the application of theories of change.

Knowledge

For a model to be applicable to real-world conditions, the perspective of the practitioner is crucial. Our perspectives on what knowledge is, how we acquire it, what we claim to know, and the level of authority we ascribe to our knowledge shape our view of the world. Being aware of how we distinguish between our opinions, beliefs, and the “truth” is a significant aspect of self-awareness. As an epistemological stance, these determine how we interact with and respond to others, especially to those who make different knowledge claims and hold different beliefs.

We may think that epistemology is the province of college philosophy departments, or agree with those who think it is irrelevant, but these questions are part of our daily conversation. If you are in any doubt about the ongoing relevance of philosophical dialogue, see the Stone, a New York Times forum on contemporary issues. Whenever anyone makes a knowledge claim and we say, “wait a minute; how do you know that?” we are asking the maker of the statement to provide a justification for their assertion. In essence, the evidence upon which they have based the statement. They might reply, “my father always said,” or “I read it in the New York Times.” In further discussion they may add something about the nature of the knowledge claim, or how much authority they ascribe to it, as in “just my opinion,” “medical science shows,” or “it is in the Bible.” These remarks range from information to a statement of faith and, thus, we learn what the speaker believes is “true,” and, therefore, something about their view of reality. This allows us to know if we, and the speaker, share any common ground, and, if in fact we are having a conversation, or simply talking past each other.

These kinds of questions took form in the West in the 4^th century with Plato’s systematic approach to philosophical inquiry and are still essential if we are to work with individuals, communities, or nations with different “truths.” Unfortunately, too few of us routinely examine our own opinions and beliefs and ask the question, “How do I know that?” If we propose to support the process of change, the questioning of one’s own knowledge claims might be the most effective first step.

How should we begin to scrutinize our own epistemological stance and that of others as we engage in collaborative work or in research necessary to respond to social issues?

Polkinghorne (1986) proposed that we have moved from the era of the Enlightenment epistemological conversation focused on the search for the unchanging and permanent to the era of the “epistemic conversation.” Epistemic conversations, he writes, reflect “a) an awareness of the temporal and conditional context of knowledge, b) a focus on surface phenomena rather than…laws and rules, and c) an attempt to broaden knowledge goals to include those that undergird human wisdom as well as those that supply technical expertise” (p. 26). Interestingly, this conversational paradigm suggests a protocol to follow in exploring human experience and the knowledge claims embedded in our stories. It also offers a guide to revealing our own perspectives, which, perhaps, is best done before we begin our conversation with others.

An approach to knowledge based on these concepts suggests that 1) conversation is located in an historical context, 2) that individuals who share a common tradition are likely to agree about the purpose of the conversation, 3) that knowledge is not certain since it changes as context changes, and 4) that one’s opinion, beliefs, and “truths” are relative to context.

According to Salner (1986), taking such a relativistic stance toward knowledge claims requires an advanced level of cognitive development. Citing the work of Kohlberg (1969), Perry (1970), and Kitchener (1983) on levels of cognitive development, Salner proposes that conducting Human Science research as constructed by Polkinghorne (1983) requires Perry’s third stage of cognitive development “contextual relativism” (Salner, p. 130). This is a level of cognitive competency, Salner writes that indicates “increased awareness of the importance of contexts in defining truth and value” (p. 130). For example, in scrutinizing one’s own perspective it would include a review of one’s context – where we came from, what were our circumstances and those of our antecedents, how we acquired our knowledge, and how what we know and believe has changed as our context has changed over time. Since these factors shape our approach to theory, research, and practice, it is clear that epistemological questions and our own epistemic stance are central to participating in transformational change.

I offer significantly less reflection on the next two aspects – inquiry and praxis – of a Human Science framework here, because, as I noted above, my experience has challenged my own epistemological stance significantly. Furthermore, it seems that these two categories require multiple voices and examples from practice to become fully articulated. So, the comments below only constitute a place to start. We hope to have project-based examples of appropriate modes of inquiry and applied theory in future issues of the journal.

Inquiry

In the decades long exploration of how to understand the subjective and intersubjective human realm, distinctive approaches to research have been emerged out of this understanding of the temporal and contextual nature of human experience. I prefer the term inquiry instead of research as it seems to be more compatible with the reflective character of qualitative approaches to investigating phenomena, especially to those methods that are iterative and interpretive. It is important to note, as Polkinghorne (1983) did, that these approaches are not put forward as an alternative to natural science, but as alternate ways of knowing. These are additive putting flesh on empirically identified bones and providing important information about context and meaning that are not accessible through quantitative measures. The debate about research method has never been about replacing natural science, but utilizing the right method for the question. As Polkinghorne (1983) reminds us it is the “willingness to let the questions inform which methods are appropriate” that is important (p. 289).

Transformational change agents need to appreciate and integrate knowledge from the natural sciences to grasp the realities of the myriad issues that impact human beings and the natural world. We need the explanation of physical phenomena that can be gained through researchers in the fields of conservation biology, oceanography, ecology, and other relevant natural science disciplines and their methods of observation and experiment. Integrated with qualitative inquiries that tell us about the context of problems and the meaning of specific human and ecological conditions leads to the design of more appropriate and effective strategies for creating positive change. Multiple modes of inquiry and their integration as in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary formats are useful but given the complexity of 21^st century problems a transdisciplinary perspective is even more important. Transdisciplinary, as used in the HSI mission statement, calls for new ways of seeing that transcend disciplinary lenses. Creating new ways to understand our world and our behavior are increasingly important in spite of our insular predilections. Arne Collen (1990) gave us a head start on how this might come about, stating that:

My general thesis is that a more tactful and constructive approach is to advance a human science that draws and thrives on a multiplicity of sciences and disciplines. By achieving a transdisciplinary science, we would deepen our understanding of human beings, develop more useful methodologies, construct more fruitful theories, and address the major problems of our times. We must pursue human science in a cooperative, integrative, and transdisciplinary fashion. (p. 17)

We now have a plethora of more useful methodologies. Phenomenology pays attention to the “lived experience” of human beings, Hermeneutics calls on the researcher to integrate their own reflections in creating a shared interpretation, while narrative researchers know the value of understanding their own story so that they can listen more attentively to their study participants. Human Science researchers paying attention to the everyday experience of people and the meaning they ascribe to their experience can contribute immensely to creating more responsive strategies and programs for change.

Praxis/Practice

From the beginning the conversation about how to understand the lived experience of human beings had an emancipatory aspect, that is, how to free people. While the analyses of power and oppression varied, there was the intent to contribute to human freedom. Critical theorists and those in the fields of critical social sciences and cultural criticism have responded to the plethora of modern day social ills with a variety of analytical perspectives and theoretical prescriptions. These are generally active processes of theory and action, or praxis as described by Gadamer (1979):

As we think about what we want to achieve, we alter the way we might achieve that. As we think about the way we might go about something, we change what we might aim at. There is a continual interplay between ends and means. In just the same way there is a continual interplay between thought and action. This process involves interpretation, understanding and application in ‘one unified process.’ (275)

Gadamer (1979) highlights the dynamic quality that should characterize the process of acting for change and illustrates the reason for using the word transformational rather than transformative in referring to change. These terms have been used increasingly in the fields of adult learning theory, particularly as influenced by Mezirow (2000), and in organizational development (Gass, 2013; Henderson, 2002). While often used interchangeably, some dictionaries note differences in their application. Transformational seems to carry the idea of a process whereas transformative seems more applicable to the level of change proposed or to an event that has been transformative. In both cases the change is described as radical changing basic characteristics of an individual, organization, or culture. I favor transformational to describe an approach to facilitating change that may, indeed, be transformative, but that designation is one that should be applied by those who experience such change. Given our history of imposing visions of change upon others this nuance seems indicated and may remind us to be in a continuing dialogue not only with those we seek to serve, but also with our own expectations and desired outcomes.

Conclusion

This approach to social change within a Human Science framework is an initial offering in the development of a practical guide to informed, affirmative, and strategic action in the world whether one is an activist, advocate, educator, researcher, staff, or volunteer with an organization taking on the challenge of today’s critical issues. It highlights what has been meaningful to me as I continue to consider how we can contribute to the vision of a more humane and ecologically sustainable world. The interplay of these three conceptual domains that constitute the Human Science conversation – knowing, understanding, and emancipatory theory and action – can offer a useful model and strategic tool kit for responding to complex environmental and social challenges.

In ending his discussion of the Human Science conversation, Polkinghorne (1986) says that in this era of epistemic conversations, the “answers to the question ‘What is human science?’ will ultimately emerge” (p. 30). So, I conclude with my working (and in process) definition of Human Science, especially focused on facilitating transformational social change.

Human Science is a transdisciplinary approach to understanding ordinary human experience and the meaning that human beings attribute to their experience that offers a critique of human thoughts and activities through the experience of those harmed by these, whether they are the human or non-human inhabitants of our world, and proposes restorative actions that are sensitive to this knowledge.

In succeeding issues of Human Science Perspectives these concepts will be expanded. Please join the conversation and offer your insights in developing a framework that will support the creation of the ecologically sustainable and humane future that we all desire.

References

Collen, A. (1990). Advancing Human Science, Saybrook Review, 8 (1), 17-39.

E.O. Wilson Foundation. http://eowilsonfoundation.org/

Gadamer, H. G. (1979). Truth and Method. London, UK: Sheed and Ward. Retrieved from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-praxis.htm.

Gass, R. (2013). What is transformational change? Retrieved from: http://transform.transformativechange.org/2010/06/robertgass.

Henderson, G. M. (2002). Transformative learning as a condition for transformational change in organizations. Human Resource Development Review, 1 (2), 186-214.

Kitchener, K.S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222-232.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive development approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research, 347 – 480. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). The phenomenology of perception. (C. Smith, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge.

Mezirow, J., and Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical reflection on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1986). Changing conversations about Human Science. Saybrook Review, 6

(1), 1-32.

Polkinghorne, D. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Salner, M. (1986). The relationship of naïve epistemology to formal epistemology: Implications for teaching Human Science methodology. Methods, 1 (1), 125-157.

Smith, M. K. (1999, 2011). ‘What is praxis?’ in the encyclopaedia of informal education.

Retrieved from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-praxis.htm.

The Stone. http://www.thestonereader.com.

van Manen. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human Science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York, NY: New York State University Press.

Wheeling, K. (2016). Research spotlight: Colin Kelley. Pacific Standard Retrieved from: https://psmag.com/research-spotlight-colin-kelley-25501cd86839#.272gox3lu

Wilson, E.O. (2016). Half the earth: Our planet’s fight for life. New York: Norton & Co.

 

Bio: JoAnn McAllister, PhD, is the President/CEO of the Human Science Institute, the former Director of the Human Science degree program at Saybrook University, co–author of Doing Democracy: the MAP Model of Social Movements (2001) and a program development/evaluation consultant, narrative researcher, and volunteer at the Golden Gate Raptor Observatory. Send her your comments at: jmcallister@humanscienceinstitute.org.

 

Citation: McAllister, J. (2016). A Human Science framework for transformational social change.

Human Science Perspectives, Vol. 1 (1).