The social sciences, HR, and their philosophies

I like a challenge. I must do. I keep setting them for myself. I continually put myself in positions where things will be that much harder; like settling isn’t for me, as if I squeezed every opportunity and then take a leap of faith to start on a new journey from the bottom. What I then have is numerous and varied learning experiences with no particular specialisation. A wide range of exciting tools at my disposal and none quite right. A Jack of all trades, at your service.

And my latest challenge? To explain; nay, to understand with those around me, and you, how studying towards a Master’s degree of Science (MSc) in Philosophy of the Social Sciences at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) will boost my career and the quality of service I can provide my employers and clients. To begin with this latest self-imposed challenge, let’s see why “science” was mentioned three times in the mouthful that was the last sentence.

Science is the basis upon which humankind can build on its comprehension of the universe surrounding us and of the often complex interconnections between its seemingly infinite elements. Science can be more or less experimental: from observing a ball role down a slope to understand inertia, to figuring out the speed at which the universe is expanding based on shifts in wavelengths of enormous astronomical objects. But whether we can directly study a phenomenon or not, science is based on facts and admits no almighty, unquestionable axioms: the scientific method allows for future, more accurate descriptions of reality to debunk previously held theorems. And this nature of science is so very telling of the deepest drive of human instinct: to grow and learn more, to develop our knowledge of our environment and figure out our own reason for being to begin with. And that innately human element, the view of our wanting to reason ourselves, to define "person” and “life”, “love” and “fate”, “freedom” and “religion”; why, that’s a question for philosophy, of course.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. What we have seen about science is that it can touch on countless subjects and use varying methods. Both subjects and methods mean different types of science, such as physics, chemistry or biology. These can be taken within their wider contexts for their application: for example, applying the laws of physics to understanding the ebbs and flows of the financial markets, using chemistry to discover new sources of energy, or taking biology as the baseline for analysing social interactions between red pandas. And, intuitively (except for in the last example, maybe) are we not always applying science to something bigger? Shall we call it the greater good? Setting ignorance, capitalistic greed and loathsome self-hatred aside, are scientific studies not driven by the urge of humankind to enhance people’s livelihoods? If we can better understand the markets to help those in need, generate energy in more environmentally friendly ways and, on the way, save the red panda, are we not simply striving for a world that is kinder to us all? More fruitful for all humans and nature? And what is this question if not that of the social sciences?

Setting ignorance, capitalistic greed and loathsome self-hatred aside, are scientific studies not driven by the urge of humankind to enhance people’s livelihoods?

Humankind is a social animal, to paraphrase the quote into a more modern world. People are inevitably linked through their lives, in their striving for their own or even for more altruistic pursuits. From an early age, we learn what games we like, how to win and not to enjoy losing. We quickly learn how to manipulate others into getting us the things we want, be it by misbehaving at home or throwing a tantrum in public. We then develop the skill to succeed in school (one way or another) and in other realms of life, with or against expectations set out by others. Life is a constant struggle, a battle we cannot fight alone and that we cannot avoid fighting others in. And being an animal of reason, empowered by science, we try to understand ourselves within the context of society. And from looking beyond ourselves, it is no difficult thing to ask the question of inequality in the world. It is no great leap from that to ask about the effect on society of education. And it is not delirious to then ask “and how do different governments view and implement education?” These questions and so many more are what the social sciences seek to respond. The trouble here isn’t establishing the goal of the social sciences (to better understand the relationships between complex factors within human societies, very basically put), but figuring out the correct approach. No economic model (economics being a social science) captures every nuance of a fiscal framework, for example. The difficulty of studying social sciences therefore lies in the seemingly endless relationships between people and a society’s institutions and laws. Taking a step back and watching social scientists try to discover how best practice arises is the job, therefore, of the philosopher of the social sciences. Ta da!

So, the philosopher of (social) science aims to discover how (social) scientists can enact their duties in a way that gets them closer to their own goals of developing theories that are relevant and applicable for the greater good. Brilliant. Now, let’s focus on the paradigm within which our society functions. More specifically, we are referring to democratically governed countries where people generally organise themselves, more or less willingly, into larger organisations that exploit a series of resources through capital to generate services and goods for people of the same and other economies in exchange for more capital. I may have missed something, but I am trying to be a tad more broader than just “the West” or just “capitalism”. What we thus have is, at its simplest, a society of workers. Under the very weak (i.e.: acceptable) assumption that employed workers are a large portion of a society’s population (and certainly a large part of an economy’s output), we can state that the social sciences will very often consider employed workers within their studies, as well as their larger contexts of businesses and organisations.

Let’s return to our three social science questions: inequality, education and government. Can we possibly imagine tackling these questions without thinking of businesses and their skills gaps? Is inequality not what we talk about when speaking of the gender pay gap? Do we not speak of differing education opportunities when analysing the socioeconomic backgrounds and diversity of company staff? Are we not pointing at government policy when we see no fault in ourselves but in the wider economy? Let’s try again. What is equality, diversity and inclusion if not a response to the existence of inequalities in society? What are “Learning & Development” initiatives if not a drive for staff to learn business- or sector-specific values and matters that primary, secondary and higher education could not provide? And how can one conceive of a company without a basic grasp of PESTLE analyses? I find it hard, to be perfectly honest, to conceive of business in general or HR in particular without some understanding of philosophy of the social sciences.

And now for the counterargument. Why don’t I just do an MBA or a Master’s in HR if I love business so much? Or just study coding and mathematics so someone takes my opinions about the future of AI and engineering at least somewhat seriously? And will this master’s actually guarantee a successful career in business and HR?

The short answers: boring, not interested and “I don’t know”.

The long answers?

In my next post.

---

Recommended resources for the beginners in Philosophy:

Philosophize this! – over 130 episodes on the history of philosophy in podcast format

Medium for varied levels of philosophy and applied thought