Discourses around the Natural and Social Sciences Divide

Historically speaking, Pakistani governments have paid more attention to the development of natural sciences (although these may still need more resources and attention) as compared to social sciences (see section 1.4.1). Owing to this imbalanced treatment by successive

governments, the research in the field of social sciences remained underdeveloped and failed to gain a desired status/value or public acceptance in the Pakistani society, including

universities. Syed Akbar Zaidi analysed the overall condition of social sciences in Pakistan before 2002 and presents his findings under the heading ‘dismal state of social sciences in Pakistan’. The title of this article itself indicates the poor situation of social sciences in Pakistan. Other researchers (e.g. Inayatullah, 2001; Saigol, 2005; Yousuf, 2003) also portray a similar picture of social sciences research in Pakistan, before the inception of the HEC. However, the HEC introduced policies to promote research in social sciences along with natural sciences but its major focus remained on natural sciences (Jahangir, 2008).

Consequently, the divide between the social and natural sciences is becoming more visible in the higher education sector. Another implication of these developments was that the research and researchers in natural sciences were appreciated more than those of social sciences. It becomes evident from the fact that the top management positions of the HEC, since its inspection, were predominantly held by those belonging to natural sciences.

The discourses prevailing within University X also indicated the natural versus social sciences divide and also seemed to undermine the value of research in the social sciences. A senior academic described the natural versus social sciences divide in this way:

In fact, this [research tradition] varies from discipline to discipline. In [the name of university], science discipline has very sound research traditions whereas social sciences, and that is the case even in the entire country (Interviewee JA).

The statement implies that the research in the field of natural sciences has a dominant or prominent place in the Pakistani higher education scenario including University X. One of the junior academic criticised the mind-set of the top management of the university, as it predominantly favoured natural sciences, and also held it responsible for the poor situation of research in the social sciences in these words:

Social sciences have been neglected throughout the years. They [top management] considered [it] something inferior to the pure sciences and all the people which are sitting here [at administrative/[managerial] positions] they are from the pure sciences. They do not understand what are the issues in the social sciences research (Interviewee, LA).

The statement shows not only the lop-sided composition of the university administration/ management but also its inability to recognise the particular challenges associated with social sciences. It may be assumed here that one of the reasons for the lack of promotion of

research, especially, in social sciences could be the minimum representation of the people from social sciences in the top management of the university. Similarly, another junior academic also pointed out in detail the preferential attitude of the university management towards natural sciences:

There is a gap between doing research in social sciences and pure sciences or physical sciences and there are discrepancies what we are seeing in social sciences....I think lack of financial resources is there because what we have only PKR. 100,000 [equivalent to GBP 625] budget for this departmental library...[while] there is a huge amount of funding in natural sciences. They can buy books, they can go for the laboratory works and in social sciences we rely on our own (Interviewee SA).

The comment clearly reveals that the biased attitude of the top management of the university towards social sciences also results in the allocation of meager resources for its research and academic resources. Therefore, the academics of social sciences find it really hard to get financial support for their research from the university as compared to those from the natural sciences. In contrast to the discriminatory attitude of the top management of the university, the participants of this study considered the research in social sciences necessary for the overall development of society and attached high value to it. For example, the interviewee MA said:

Social sciences in Pakistan, like every country, are very much important and significant. As social sciences develop, the human beings create harmonious/tolerant society.

Interviewee emphasized the importance of social sciences by highlighting their role in the development of human values in the society:

Social sciences guide how to live in society, how to tolerate in society, [and] how to develop our society. On the other side, mechanical and physical sciences just only develop mechanics (Interviewee MA).

Similarly, another interviewee viewed that the research on social sciences is extremely useful for the developing societies including Pakistan:

I think social sciences are the basic necessity or the basic requirement for the survival of the societies especially like Pakistani society or any developing society (Interviewee IA).

5.1.2.1 Situational Logic

The discourses about social sciences indicated that academics considered social research valuable for the Pakistani society. However, the research in natural sciences was more dominant than social sciences owing to the friendly mindset and financial support of the university’s top management. In addition, the research on social sciences historically has inherited a disadvantaged position as compared to the natural/pure sciences in Pakistan. Recently, the HEC policies aiming at the promotion of natural sciences might also have added to the disadvantage of social sciences. Therefore, any effort to value social sciences

research might face a confrontation from the prevailing mindset in the favour of natural sciences.

It can be argued here that the priority given to natural sciences research by the HEC policies [as the promotion of natural sciences is one of its primary objectives (Steering Committee on Higher Education, 2002)] necessarily undermines the value of social sciences. However, such a necessary conflict did not exist -though a contingent conflict could be seen - within the university as it had no clearly stated priorities about natural or social sciences. The varying emphasis on natural and social sciences in the university seemed to be rooted in the prevailing mindset of its top management (that belonged to natural sciences) as well as in the uneven development between natural and social sciences in the past. Therefore, within the context of University X, by following Archer, I argue that the discourses around social- natural sciences divide characterize ‘competitive contradictions’ at the systemic level.

In the following section, all the discourses are discussed with respect to social science research.