The social sciences seem overburdened by dodgy research claims

Yet, their stature also shields them from the necessary scrutiny that we readily apply in other domains like politics and business. The failures of a government or corporation are dissected and debated. The failures of our knowledge production ecosystem, however, often get a free pass.

This is a dangerous oversight.

Before we explore why, let’s be clear about our subject. I am speaking here of the role of this knowledge ecosystem in producing knowledge through research. I am purposely setting aside its equally vital educational function. And we must acknowledge its big and many achievements, largely from the physical sciences, that have earned it immense societal credit.

This credit has consolidated a core principle: That society must support the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, with the freedom to inquire into anything, guided only by internal ethical boundaries. The potential benefits of a line of inquiry are often unknown at the outset.

It is within this privileged space that problems fester. Some are obvious, like the poor rigour of much Indian research, with internal quality-control mechanisms proving middling at best.

A more insidious issue is the meaninglessness of a lot of the research being conducted. There is plenty of research devoted to questions so trivial or to answers so self-evident that they must be dressed in the garb of complex methodologies and associated protocols to be taken seriously. Both cases lead to a waste of resources and human effort.

Let us be precise. This problem of meaninglessness is far less prevalent in the physical sciences and exponentially more common in the humanities and social sciences—domains concerned with human affairs.

This distinction is critical, for it points to a flaw that’s deeper and more consequential. The credibility that the knowledge ecosystem enjoys was largely built on the triumphs of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and related fields of application.

The approach in these fields is methodologically standardizable with empirical data, testable hypotheses and result reproducibility. Since this approach applied to the study of human affairs has severe limitations, its claims to truth are far more tenuous. But the mere use of these methods under a halo of righteousness in the pursuit of knowledge also shields such research from close scrutiny.

There are two core intertwined limitations.

First, human affairs are infinitely more complex, context-dependent and unpredictable than the physical world. They rest on assumptions about human nature and behaviour that can never be pinned down with the certainty of a chemical reaction or physical law. Second, and most importantly, the moment we step into the realm of human affairs, everything is value-laden. It is inherently about what is good or bad, right or wrong.

These constraints mean that knowledge in these fields can at best describe and partially explain phenomena within a specific context. It cannot generate universal predictive laws. Yet, emboldened by the borrowed credibility of hard sciences, many within this ecosystem—and more worryingly society at large—begin to treat research findings with a similar degree of seriousness.

This can have profound implications for societal action, including state policy, institutional design and investments. Worse, we tend to let such findings become arbiters of truth and goodness in human affairs even if the claims are hollow. This is akin to the role that religious institutions monopolized till the advent of modernity; but at least they were honest in admitting that they derived their authority from faith in divinity.

An unreliable research ecosystem is dangerous. It grants false authority to ideas that are value-based and contingent at their core. We see an egregious example in economics, where axiomatic but unreal assumptions of the ‘rational economic agent’ and ‘efficient markets’—which are themselves definitive choices about what is ‘good’—are elevated to the status of physical laws. Is it any wonder that policies and actions built on such flimsy foundations so often lead us to a mess?

Let me be clear: a great many people in the humanities and social sciences are acutely aware of these pitfalls and do not fall into them, thus making valuable contributions to human well-being. The problem is not with their intent and actions, but with the power we cede to flaky elements in these fields and the larger ecosystem. Perversely, this power can be encashed for personal gain—money, fame, influence or more—as some academics who seem drunk on their own Kool-Aid appear to have done.

We must recalibrate our relationship with such a research ecosystem by engaging with it wisely—because it can be truly useful. We must stop granting a blanket free pass, call out pointless studies and be far more frugal with rewards. Most importantly, we must learn to treat prescriptions not as definitive answers but as context-bound value-anchored perspectives to be taken with a large dose of salt. For, in the complex tapestry of human life, there are no simple formulas, only conversations and explorations that we must embrace with humility.

The author is CEO of Azim Premji Foundation.