The social sciences have a hard time. Many countries shrink science and education budgets. When they do spend extra money, governments concentrate it on the natural and computer sciences, afraid to lose out against out against countries in a putative tech race. In the meantime, the social sciences are suspected of not adding much to society. Without ready evidence of useful “impact”, whole fields look like superfluous luxuries.
That view is both mistaken and dangerous. Precisely because of the enormous upheaval that digitalization causes in societies, we need the social scientific perspective more than ever. Proliferating digital tech contributes to everything from individual loneliness to dying city centres and a dangerous global AI race. Our societies won’t thrive without scientists that give these dynamics the attention they deserve – instead of treating them as regrettable but inevitable side effects of innovation and “progress”.
Much social scientific research builds on values that I hope we share: people deserve to be free. Being free means that our privacy and individuality is respected and that we do not need to fear violence. It also means that we should grow our abilities to live the lives we want and do things that we care about, with the people we care about.
But because of inequality in society, some people have a better chance to thrive than others, and some have more control over their lives than others. That is true in educational systems, in how rich or poor people are, in the healthcare they get, and in how safe people are from harm and violence. Biking through Amsterdam, I see these inequalities every day. Some of them are deeply rooted: around the world, men dominate societies and many women’s lives. Racism and xenophobia damage the opportunities of ethnic minorities and people of colour. Power is distributed unevenly, and more often than not, the skew is getting worse.
Social scientists study these dynamics. The above list is short, but it captures a lot of what they do – in service of values that everyone should recognize.
Digital technologies often have effects that run counter to values like solidarity, mutual care, individual freedom and flourishing. Perusing newspapers, we come across traces of the digital transformation everywhere – some positive, many not so much. Tech allows companies and governments to invade our homes and communications. It allows identity-based hatred to spread through its amplification on social media. It enables new forms of digital (sexual) violence and diffuses toxic gender stereotypes. Mostly in private hands, it allows a small class of tech-builders and -owners to grow rich at the expense of others. It damages democracy, erodes the quality of public debate and promotes mis- and dis-information. In the meantime, many people feel overwhelmed and alienated by digital technologies. They find it harder to connect and to focus. And AI-generated content, built on copyrighted human creations, undermines the livelihoods of creatives – the salt in the soup of society.
These examples show – in spite of the advantages digital technologies can bring – how concerning their effects on society are. Addressing them is urgent. Where do we turn to understand these dynamics and what it might take to limit them? Who sheds light on the forces that turn digitalization into such a mixed blessing?
Here, the social sciences have a unique role and obligation. By default, they put humans and how they live together central – which sets them apart from other disciplines and approaches. Digital technologies are deeply rooted in the natural sciences, which have in turn spawned engineering and computer sciences. The insights and inventions generated there inspire marvel. But as professional fields, neither computer science nor engineering anchors its work in humans and how innovation affects them. Instead, it is the technological innovation itself that counts. Wider societal effects are maybe acknowledged. But they don’t guide the work.
The other dominant perspective considers technology through a narrowly economistic lens. It tells us that competition rules. People compete for jobs and money. Companies compete for profits and market share. Countries compete for geo-economic, technological and military dominance. In this dog-eat-dog world the key to a country’s bright future is economic-technological success. And given that digital tech is largely owned and developed by private companies these days, those must be supported. In the Dutch context, for example, what’s good for the Amsterdam start-up scene is good for Dutch society, so the idea. People and societal institutions – universities among them – have to adapt to make economic success possible.
Both of these perspectives, the engineering perspective and the economistic one, confuse means and ends. Innovation and economic progress are great – but only if they allow people to flourish, both today and tomorrow. Innovation that doesn’t make them better off is not useful. Economic developments are not welcome if they concentrate wealth, exhaust people and the planet, and ignore the many non-monetary ways in which we can support and bring joy to each other.
Against that background, one would think that a scientific perspective that puts people and their diverse experiences central in its study of digitization would be an easy sell. The reality is more complicated.
Technologies are developing fast, and because of putative competitive pressures and their claim to solve societal problems, they are rolled out quickly. Governments can’t seem to get their hands on tech quickly enough. In contrast, adverse societal effects take time to materialize, and yet more time to study carefully. The pace of society has quickened, and what social scientists propose and do is often seen as slowing things down and complicating them yet further. Breaking things is easy; fixing them much less so. Who still has the time, nerve and resources for careful (re-)construction – even when we see the need?
Many political, economic and societal elites remain enamoured with “economic success” and growth and with technological innovation. It is an article of faith that both are essential. Whoever questions this primacy by putting humans first is bound to clash with this conceived wisdom. In policy circles, social scientists struggle to be taken seriously.
But the speed and depth of tech’s impact means we need more well-informed foresight. New technologies confront the so-called Collingridge-dilemma: if you wait with governing tech until all the evidence about its impact is in, it’s typically too late. Meaningful governance has to find the sweet spot between robust data and the courage to build on experience, expertise and informed prognosis. Tech innovators bombard policymakers with future visions with little to no evidence to back them up. Remember how by now our streets were supposed to be full with self-driving cars? How Mark Zuckerberg’s Metaverse would be omnipresent in our lives? Speculative (and typically self-interested) future prognoses from tech companies are seen as courageous and visionary; warnings from social scientists about collateral damage to people and society are dismissed as rumblings from disgruntled Luddites. That has things upside down.
If we believe that tech and the economy should serve humans, and not the other way around, then scholarship that takes that as its point of departure is more necessary than ever. We need to keep making the case for “tech for the people” – and mean it. We need to keep making the case that societal benefits do not automatically flow from technological innovation. And that it takes social scientists to help realize these benefits, because they are the ones who study societies day in, day out.
What would it take to have tech that aids critical understanding among students rather than eroding it? That fosters connection between humans, not disruption? That strengthens information systems, rather than flattening them? That allow us find peace of mind, live healthier lives, and build respect for each other, not hatred and misunderstanding? Looking at the world around us, it should be clear that these things are not “nice to have’s”, but essential for a future worth wanting. Without strong social sciences, the academy will not be able to fulfil its duty to society.