findings by specifying the investigator’s cultural framework, and we should encourage development of multiple alternative perspectives (e.g., feminist, African American, non-Western).
During the last two decades, postmodernism has become the dominant movement of literature, art, philosophy, and history. It has also shaken up some of the social sciences, especially anthropology and sociology. It is, at the moment, nearly unknown among physical scientists. However, some proponents of postmodernism claim that it applies to all sciences. Most postmodernists distrust claims of universality and definite knowledge, and some therefore distrust the goals and products of science.
“The mythology of science asserts that with many different scientists all asking their own questions and evaluating the answers independently, whatever personal bias creeps into their individual answers is cancelled out when the large picture is put together. . . But since, in fact, they have been predominantly university-trained white males from privileged social backgrounds, the bias has been narrow and the product often reveals more about the investigator than about the subject being researched.” [Hubbard, 1979]
Postmodern literary criticism seeks deconstruction of the cultural and social context of literary works. More broadly, deconstruction analysis is thought to be appropriate for any claim of knowledge, including those of scientists. For example, postmodern anthropologists recognize that many previous interpretations were based on overlaying twentieth-century WASP perspectives onto cultures with totally different worldviews. They reject the quest for universal anthropological generalizations and laws, instead emphasizing the local perspective of a society and of groups within that society [Thomas, 1998].
The major issues for the sciences are those introduced earlier in this chapter. Theories and concepts inspire data collection, determining what kinds of observations are considered to be worthwhile. Resulting observations are theory-laden, in the sense of being inseparable from the theories, concepts, values, and assumptions associated with them. Many values and assumptions are universal (e.g., space and time) and some are nearly so (e.g., causality) and therefore reasonably safe. If, however, some values and assumptions are cultural rather than universal, then associated scientific results are cultural rather than universal. Other scientists with different backgrounds might reach incompatible conclusions that are equally valid.
Bertrand Russell [1927] commented wryly on how a group’s philosophical approach can affect its experimental results:“Animals studied by Americans rush about frantically, with an incredible display of hustle and pep, and at last achieve the desired result by chance. Animals observed by Germans sit still and think, and at last evolve the solution out of their inner consciousness.”
The postmodern critique challenges us to consider the extent to which social constructions may bias our scientific values, assumptions, and even the overall conceptual framework of our own scientific discipline. Many hypotheses and experiments are legitimately subject to more than one interpretation; would a different culture or ethnic group have reached the same conclusion?
Most scientists are likely to conclude that their scientific discipline is robust enough to be unshaken by the postmodern critique. True, observations are theory-laden and concepts are valueladen, but the most critical data and hypotheses are powerful enough to demonstrate explanatory power with greater scope than their origins. Politics and the economics of funding availability undoubtedly affect the pace of progress in the various sciences, but rarely their conclusions. Social influences such as a power elite are capable at most of a temporary disruption of the scientific progress of a science.
In the first section of this chapter, Jarrard’s case-study examples include two football games and a murder. In the previous chapter, Jarrard uses three military
