The Normative Structure of Science

Wildan Insan Fauzi

Introduction

The study of “what are the criteria for good and bad scientists”, according to the Merton, challenging criterion to be studied because it is related to the hassle of scientist relations in social structure. Merton’s perspective of the scientist criteria cannot be separated from his scientific background as a sociologist. The basis of the kteria is the concept of “ethos”, a set of values ​​and norms that are effectively strong and considered binding on scientists. Merton discusses four ideal norms: universalism, communalism, disinteresting, and organized scepticism. Here are some ethics described by Merton:

Universalism

Universime is scientific validity related to objective data not dependent on scientists’ status or personal attributes such as sociopolitical, racial, gender, religious, and social class backgrounds (Merton, 1974). This norm emphasizes the importance of scientists remaining separate and analyzing all data objectively, allowing the creation of universal or objective knowledge (Macfarlane & Cheng, 2008). Science does not see the scientific truth of the identity that says. In the Merton norm, anyone can contribute to science, not only people from specific backgrounds. The latest research data shows that there is support for universalism based on the belief that academic knowledge must exceed national, political, or religious boundaries (Macfarlane & Cheng, 2008).

What is the norm in social sciences? It seems that the background, ideology, scientist education is a part that needs attention. The principle of Merton universalism cannot be fully applied here. Even Edward Said (2001) in “Orientalism” asked readers to be careful of the research of Western social scientists who studied “East” because of the element of “bias” in his research study. In the study of history, Hayden White (1985) is even more extreme, doubting the ability of historians to narrate the past because of the difficulty of finding “context” to obtain significant and meaningful historical facts that need to be criticized by the historian’s background. The historical narrative contains elements of the subject, the writer/historian, as the subject participates in influencing or giving “colour” or “taste” following the “glasses” or the subject of the subject (Kartodirdjo, 1992, p. 62). Although for objectivity in history, Ranke wrote a Critique of Modern Historical Writers who suggested that historians write what happens (Wie Es Eigentlich Gewesen) objectively (Wallerstein, 1997, p. 23).

“Communism” (Communal Principles)

The subsequent norm of Merton is ‘communism’. Merton explained that for academics, Communism implies that the results of their research must become a joint property of the entire scientific community (Macfarlane & Ming Cheng, 2008). Communism means that all scientists must have joint ownership of the intellectual property; Confidentiality is the opposite of this norm (Merton, 1974).

This norm requires full and open communication, and the discovery of science should become a joint property of the scientific community. The substantive findings of science are social collaboration products and are given to the community. Scientists must not develop ideas and turn them into private property. All ideas are to contribute to scientific progress.

How are the facts now? Communality norms clash with a patent that demands exclusive rights for the use of scientific research results. The idea of ​​the scientific community is different from the norms of the research community in private companies that demand it entirely. In addition, the demand for funds encouraged the university to commercialize the results of their research to the relevant industry. It seems that the principle of communality collides with science capitalism. Scientists currently have to spend significant funds for publications in international indexed journals, and those who need the research results must “pay” to access it.

Quite an intellectual resistance based on Alexandra Elbakyan with his sci-hub. SCI-Hub makes journal access more accessible and more open, so it is expected to produce better research, especially for researchers from the State. Elbakyan has encouraged the change of journal management systems that are currently closed-access to open access and has made large publishers such as Elsevier and Springer experience much loss from the commercialization system they made. The sci-hub phenomenon is now a “moral dilemma” itself, the pull between the principles of communality and commercialization.

Disinteratedness (principle of disinterest)

Disinteratedness norms mean that scientific institutions must act for the benefit of science, not for the personal benefits of the individual in it. Science must limit the effect of bias as much as possible and must be done for the benefit of science, not for personal interests or power (Merton, 1974). Interest means the hope that scientists should not have an emotional and financial attachment to their work.

Scientists, according to Merton, are interested in finding the truth even though the truth proves that the scientist is wrong (Macfarlane & Cheng, 2008). Merton’s ideal concept is in line with intellectual description, according to Julian Benda (Said, 1993). According to Julian Benda, an intellectual is described as an ideal figure, all people whose main activities are not pursuing practical goals but seeking joy in processing art, knowledge, or metaphysical reflection. Scientists are required to report findings as they are, even though they are at risk for scientists both careers and their safety. Scientists must have a desire to benefit humanity and not be selfish.

In the study of Macfarlane & Cheng (2008), the most unwilling academic norms are the most unpopular academic norms. This is related to the need for many academics to harmonize their research interests with funding opportunities. Thus, the facts show that scientific investigations have been compromised by market-based commercial pressure and overthrew the ideals of Mertonian. Gramsci describes this phenomenon as an organic intellectual. Organic intellectuals, namely professionals, serve the interests of business groups (capitalists) (Said, 1993). Foucault does not believe in this Merton ethical norm; for him, knowledge allows and guarantees the operation of power, resulting in the dominance of objects and humans (Haryatmoko, 2016).

Organized scepticism (organized scepticism)

Organized scepticism requires scientists to remain sceptical about research results, including the potential lack of one’s work until all facts are determined. Further organized scepticism refers to the hope that academics will continue challenging conventional wisdom in their discipline (Macfarlane & Cheng, 2008). The fundamental characteristics of the ethos of a scientific researcher are that they should not just accept something like that; they need to see the evidence. The need for proof or verification makes science more thorough than other fields. According to the ruling people, scientists should not limit themselves to good topics or only learn what is not a problem. They must look critically at everything and analyze everything (Merton, 1974).

This concept is the handle of “mandatory” scientists in their work. Nevertheless, if you read the work of Thomas Khun (2005) in “Normal Science”, scientists seem to be trapped in specific “dogma” called “paradigms”, which are the guidelines for the development of research. Anomallah made scientists return critical and dare to change their “paradigm” so the scientific revolution could occur.

The concept of intellectual traitors seems to follow the scientists, contrary to the concepts of attraction and organized scepticism offered by Merton. According to objects (Said, 1993), what is meant by intellectual traitors are intellectuals who have a symbiotic relationship of mutualism with power and loss of moral responsibility, ignoring calls and compromising their principles with power.

Conclusion

Research by Macfarlane & Cheng (2008) shows that support for the scientific norms of Merton has a certain level of variation. Respondents’ support for universalism and disinterest vary with their subjects. In general, respondents from the field of applied science show more substantial support for the two norms than respondents from other fields of study.

Mertonian scientific norms are ideal and, in some aspects, are challenging to apply in the capitalist world that commercializes everything, including the results of scientists’ research. Nevertheless, these norms are very inspiring to continue to “fight” approaching the ideal aspect. According to Merton, good scientists hold the principle of universalism, want their different research results, stay away from personal interests, and are always critical of anything. While wrong scientists, on the contrary, are those who ignore the principles of universime, keep science a secret, have grand personal ambitions in their research work and are bound by dogma.

Reference

Haryatmoko. (2016). Dismantle the regime of certainty. Yogyakarta: PT Kanisius

Kartodirdjo, S. (1992). Historiographic Thought and Development in Indonesia. Jakarta. Gramedia

Khun, T. (2005). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Bandung: PT Rosdaarya

Macfarlane, B & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, Universalism and Disinterentedness: Re-EXAMINING contemporary support Among Academics for Merton’s Scientific Norms. J Acad Ethics (2008) 6: pp. 67–78 DOI 10,1007/S10805-008-9055-Y

Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press.

Said E. (1993). Intellectual role. Jakarta: Indonesian Obor Foundation.

Said E. (2001). Orientalism. Bandung: Library Publisher.

Wallestein, I. (1997). Cross-Border Social Sciences, Language Transfer: Oscar, Yogyakarta: Lkis.

White, H. (1985). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Jhu Press.