STEM has disproportionately claimed the label of ‘science’ for itself, despite the fact that any discipline can be scientific when it incorporates observation, demonstration, and evidence-based repeatability.
Published Apr 09, 2025 | 12:00 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 09, 2025 | 12:00 PM
An artistic representation of diverse human minds. (iStock)
Synopsis: In a world increasingly dominated by STEM disciplines, the humanities and social sciences remain critically undervalued, receiving minimal institutional support and funding despite forming the philosophical foundation of all knowledge. This imbalance is starkly evident in Indian states like Tamil Nadu, where SHAPE disciplines face declining enrolments, faculty shortages, and exclusion from major research grants. To truly foster innovation and address complex societal challenges, governments must correct this disparity through equitable policies and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Though school education forms the foundation for any human’s cognitive development, higher education plays a crucial role in offering humans higher-order learning that enables them to take actions beneficial to themselves and society as a whole.
Before the advent of modern scientific explanations of the universe, galaxies, planets, Earth, and biotic and abiotic systems, humans sought answers to fundamental questions – why, what, how, when, and which – through philosophical discourse. Such philosophical exploration is now considered part of the humanities by higher educational institutions.
Thus, philosophy is regarded as the bedrock of knowledge exploration. Consequently, the highest academic achievements are often called ‘Doctor of Philosophy’ (PhD).
Though we now see fragmentation based on specialties – such as Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Engineering, Doctor of Technology, Doctor of Psychology, and so on – ‘Doctor of Philosophy’ remains the mainstream nomenclature for the highest earned degree.
Therefore, philosophy serves as the foundation of knowledge exploration and production in higher education.
This philosophical foundation, once a unified pursuit of understanding the world’s fundamental questions, has since fragmented into specialised disciplines, giving rise to binary divisions in academia that prioritise certain fields over others.
Humans have long been fascinated by maintaining binaries, a tendency that may have influenced the development of fundamental computing systems – built on binary code – that now underpin nearly every aspect of our lives.
This inclination sometimes extends to assigning superiority to one element of a binary pair over the other, though the perception of dominance varies by context.
Divisions such as those between human skin colours (Whites and Blacks), caste system (Brahmins and non-Brahmins), geographic regions (North and South, in both global and Indian contexts), linguistic groups (Hindi-speaking and non-Hindi-speaking), dietary preferences (vegetarian and non-vegetarian), or economic classes (rich and poor) often imply a hierarchy, with the former frequently regarded as superior.
In academia, this pattern sharply emerges, where Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) are positioned as superior and mainstream, while Social Sciences, Humanities, and the Arts for People and the Economy (SHAPE) are relegated to a secondary, often undervalued status.
STEM has disproportionately claimed the label of ‘science’ for itself, despite the fact that any discipline – including those in SHAPE – can be scientific when it incorporates observation, demonstration, and evidence-based repeatability.
This carefully curated perception of STEM’s superiority has paved the way for it to receive greater research funding and institutional support, leaving SHAPE disciplines undervalued and under-resourced – despite their philosophical roots as the foundation of knowledge exploration.
Nationally, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts courses account for approximately 23 percent of all enrolments in higher education institutions in India, according to National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) data.
This reveals a significant gap compared to STEM, with Tamil Nadu exhibiting an even more pronounced shift.
This trend highlights the diminishing focus on humanities and social sciences, likely reflecting broader societal and economic pressures favouring STEM, especially in states like Tamil Nadu with robust technical education infrastructure.
Several factors contribute to this declining enrolment. First, departments of humanities and social sciences in Tamil Nadu’s state universities are consistently reduced to single- or two-faculty units.
For instance, at the University of Madras – one of India’s oldest universities and the foundational institution for state universities in South India – departments such as Anthropology, Ancient History and Archaeology, Indian History, Politics and Public Administration, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, Education, and Legal Studies operate with only one or two faculty members.
If this is the situation at a prominent university in Chennai, the condition of other state universities requires little elaboration. Second, higher education is increasingly viewed as a commodity for securing jobs rather than a pathway to acquiring knowledge.
The caveat here is that while gaining knowledge can lead to relevant job prospects, society often reverses this logic, asking instead, ‘What job will this course guarantee?’
Third, governments disproportionately prioritise STEM disciplines over SHAPE. This is evident in the structure of higher education councils.
For example, the Indian Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), under the Ministry of Science and Technology, oversees about 44 affiliated units or institutes, which unsurprisingly receive substantial operational funding.
In contrast, only three councils exist to promote social sciences, history, and philosophy. The situation in Tamil Nadu is particularly concerning, as the state has only a State Council for Science and Technology, with no equivalent bodies for social sciences or humanities.
While the Tamil Nadu Government’s Chief Minister’s Research Grant (CMRT) is a commendable step toward fostering innovation in state higher education institutions, it raises a critical question: are we undervaluing the transformative power of humanities and social science research by focusing solely on STEM? Research extends beyond labs and patents – it is about understanding and uplifting society.
The CMRT emphasises Responsible Research – addressing societal needs and driving socio-economic impact. STEM provides solutions, undoubtedly, but humanities and social sciences uncover root causes: societal dynamics, human behaviour, and historical context.
Translational research is not limited to technological gadgets or patents; it encompasses policy frameworks, equitable education, and community resilience – all areas where SHAPE excels.
Yet, the previous ₹34.65 crore sanctioned under CMRT went entirely to STEM, with zero allocation for arts or social sciences.
This is not truly ‘science’ funding – it is engineering and technology funding. Until it is inclusive of SHAPE research, the current grant should be called the ‘Chief Minister’s STEM Research Grant’.
In recent times, on social media platforms, particularly Twitter (now X), certain individuals – mostly aligned with conservative and right-wing ideologies – have expressed a desire to shut down humanities and social sciences departments, especially in the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and other higher education institutions.
These calls to close such departments grow louder when student organisations engage in protests or demonstrations to criticise regressive government policies or institutional initiatives that do not serve students’ best interests.
Predominantly, students from humanities and social sciences across various higher education institutions have been vocal about issues threatening the sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic and republic structure of our country, as well as attempts by fanatic and fundamentalist groups to undermine the principles of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity for our citizens.
However, those who ignore the importance of humanities and social sciences often label these students as troublemakers or leftovers who could not secure admission into professional courses.
In Tamil Nadu, for instance, addressing challenges such as Hindi imposition, exploring the historical Tamil landscape, dismantling the hegemony of oppressor castes, and understanding perceived inefficiencies in criminal and victim justice delivery requires solutions that only humanities and social sciences can provide.
Despite these challenges, there are encouraging signs from some within the STEM community who are beginning to recognise the importance of humanities and social sciences.
A growing minority acknowledges that these disciplines offer critical insights into societal needs, complementing STEM’s technical solutions.
However, a large majority still clings to a superiority complex, viewing their fields as inherently more valuable.
Dismantling this entrenched mindset may take decades, as it requires a fundamental shift in how knowledge is perceived and prioritised.
Governments, however, must not perpetuate this imbalance – whether directly through funding disparities or indirectly through policy neglect.
Instead, they should actively champion the integration of STEM and SHAPE disciplines, such as by establishing interdisciplinary research grants that require collaboration between STEM and SHAPE scholars, and providing even greater standalone grants for SHAPE disciplines in higher education.
This fosters a holistic approach to innovation and progress that uplifts both individuals and society as a whole.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
