Social sciences and humanities are whole that can't be excised from one another in any clean way. It is a name for the two halves of a unity.
The more I think about this and the more I interrogate the biases that I have so far operated with, thr more I realise that the function of this division is but to separate qualitative, critical analysis from quantitative work, and to delegitimate the former.
It is understandable why people are drawn to this distinction given the attacks on the validity of soc-sci work, but it is ultimately lending credibility to those attacks' earlier axioms to adopt this nonsensical rhetoric of distinction, giving them the opportunity to push further, and not only that but it is fundamentally detrimental to the power of analyses we present.
We are not doing the "science" we pretend to do, and that's actually a good thing.
@cadxdr that's why I studied philosophy as my third field in grad school. My current work is very qualitative and theoretical, and I think that is important.
It also helps support the defunding of humanities programs in the US - they aren't Real programs of study so why be funded. It's very upsetting to see how the need to be legitimate results in things like the classics being no longer available as a field of study in some universities and colleges.
@Cyborgneticz yeah it's pretty much the same in Turkey, tho with the catch that, as someone who's gone from letters to linguistics, we've never ever been funded lol. Like one of my linguistics RAs has a mic and that's basically the main wealth of the department.
But beyond the depts that produces useful discourse for the powers that be, humanities is in shambles.
I am more and more wanting to do away with this fake dichotomy of humanities and social science.