A case for the humanities in the age of robots

Joseph Chinyong Liow For The Straits Times

14 Feb 2019

As digital technology grows ever more powerful, the intellectual skills associated with the study of humanities, arts and social sciences are needed more than ever to tackle the challenges of disruption and innovation

To say that technology is ubiquitous today is to state the obvious. Indeed, with the advent of the digital age, the influence that technology is exercising in our lives is accelerating at an alarming pace.

From the gig economy and the future of work to new pedagogies in education and the mass accumulation of data, technology is dominating conversations, shaping perspectives and driving policy decisions.

Even as we ponder the disruption occasioned by the technologies of the digital age and the new ways of doing things that they augur, machine-learning, robotics, the Internet of Things, wearable technology and 5G networks roll off the tongue in ways that would have perplexed even Aldous Huxley, the celebrated author of the futuristic dystopian novel Brave New World.

Is there a place for the humanities, arts and social sciences in the technological world of the future? Indeed, can these disciplines do anything to prepare us for the challenges of tomorrow?

As dean of the College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences at Nanyang Technological University, these are questions I get asked a lot by parents, teachers and students alike.

In response to these questions, my answer has always been categorical. Not only is there a place for these disciplines, in this present age of rapid technological transformation, we need the humanities, arts and social sciences now more than ever, especially if we are to successfully parlay this immense technological and digital power that we are coming to possess into societal power for the good of mankind.

FROM HOW TO WHY

This is because the humanities, arts and social sciences, known collectively by the acronym Hass, equip us with the analytical paradigms and creative environments to enrich - if not change - the conversation, taking discussions of science and technology beyond the question of how to build, and deeper into realms of inquiry regarding what precisely to build (for the good of society) and why we should (or shouldn't) build them.

The keys to unlocking these conundrums turn on an understanding of the social, cultural and historical contexts, not to mention the ability to ask the right questions. Asking the pertinent questions is the skill that Hass disciplines provide.

Technology cannot explain the nature of thought and therefore cannot (indeed, should not) be our intellectual surrogate.

In this respect, I would in fact suggest that the fundamental tools required to engineer the next great leap in artificial intelligence perhaps lie not just in advances in the computational disciplines but also in how they intersect with philosophy, linguistics and the arts, all of which cast light on the human realities that contextualise the natural and material world, and that create meaning and intelligence to help us make sense of that world.

At the heart of the matter is that, rather than strive for a world where technology solves our problems, we should endeavour to create one where technology facilitates human solutions to human problems.

A simple but illustrative example is www.quora.com, which demonstrates how technology can be effectively harnessed to facilitate human engagement while solving a problem (through crowdsourcing of answers to questions).

Yet, despite the lip service paid to the importance of Hass, there is in reality still a deeply entrenched bias against its disciplines, which are still often denigrated as "soft" sciences.

Concern over the relevance of the "soft" sciences stems from the perception, deeply rooted in our society, that education provides the pathway to a well-paying job, and that one's employment prospects are arguably better served with a Stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) degree because of the comparatively more specialised nature of their training, which some assume is correlated with employment.

This latter view may be increasingly outdated, but it is still palpable even though the very nature of our economy is changing in fundamental ways. At first glance, statistics also seem to bear this view out. A cursory reading of the Graduate Employment Survey compiled annually by the Ministry of Education suggests that the mean salaries of Stem graduates tend to be higher than their Hass counterparts.

MINDING AND BRIDGING THE GAP

Aside from instrumentalist and economic reasons, biases against Hass also stem from the unfortunate tendency to posit the Stem and Hass disciplines as dichotomous.

In 1959, the renowned British chemist and novelist, C.P. Snow, delivered a lecture titled The Two Cultures, in which he lamented the gulf that existed between the worlds of science and the humanities.

In many ways, this gulf, and the biases it spawns, still exists.

In the academic world, these biases are both embedded and perpetuated in the structure of research assessment, where qualitative review of academic accomplishment is undertaken, ironically, through the use of quantitative indicators that plot the trajectory of individual academics, programmes and universities.

Research impact is predicated on, among other things, citations. For the uninitiated, this refers to the number of times an academic or researcher's published work is cited by others. In this manner, the collection, aggregation and centralisation of data - an academic "body count", to borrow the Vietnam War phraseology that has become synonymous with the much-maligned Secretary of Defence of that era Robert McNamara - becomes the order of the day for purposes of assessing accomplishment and determining potential. This becomes a problem because the nature of the production of scholarship in the humanities and social science fields differs from what takes place in the Stem fields.

It is not uncommon to see up to a dozen authors on a science or engineering essay or article. The social sciences, and humanities in particular, are far lonelier endeavours by comparison. To be sure, co-authored papers and articles are increasing in numbers, but even then, we are talking of three, at best four, authors. 

For the humanities disciplines such as literature, history and philosophy, it remains the case that more often than not, scholarship is produced by single authors. Moreover, research and writing books remain the norm in many disciplines within the Hass fields; it is considerably less so for the Stem disciplines. The net result is that, in terms of quantity, scholars in Stem fields may appear on balance to be more productive than their non-Stem colleagues.

And then, there is the tyranny of time. Whether in Stem or Hass fields, researchers today find themselves having to beat the clock, thrust into a race against time to make their research relevant.

New faculty typically get first contracts ranging between three and four years, and research grants, which are increasingly becoming a non-negotiable KPI (key performance indicator) for academics, run for more or less the same duration. What this means quite simply, is that whatever you are working on as an academic had better bear some fruit within the first three years.

We rail against the instant gratification culture that besets us today, yet it seems to have crept into the research world as well.

Again, this poses a particularly challenging problem for Hass, where the cycle of publication in top-tier journals tends to be longer than those in Stem fields. More fundamentally, more reflective work whose value unfolds over a longer period of time as it creates new knowledge of enduring significance will find itself at a structural disadvantage in such a climate.

DISCIPLINARY INTEGRATION: THE NEXT FRONTIER

My intent here is not to downplay Stem. That would be both ill-informed and foolish. The Stem fields are absolutely integral to the future of our economy and society. Stem will continue to underpin everything from supply chains and food production to precision medicine and cyber security.

In fact, in the realm of education, I believe it is just as essential for those with Hass backgrounds to develop some familiarity with coding as it is for Stem students to cultivate a critical appreciation of the arts and literature. This is because the problems of tomorrow will not fit neatly into static curricula or disciplinary boundaries. Rather, they are likely to be increasingly complex with multiple facets, and hence the need to develop a range of skill sets that branch beyond any single discipline or approach - in other words, beyond specialisation.

Of course, this is not to say that specialists are not needed for the future economy. Rather, it is to make the case that the value of problem-solving and creative thinking will become increasingly important, and these skills are best developed through blended learning rather than disciplinary specialisation. Consider, for instance, complex calculus, which requires a detailed understanding of concepts that frame a problem rather than merely the ability to memorise methods to solve a problem.

This means that the requisite skill sets would include creativity and the ability to conceptualise abstract theory. These skills are remarkably similar to textual analysis that is the cornerstone of literature.

Similarly, given how important teamwork in the laboratory is for science, engineering and the development of new technologies, the benefits of exposure to the humanities, which teach how to understand and relate to others, should really be self-evident.

Ultimately, the point is that Stem and Hass must co-exist and, not only that, they must complement each other in the effort to create a modern economy that is also sustainable and empathetic, for that is where our future must lie. Otherwise, we will be left to bemoan the words of Dr Ian Malcolm, the fictional character played by Jeff Goldblum in the movie Jurassic Park, who warned: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

• Joseph Chinyong Liow is dean, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, and professor of comparative and international politics, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.