(please contact if you'd like to speak further or use this article)
The recent announcement of cuts to the Marsden Fund for humanities and social sciences has sparked heated debate across academic and business circles. While the government claims these changes are designed to strategically fund research with clear economic, environmental, or health benefits, the implications for New Zealand’s broader societal well-being remain deeply concerning.
As an applied clinical sociologist, I navigate the intersection of science and social science. My work involves applying sociological insights to real-world challenges—whether advising policymakers, supporting businesses, or improving community well-being. But what exactly is an applied clinical sociologist? Think of us as hybrid professionals who combine the rigour of evidence-based research with a deep understanding of human behaviour to drive societal change. We are the bridge between the hard sciences and the softer, yet equally crucial, social sciences.
A Short-Sighted Approach
The government’s move to cut humanities and social sciences funding is framed as a necessary shift to promote productivity and economic growth. On paper, this may appear logical—research that immediately boosts high-tech sectors or creates jobs is easier to justify to taxpayers. However, this narrow focus ignores a critical truth: societal well-being underpins economic success. Without a thriving, cohesive society, economic growth becomes unsustainable.
Social science research provides insights into how people live, work, and interact. Whether investigating barriers to vaccine uptake, understanding societal responses to climate change, or exploring lessons from past it current geo-political conflicts, this research informs policies that directly impact public health and societal stability. By cutting funding, we risk losing this vital knowledge and the social cohesion it fosters.
The Bigger Picture
Having advised policymakers over the years, I understand the pressure to allocate limited resources. However, cutting social science funding undermines long-term well-being. Research shows that successful societies balance economic growth with social stability. This balance is reflected in models like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which remains relevant today.
At the base of this hierarchy are physiological and safety needs—basic necessities like food, shelter, and security. Addressing these requires scientific innovation, yes, but also social science research to ensure equitable access and effective implementation. Higher up the hierarchy are psychological and self-fulfillment needs, which are vital for mental health and societal cohesion. Ignoring these aspects in our research priorities risks creating a society that is economically prosperous but socially fragmented.
Health and Well-Being: A Holistic Approach
In my practice within NZ, the concept of te whare tapa wha the four pillars of well-being—emphasises the interconnectedness of physical, mental, social, and spiritual health. This holistic framework mirrors what many social scientists advocate: that well-being is multifaceted and requires interdisciplinary solutions. Strong foundations in health and social well-being support not only individual lives but the collective resilience of communities.
Science and Social Science: A False Dichotomy
The Marsden Fund’s shift creates a false dichotomy between “hard” sciences and social sciences. In reality, both are interdependent. Consider urban development research aimed at improving quality of life—this involves engineering, environmental science, public health, and sociology. Is this science or social science? The answer is both. We need research across all levels to build a resilient, thriving nation.
A Call for Balance
If the government’s goal is to improve New Zealand’s economic and societal well-being, it must recognise the value of social sciences. Economic growth and public health are not standalone goals; they are part of a larger ecosystem that includes education, historical understanding, social equity, and cultural identity. Cutting funding for social sciences may yield short-term savings, but the long-term costs—social fragmentation, reduced public trust, and policy blind spots—are far greater.
Policymakers must ask: how does reducing social science funding enhance well-being? Evidence suggests it doesn’t. Instead, we need strategic investment in interdisciplinary research that reflects the complexities of modern society. Without this, we risk undermining the very foundations of New Zealand’s future prosperity.
By supporting both scientific and social science research, we can ensure a balanced, sustainable approach that benefits all New Zealanders. If we fail to do so, we may find ourselves with an economy that thrives on paper but falters in practice, and a society without the cohesion to sustain it.
Dr Jessica Sneha Gray
Comentarios