Is Anthropology a Science? Let's Start at the Beginning...

In response to a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education questioning the legitimacy of anthropology as a "science," I posted the following:

As academics, one of our responsibilities is to hold social convention up to the light of reason. This is why we define our terms as neatly as possible.

Define "science."
Define "discipline."

You start to see the problem.

I went through this exercise when asking whether or not Knowledge Management was an emerging business "discipline." Not a lot of literature on the subject - everyone "just knows," which is counter to intellectual rigor. So I created a framework for doing that in my 2002 dissertation, "Stories of Knowledge Management: The Search for Coherence in a Community of Practice," basing much of it on Thomas Kuhn's work around the history and structure of science.

Conclusions: a "discipline" is largely whatever community of practice members agree upon that it is. With no intersubjective definition of science (is it repeatable or simply methodologically sound?) anthropologists should blow-off the criticism as more pecking-order BS of single paradigm-laden status-seekers. Yes, we'd all like to be famous for our research, but not by diminishing others who practice research innovation and pursue valid efforts to develop a greater understanding of our world by pushing and/or questioning epistemological boundaries.

That said, we should not waive our linguistic rights to categorize and weigh meritorious work based on those categories. I simply point out the need to put the horse before the cart and define our terms before excluding fields of inquiry... and, when in doubt, opt for more inclusion than exclusion to foster creativity and passion.