[1] According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary, the category of “science” may have several connotations. “Science” might be defined as a of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, or as systemic and formulated knowledge. 1 (Note1: The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford references on line. 2002. [http://www.oxfordreference.com/]) Thelatter definition effectively describes social science in so far as an experiment has very limited use in this field. However, even in social sciences, data come into two types, i.e. quantitative and qualitative data. Moreover, there has been a clear trend towards gradual “quantification” of social science research over the last hundred years. This is true in particular in mainstream disciplines of social sciences - economics, sociology, psychology and political science. Looking from the overall perspective of political science, this trend has been manifested in a shift from narrative, descriptive and qualitative analysis to empirical, quantitative and comparative research, especially during the last 30 to 40 years after Downs’ An Economic Theory of Democracy. 2 (Note2: Downs, A. (1957): An Economic Theory of Democracy, Boston, Addison Wesley;) All this means that empirical data have a new value as a primary source of social inquiry in all social science disciplines.
[2] Descriptive and inferential statistics, univariate and multivariate analysis, and econometric methods have now become standard instruments of research even in disciplines such as political or educational science, which were traditionally unfriendly to quantitative methodology. It would be hard to imagine that early classical proponents of political science as a discipline, e.g. Wilson, Weber, Pareto, Michels, Ostrogorski or even Merriam and Laswell, who largely initiated the shift towards quantification in political science, would rely on numerical measurements or “number-crunching” in order to conceptualize political phenomena. Inductive and deductive argumentation and logical positivism are now at least partially changed by various statistical procedures, including scalability and cluster, factor and regression analyses. Certainly, the division into quantitative and qualitative “schools” is a fact of life within the political research community. In 1996 Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann observed several sciences of politics in the New Handbook of Political Science. 3 (Note3: Goodin, R.E. and Klingemann, H.-D. (1996): “Political Science: The Discipline”, in: Goodin, R. E. and Klingemann, H.-D. (eds.), A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford, Oxford University Press;) Recently, Paul Pennings, Hans Keman and Jan Kleinnijenhuis defined political science as “an empirical science. Its (political science – the authors) inspiration may well hinge on philosophies of the good world, or on doomsday prophecies, but more or less irrefutable facts constitute its basis. The relevant facts can be gathered from different sources”. 4 (Note4: Pennings, P., Keman, H. and Kleinnijenhuis, L. (1999): Doing Research in Political Science, London, Sage Publications.)
[3] Is the main task of social science to define and collect “relevant facts” from “reliable sources” in order to achieve three main purposes of research - exploration, description and explanation of social phenomena? After reading the famous text by King, and Verba 5 (Note5: King, G., Keohane, R. and Verba, S (1996): Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton University Press.) on social inquiry and uncertain conclusions, nobody in social science can be so sure and self-confident as they might have been before. In this context it is worth remembering the words of Benjamin Disraeli, who once said “there are three kinds of lies – lies, damned lies, and statistics". 6 (Note6: Kirk, R.E. (1990): Statistics. An Introduction, Chicago, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.) However, scientists love to extrapolate and exaggerate in order to understand complex reality and create an explanatory framework. In all the thoughts on a quantitative and qualitative divide in social sciences, and in political science in particular, this trend towards reductionism can be seen to some extent. The general trend in social sciences towards the hybridization of disciplines also means increasing “travel” in both the concepts and methodology of research. Division and integration seem to be almost the permanent status within and between disciplines in social sciences. In 1990 Gabriel A. Almond described the situation within the political science community as “sitting at separate tables”. Six years later he changed his mind slightly by saying that political science “is pluralism in method and approach, but it is eclectic and synergistic, rather than isolative”. 7 (Note7: Almond, G.A. (1996): “Political Science: The History of the Discipline”. in: Goodin, R. E. and Klingemann, H.-D. (eds.), A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford, Oxford University Press.) A development towards more empirical, quantitative and comparative research in all social sciences is clearly a major integrative force at a methodological level.
[4] Empiricism, quantification and comparativism are three key words in contemporary social sciences and they produce a raison d’être for enormous empirical data consumption. The first things which come to mind when we hear phrases such as “empirical data” or “data archive” are definitely various collections of quantitative data, ranging from public opinion surveys to perhaps national census data. Our thoughts on empirical data are also associated with various institutions which collect and store data in different Western countries, for example the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) in the U.S., the German Social Sciences Infrastructure Services (GESIS) in Germany, the Norwegian Social Science Data Archive (NSD), etc.
[5] The situation in Eastern European countries is almost completely different since social science data archives, as a necessary element of science infrastructure, are almost non-existent there or are still in the early phases of development. In many cases in Eastern Europe empirical data for social sciences are still available through various widely dispersed institutions and/or through individual contacts. This difference is certainly not due to the non-existence of empirical social science or empirical data sets, but rather because of a lack of legal and institutional arrangements and funding capacities (sometimes because of a lack of vision and leadership, too), which promote a permanent process of social data archiving as well as access to this data by a broad community of social scientists within different countries and from abroad according to clear and transparent rules. Lithuania is no exception to this rule. Moreover, Lithuania is lagging behind such countries as Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia and Romania, which already possess the basic structures of social science data archives. Slow developments in the area of social science data archives in Eastern Europe need to be considered in terms of a few major variables in order to achieve change and formulate adequate solutions or policy decisions. In order to evaluate the situation in Lithuania, our primary tasks are as follows:
[6] Our final introductory remark concerns the meaning of “empirical” in contemporary social sciences. Concise dictionaries contain at least a few connotations of the term “empirical”, i.e. as based or acting on observation or experiment, not a theoryor deriving knowledge from experience alone. Seen from the aspect of common sense, empiricism is usually related to the exploration and description of facts. Empirical data in social science have nearly always been associated solely with quantitative data or numerical data that can be measured. However, this is only one side of the coin. The current shift to quantification and methodological sophistication in social sciences means that some types of previously qualitative, especially textual, data are opening up to quantitative measurement. One example of this is content analysis of texts, where findings may not come only in a textual or qualitative form, but also in quantitative forms. In fact, new methodologies mean that the ability of social science to measure the data has increased enormously. The understanding of empirical data collection therefore needs to be broadened to include some areas of qualitative data.
[7] Before 1990 empirical sociological research was concentrated at the Lithuanian Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law of the Academy of Sciences and at the University of Vilnius. The main fields of systematic survey research were sociology of work, time budget studies, sociology of youth, family, education and culture.
[8] Empirical sociological studies in Lithuania were first initiated in the mid-1960s. In 1965 the Sociological Research Laboratory was established at the University of Vilnius. In 1966 the Institute of Economics of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences organized a group of sociologists. In 1969 this group was reorganized into the Department of Philosophy, Sociology and Law (renamed the Institute in 1977) at the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences. These and some other groups conducted empirical sociological research. At that time empirical sociology was a synonym for sociology in general. The main directions of empirical research are mentioned below.
[9] Industrial and work sociology: Problems relating to the functioning of enterprises, work effectiveness and job satisfaction were studied. Empirical studies were carried out in many enterprises. In 1984-1985 the Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law conducted a sociological study entitled “Satisfaction at work”. 35 enterprises were included in this survey and 4,800 workers and 520 engineers were interviewed. Since 1978 sociological studies have been conducted in all the largest industrial enterprises in Lithuania.
[10] Time budget studies: The main task of these surveys was to analyze the way of life in different social groups and trends in time usage. Researchers from the University of Technology (KTU), which at that time was known as the Polytechnic Institute of Kaunas, were mainly responsible for conducting the largest surveys in 1972, 1974, 1982 and 1988 (more than a thousand respondents each year).
[11] Sociology of youth: One of the most important longitudinal projects for the sociologists started in 1983 and ran for ten years. The study was based on surveys of young people who had finished different kinds of school in 1983. The life paths, lifestyles, values and attitudes of young people were analyzed. This study was conducted in all Baltic countries and 11 former regions of the USSR according to a standard program and method. The International Sociological Association and Stanford University (USA) provided the methodology and financial support for the survey.
[12] Political science only has a short history as an academic discipline in Lithuania since it was not formally recognized until the late part of 1988. In the fall of 1988 an open discussion on the status and teaching of ideological academic subjects (History of the CPSU and Scientific Communism) was started in Vilnius. The leader and chairman of this discussion was Rolandas Pavilionis in his then capacity as Head of the Department of History of Philosophy, University of Vilnius.
[13] The Ministry of Higher Education established a working group on the reform of the social sciences in Lithuania in the fall of 1988. The working group approved a decision, in principle, to introduce political science in the curricula of academic institutions. However, Lithuanian universities were granted the right to choose the contents and teaching intensity of political science. From this moment on responsibility for the reform of the social sciences was transferred to the governing bodies of universities and their social science departments.
[14] Political science in Lithuania matured rapidly due to several factors. The first factor was the exchange of ideas through seminars and visiting lectures by western colleagues at Lithuanian universities; especially active were professors of politics from the United States, for example Julius Smulkstys, Aleksandras Shtromas, Tomas Remeikis, Richard. MillsTomas Remeikis and Stasys Vanagūnas, and Egbert Jahn (Germany). In 1991 Lithuanian American professors established the Lithuanian Political Science Network in the U.S. with the aim of helping Lithuania’s universities with textbooks and advice on organizing political studies in the most efficient way. Secondly, support for the development of political science was forthcoming from international organizations and programs such as the EU’s TEMPUS scheme, the Civic Education Project, the Soros Foundation, the Fulbright Foundation and other foundations, as well as individual universities in Western Europe, especially in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. However, empirical research during the formative years of political science was not a focal point of Lithuanian political scientists.
[15] Both before and after 1990 the main holder of empirical social and economic data in Lithuania was the Department of Statistics, which comes under the auspices of the Government. In 2002 the Department of Statistics issued a list of almost 30 different areas for statistical and econometric studies. Data will be collected and analyzed in areas such as population censuses, demography, employment, the labor force, households, health and social care, industry, agriculture and domestic and foreign trade. The Lithuanian Law on Statistics, which was adopted by Seimas in 1993, stipulates that one of the main priorities of the Department of Statistics is to provide statistical information to central and local government, research institutions, EUROSTAT and other international organizations according to international agreements. The methodology of statistical data collection by the Department of Statistics improved significantly after 1990. After the 2001 Population Census all the social, demographic and regional statistics are fully compatible with EU standards. Other areas of statistical data collection are also expected to comply with EU standards and regulations at the latest by January 1, 2004, the deadline for the completion of Lithuania’s preparations for joining the European Union. Despite legal provisions on easy access to statistical data stocks of the Department of Statistics by Lithuanian researchers, these data holdings are not widely used in social research for secondary analysis due to various material, technical and even psychological reasons. The development of a social science data archive could lead to closer interaction between social scientists and institutions of official statistics.
[16] After 1990 far-reaching changes occurred in society, which also had an effect on the research sector. On the one hand, there was a substantial decrease in demand for research related to industrial development (for instance in physics or mathematics). In the field of the social sciences, exactly the opposite process had occurred: demand for sociologists had increased at universities; studies started on new topics which had been banned in the past (politics, religion, inter-ethnic relations). Western scientists and politicians closely monitored problems during the transitional period and they needed the empirical data; state institutions, political parties and non-governmental organizations also wanted to know the real situation in society. Many European and especially Eastern Central European projects were carried out in Lithuania.
[17] Up until 1990 empirical research in Lithuania was concentrated at the Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law (The Academy of Sciences) and at the University of Vilnius. Decentralization took place after this date. A structural and institutional framework for empirical social research was not rigorously defined, and it is continuously changing. It is worth noting that the execution (field work) of empirical research has been concentrated in three private companies (public opinion and market research) and at the Department of Statistics. Small-scale projects (expert studies, for example) are implemented by the analytical centers of the social sciences themselves. There are constant problems in that unprofessional companies appear from time to time and claim to provide empirical research (which is of a poor quality) at a lower price. However, this issue primarily affects public opinion research.
[18] In Lithuania there also are some NGOs conducting projects based on empirical data, e.g. the Lithuanian Free Market Institute and the Lithuanian Human Rights Center.
[19] Political science cannot hope to compete against sociology in terms of the scale and scope of provision of empirical data for secondary analysis in any country, not to mention Lithuania, where political studies only have a contemporary history of 12 years. However, there are a number of political science institutions in Lithuania, which are actively carrying out empirical research (see table 1).
| Institution | Number of | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staff | Students | ||||||
| Professors | Associate Professors | Lecturers | Researchers | Under-graduate | Graduate | Ph.D. | |
| University of Law, Vilnius Department of Political Science | 5 | 2 | 120 | 105 | |||
| Kaunas University of Technology, Policy and Public Administration Institute | 2 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 28 58 |
6 3 |
| Military Academy Vilnius Department of Political Science | 1 | 2 | 150 | ||||
| University of Klaipėda, Department of Political Science | 5; | 1 | 53 | 17 | |||
| University of Vilnius, Institute of International Relations and Political Science | 3 | 18 | 15 | 3 | 365 | 86 | 15 |
| Vilnius Pedagogical University, Department of Political Science and Sociology | 3 | 2 | 100 | 15 | |||
| Vilnius Technical University, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences | 1 | 3 | 2 | ||||
| Vytautas Magnus University, Department of Political Science | 1 | 5 | 2 | 155 | 11 | ||
| Total: | 7 | 47 | 28 | 4 | 993 | 320 | 24 |
[20] The Institute of International Relations and Political Science (IIRPS), University of Vilnius, is the most important political science organization. The Institute was founded on February 7, 1992 as the Institute of International Relations and was relatively unaffected by remnants of the past. On November 26, 1992 the Institute was renamed as the IIRPS.
[21] The Policy and Public Administration Institute of Kaunas University of Technology (PPAI) is an even younger institution than the IIRPS in Vilnius since it was only established in 1999. In 2001 the contained the Department of Law, the Department of Public Administration, the Department of Sociology, the Center for Public Policy Research and the Municipal Training Center.
[22] The next center of political studies and research in Lithuania is of course the Institute of Political Science and Diplomacy, including the Department of Political Science, at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas. Political studies had a rather novel start in Kaunas between 1990 and 1992 because the subject was based exclusively on visiting scholars from Western countries. The Department of Sociology and Political Science developed good connections with Linköping University (Sweden) and the University of Bergen (Norway), and many politics lecturers came to this university through the Civic Education Project (CEP), together with visiting Lithuanian American professors in politics.
[23] The Department of Political Science at the University of Klaipėda was founded in 1992 as the Department of Sociology and Political Science. In 1995, however, it was reorganized into two separate departments of sociology and political science respectively. The story of political studies in Klaipėda actually started in 1992 when a bachelor’s degree in politics was introduced. Since 1996 the Department has offered MA degree studies with majors in political theory and public administration.
[24] In addition to the above-mentioned leading institutions in political science, there are a few other minor departments at the University of Law (Vilnius), the Military Academy, Vilnius Technical University etc. The years between 1990 and 1995 could be termed a period of research identity formation in Lithuanian political science. The main research areas during this period included:
[25] Concentration on the above-mentioned topics was a good reflection of the actual research agenda of the Institute of International Relations and Political Science between 1993 and 1995. The major research projects at this Institute included studies on Governmental Changes and Prospects for Democracy in Lithuania(supported by the NATO Democratic Institution Fellowship, 1993-1994), Lithuanian Political Culture(Friedrich Naumann Foundation, 1994-1995), Lithuanian Party System (1994-1997), Lithuanian Security and Foreign Policy (1995-1999). Since 1996 the priorities of University of Vilnius:Institute of International Relations and Political Science (IIRPS) have increased, at least in two relatively new areas, i.e. political elite research and studies of Lithuania’s integration into the EU. The IIRPS has conducted the following major research projects since 1996: Lithuanian Political Elite Research (1996-1997) and Lithuanian Integration into the EU (1997-2000).
[26] Because of the faculty’s history, the Policy and Public Administration Institute of Kaunas University of Technology has been predominantly oriented toward public policy research. However, major research priorities of this institute cover three fields: public administration, political science and sociology. Research in political science here is based on a comparative approach and includes the following topics: Governmental institutions and history of Lithuania; Elections and electoral systems; Political parties and party systems; Political elite and political transformations; Political socialization. Moreover, some research topics that belong formally to the areas of public administration and sociology are closely connected to political science, e.g. Citizens’ participation in governance, Sociology of community development and public participation.
[27] The major research priorities of the Department of Political Sciences at the University of Klaipeda were concentrated on the modern political resources of Lithuania with special emphasis on regional politics.
[28] Research at the Institute of Political Science and Diplomacy (Vytautas Magnus University) might be characterized as extremely eclectic since it covered fields ranging from local government to EU studies and research on ethnic minorities to political parties.
[29] In the case of emerging academic disciplines, every new academic field needs some period of time to become professional. Looking from the perspective of empirical political research, there are at least four different types of obstacle, which the emerging discipline needs to overcome. Firstly, the organization of studies and writing or/and translating of textbooks takes priority over the development of research identities and research projects. Secondly, the lack of human resources with experience in empirical political research, starting with research design and knowledge of quantitative methodology, was a marked characteristic of emerging Lithuanian political science;. As a result of this, quantitative political research was almost non-existent in Lithuania until the 1990s. Thirdly, there is no tradition of a discipline as the development of original empirical data collections for secondary analysis takes time. Fourthly, a comparison of research projects shows that internal and external donors provided much more generous support for the development of a curriculum and courses. In addition, western scholars ran major research projects in which researchers from Eastern Europe played the role of data providers, but data were collected and supplied to western universities and institutions. However, the additional benefit of this partnership, which may appear unequal at first glance, was that Eastern European researchers acquired expertise in designing and conducting research from western colleagues.
[30] One basic result is the slow development of empirical data collections within the area of political science. Major fields, which might encourage empirical research and secondary analysis of data, for example comparative politics, political sociology or political economics, are still rather underdeveloped.
[31] Methodological sophistication and the variety of theoretical approaches are a reflection of the maturity of a discipline as well as a good predictor of empirical data use in political research. A survey in spring 2000 of the most popular theoretical approaches within eight institutions in the country in political science showed that the historical approach is still the most popular. However, behaviorism, functionalism and system theory are in second, third and fourth places respectively. Neo-institutionalism is a theoretical approach that is almost as equally popular as the three others mentioned above. Minor approaches include organizational and rational choice theories, hermeneutics and phenomenology. Marxism is certainly the rejected approach, but the Lithuanian political science community still does not accept two other approaches, i.e. game theory and existentialism. Unfortunately, there are no data on the use of quantitative methods in political studies. Nevertheless, simple observations of current trends lead us to conclude that, in the late 1990s, political research based on the quantitative technique is expanding more rapidly then ever, but that it still does not play a dominant role in dealing with political phenomena and political data. These findings confirm that most political research up until recently in Lithuania was conducted by methods which required more qualitative than quantitative data.
[32] However, there are a number of empirical research areas ranging from public opinion surveys and electoral studies through to household and labor force surveys where extensive empirical data sets are available for secondary analysis. These data sets are continuously updated with new data.
[33] The first public opinion surveys in Lithuania were conducted in 1989. During twelve years of radical reforms society has changed to an unrecognizable extent. The functions of public opinion as an institution have also changed; and there have been shifts in the relationship between public opinion and power (as a natural opponent). This transition can basically be divided into five periods.
[34] Vox populi – vox dei (1989-1990). During the “velvet revolution” public opinion played a strange role. It was one of the most important factors at the start of reforms. The newly emerging political elite used public opinion as an instrument to consolidate its positions. It seemed that the principle of “vox populi – vox dei” would be in force forever.
[35] Vox populi – vox stultorum (voice of people – voice of stupidity) (1991-1992). The new institutionalized power changed its attitude towards public opinion quite quickly. A characteristic feature of this period was the arrogance of power: “parliament is public opinion in pure form”, public opinion is incompetent and reactionary in many cases.
[36] Distrust of methodology (1993-1996). One western polling company caused some considerable harm to the reputation of public opinion polls during the 1992 parliamentary election exit poll. The result was totally wrong. During this period classical reasons of distrust also played an important role: “one thousand respondents can not represent all the population”, “respondents do not tell the truth”, etc.
[37] Public opinion as an adviser in decision-making (1997-1998). A closely predicted result of the parliamentary elections and promises of a new power to listen to the voice of the general public increased the number of orders for public opinion polls from state institutions considerably. A great deal of information was not published in the media: experts analyzed this information before making decisions. The state institutions engaged specialists who were able to analyze the results of sample surveys in a professional manner.
[38] Direct democracy? (1999+). A diminishing reputation of the power structures paved the way for the use of public opinion polls as a final argument in making important decisions: a change in the time zone, administrative division of Lithuania’s territory, resignation of the Prime Minister, etc. In 2001 the results of the public opinion survey were used as an argument in a trial case before the Constitutional Court.
[39] In 2001 there were three public opinion research companies which had a stable network of interviewers, conducted regular surveys and published results: Baltic Surveys, Vilmorus and Social Information Center. These companies have accumulated the results of surveys carried out over many years on party preferences, trust in institutions, evaluation of the economic situation and many other ad hoc surveys.
[40] Free and fair elections were not only an instrument through which democracy was installed in Lithuania after 1988, electoral studies also became an area through which empirical studies and empirical data collections were introduced in political research. The agenda of electoral research has tended to change considerably since 1990 because of various circumstances. From approximately 1992 onwards the electoral research agenda was gradually widened to include such items as party identities, electoral campaign analysis (mainly through studies of the printed media), voting behavior, parliamentary and government elites and party programs. Nowadays only one important item - a roll-call analysis - is missing in electoral research in Lithuania. The body of empirical data relating to elections is also rather impressive. Since 1992 empirical data have been collected from pre-election and post-election surveys for all parliamentary, presidential and local elections. However, these surveys were conducted by different survey agencies and questionnaires are not fully compatible. Voting statistics have been available since the 1996 Seimas elections and are accessible online, including candidates’ biographies and data from their financial declarations.
| Institution | General area of interest | Data collections |
|---|---|---|
| The Baltic Surveys | Survey research | Pre-election and post-election survey data; World Values Survey data |
| Vilmorus LTD. | Survey research | Pre-election and post-election survey data; New Baltic Barometer |
| Social Information Center | Survey research | Pre-election and post-election survey data only since 1996; Mass media analysis. |
| Institute of International Relations and Political Science, University of Vilnius | General electoral research | Lithuanian Political Culture, 1994; 2000; Elite survey data. |
| Policy and Public Administration Institute, Kaunas University of Technology | General electoral research | Data on parliamentary elites (since 1990) and government elites (since 1998); Elite survey data; Lithuanian party manifestos since 1990. |
| Department of Political Science, University of Klaipeda | Research on local elections | |
| Central Electoral Committee | Management and publication of official electoral data | Electoral statistics since 1992; Electoral system and election laws; Candidates’ biographies. |
[41] At the very beginning, most research in the field of political parties was mainly exploratory and descriptive because of the formation of a competitive party system in Lithuania. Since 1992 the Department of Information and Analysis (Lithuanian Seimas) led by Alvidas Lukošaitis has been collecting background data (leadership, some organizational features, party finances, etc.) on Lithuanian parties (Lukošaitis 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1998, 1999, 2000). Lithuanian party manifestos and other party documents for secondary analysis are mainly available from three institutions: the Policy and Public Administration Institute (Kaunas University of Technology), the Institute of International Relations and Political Science (University of Vilnius) and the Department of Information and Analysis (Lithuanian Seimas).
[42] A few other methods were used in studies on Lithuanian parties and they helped to develop some empirical data sets, i.e. measurement of the left-right positions of parties by means of expert scales, voter scales and party manifesto scales. The recent focus in party research has been the development of party organizations.
[43] Party preferences in Lithuania have been studied on a continuous basis since 1990. At present there are some quite extensive data archives on these issues. The data are regularly published in the mass media and are now also available on the Internetsite “Lieturos politiku reitingai” (Lithuanian Political Ratings). The research on this topic increases significantly before elections, although only a small part of the findings are published: political parties normally commission this research and the data remain their property. More in-depth studies (they could be called “political culture”: interest, knowledge, participation in political activities; methods of political activities, etc.) are rarely conducted and are usually financed by foreign foundations (in 1994 financed by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, in 1999 and 2001 Södertörns Högskola).
[44] During the transition period studies of the Lithuanian political and economic elite had vital diagnostic and prognostic functions. Elite studies were started in Lithuania almost immediately after the initial elections in 1990 when the old elite was largely replaced by a new post-communist leadership. Elite formation was an initial topic in these studies, which were mainly conducted by analyzing biographies. Biographies were the main source of empirical data collections in the early phases of elite research. Surveys of elite attitudes and orientations only began around the mid-1990s. In particular, special attention was paid to studies on elite values. Two major surveys were conducted by Kęstutis Masiulis (University of Vilnius) with the emphasis on the “power” elite, i.e. including respondents from the political, business and media elite (five surveys were conducted between 1993 and 1995 by the Lithuanian Free Market Institute) and Irmina Matonytė (Kaunas University of Technology) with the emphasis on the business elite (in 1996 – 260 respondents; in 2000 – 180 respondents) 8 (Note8: Masiulis, K. (1998): Lietuvos elito pasaulėžiūros ekonominiai politiniai kontūrai“, in: Lietuvos socialinės panoramos kontūrai, Vilnius, Lietuvos filosofijos ir sociologijos institutas.)
[45] The main body of empirical data is collected on Cabinets of Ministers and the parliamentary elite in Lithuania. The data on the Cabinets, which include the structure of the government, political experience of ministers, as well as social and demographic characteristics of individual ministers, cover the period between 1918 and 2001. An extensive data set on the structure and membership of parliamentary committees and parliamentary factions is available from the Department of Information and Analysis (Lithuanian Seimas).
[46] Empirical research on interest intermediation did not become part of the agenda of Lithuanian political scientists until 1997. The first in-depth survey of interest groups was only conducted in spring 1997. Organizational features and links with central and local government were among the variables in this survey. Several new surveys were conducted on interest groups in 1999 and 2000.
[47] International relations and foreign policy issues are barely operationalized for empirical research. In this case surveys are almost the only useful instrument for reflecting changes in attitudes. However, an extensive body of empirical data has been collected here on attitudes of Lithuanian citizens towards European integration issues as well as attitudes towards neighboring countries.
[48] In Lithuania the largest proportion of the inhabitants are Lithuanians – 82%, Russians – about 8%, Poles – about 7%. Most of the Russians arrived in Lithuania after the Second World War. Although most of them have adapted well to post-independence realities, older Russians have a poor grasp of the Lithuanian language and are nostalgic for the Soviet past. Poles are local dwellers in Lithuania – most of them live in Eastern Lithuania and Vilnius. Poles living in Lithuania are faced with problems such as a lower standard of education and employment in the agricultural sector, which suffered a great deal during the reform process.
[49] Such studies were not conducted during the Soviet period. Following the restoration of independence, some studies were conducted regarding inter-ethnic relations. It can even be said that this aspect was retraceable in most of the empirical studies.
[50] A major in-depth study was conducted in 1999 when 100 Lithuanians, 100 Russians, 100 Poles, 100 Jews, 100 Tartars, 100 Roma and 100 respondents of other ethnic groups were interviewed. The main objective of this project was to understand the peculiarities of adaptation of ethnic groups in Lithuania. The