[1] The development of empirical social research in Yugoslavia started in the 1960s following the establishment of research institutions, journals 2 (Note2: The journal Socjology, launched in 1959; Sociological Review, launched in 1961; Psychology, launched in 1967.) and professional associations 3 (Note3: The Yugoslav Association for Sociology was established in 1954, followed by corresponding associations in individual republics: Serbia – 1954, Croatia – 1958, Macedonia – 1962, Slovenia – 1965, Montenegro – 1968, Bosnia and Herzegovina – 1970.). The 1950s can be regarded as a period of preparation for this development. This period was marked by the successful conclusion of debates with dogmatic Marxists (conducted primarily in the field of philosophy), which created the conditions for a critical examination of social phenomena. At the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s university courses in sociology, political science and psychology 4 (Note4: Faculties of sociology were set up in 1959 in Belgrade, in 1960 in Ljubljana, in 1963 in Zagreb, in 1965 in Sarajevo, in 1971 in Nis, in 1973 in Pristina, in 1974 in Zadar, in 1975 in Skopje, in 1976 in Novi Sad and in 1977 in Niksic. A faculty of psychology was established in Belgrade in 1959, followed by faculties in Zagreb and Ljubljana. A faculty of political science was set up in Belgrade in 1963 and later in Zagreb, Ljubljana and Sarajevo.) were introduced, thus creating the basis for the education of the necessary cadres. During the 1960s the institutional basis for social research was expanded through the establishment of social science faculties in a number of regional centers and through the formation of university-based and non-university-based research institutes. These institutions developed relations and started cooperating with corresponding institutions in European countries and other states. During the 1960s intensive pioneering research work was carried out, including the first empirical studies on social structures, processes of industrialization and urbanization, political elites, public opinion, etc. The special Yugoslav characteristic of research was the study of self-management. The majority of the sponsors of systematic empirical research were non-university-based institutes. The major role of universities was educational, while university-based institutes carried out research only occasionally; their staff were recruited from university lecturers, who were therefore mainly oriented towards educational activities. This was not a very convenient solution since dualism between theoretical and empirical research had already then been established. The former was characterized by a radical-critical approach, while the latter was overwhelmingly positivistic. The material position of science, however, was rather favorable: research work and empirical studies were financed from the state budget. However, research work lacked high-quality projects rather than essential finance.
[2] The beginning of the 1970s was marked by several events which had a rather unfavorable effect on the development of social research during this decade. The first event was the attempt to democratize society through decentralization. This resulted in the establishment of autocratic natiocraties in all of the republics of Yugoslavia. The second event was that the planning, organization and funding of scientific research work were decentralized in such a way that they resulted in atomization, weakening of cooperation between republican centers and their increasing dependence on their respective natiocraties. The third occurrence was rather similar avoidance of critical research on social phenomena by the republican authorities and political pressure on researchers (along the Communist Party membership line). The interference of political factors in research work led to the stagnation of social research, i.e. to reorientation towards less "dangerous" areas. During this decade researchers continued to study social structures, demographic changes, population trends, values, ethnic relations, social welfare problems, the family, youth, political activism, religion, media and communication, public opinion and other topics. 5 (Note5: Regular public opinion polls and election research were carried out from the beginning of the 1960s.)
[3] Although the dualism between education and empirical research was maintained with regard to institutional arrangements, university lecturers started to become increasingly more involved in research work by non-university-based institutes. Unlike university institutes, non-university-based institutes, owing to their empirical orientation, had the logistics required to conduct research: networks of interviewers, coding teams, programmers, equipment, etc. University staff often used the research findings of non-university institutes for master’s and doctoral theses and other academic papers.
[4] At the beginning of the 1980s Yugoslavia entered a general crisis in terms of economics, politics, ethnics, morals and values. Professional solidarity among researchers of social phenomena gave way to closer relationships with their respective natiocraties in the situation of clashes, which were characterized by ideologization of all social conflicts as ethnic conflicts. Because of the lack of financial resources and the inability to obtain funds from different federal units, funding of research work decreased to a level which was just enough to maintain the existence of researchers and ensure their mere survival. As a result of this, theoretical work was partly revitalized while the financiers of empirical research became almost exclusively government bodies and political organizations and communities. They were interested in research results as a means of reforming society and for their own survival (remaining in power). The attention of researchers in the 1980s was directed towards the then existing Yugoslav society and processes of change and development. The formerly dominant critical Marxist discourse was replaced, or at least enriched, by references to prestigious social science authors from Western Europe and the USA. It was indicative that formerly compulsory (yet ritually used) terms like "socialism", "self-management", "Marxist", etc. started disappearing from books, academic papers, conferences and research projects.
[5] The end of the 1980s also saw the end of the former "Second" Yugoslavia. Established as a state comprising five nations, three religions, three languages, two alphabets and one political party, it passed into history as the state with another sixth nation and with 250 political parties. The newly created states in its territory are no longer at war, but their relations and connections in all fields have been torn apart so that cooperation between social phenomena researchers are only now in 2001 showing the first faint signs of revitalization.
[6] The results of empirical research between the start of the 1960s and the end of the 1980s are only available in publications – books, collection of papers and journals. From the mid-1980s onwards some research institutions started keeping their empirical data on computer disks, but this practice was an exception rather than a rule until the beginning of the 1990s. Preservation of the data on individual empirical research in the form of a data set was only established as a regular practice at the end of the 1990s.
[7] Between the beginning of the 1960s and the mid-1980s, Yugoslavia and Poland could be regarded as the two Eastern European countries with very developed research activities in the field of social sciences. This situation was largely due to greater openness in Yugoslavia towards the international scientific community and more tolerant relationships between the authorities and researchers. Regular campaigns against and punishments of critical authors and intellectuals were usually minimized by professional solidarity at home and abroad. At the beginning of the 1980s Yugoslavia could not, in relative terms, keep pace with the rapid development of research in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and from the 1990s onwards with other Eastern European countries either.
[8] In Yugoslavia there are three Academies of Science: one in Serbia (The Serbian Academy of Science and Arts) and two in Montenegro (The Montenegrin Academy of Science and Arts and Doclean Academy of Science and Arts). Although the first two embrace institutes, neither of them belongs to the field of social sciences. Therefore, academies do not carry out social empirical research.
[9] There are seven academic research institutes involved in research work. All of them are based in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. In addition to these organizations, there are several other social science institutes (economics, political science). Although they do not carry out empirical research, they use secondary analysis of the available data. 7 (Note7: There were two other institutes engaged in empirical social research, but both stopped functioning during the 1990s due to financial difficulties. The first is the Institute of Journalism, which was established at the beginning of the 1960s. It published the journal Journalism. The Institute carried out various empirical research on media and mass communication. The other is the Institute for Social Policy, which was established at the beginning of the 1970s.)
[10] A common problem shared by all these institutes in the period analyzed concerns finance. All the above-mentioned institutes are financed by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Serbia 8 (Note8: According to legal regulations, the status of scientific institute is only given to those financed by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Serbia. In order to obtain this status, the institutes have to meet a series of requirements ranging from the number of full-time staff and the structure of personnel in terms of their scientific titles through to the quantity and quality of published works of researchers.)In 2001 the planned total expenditure on scientific research was only 0.24% of Serbia’s Gross Domestic Product (the real figure was 0.14%). The entire field of scientific activity is therefore just barely surviving. Compared with 1990, gross domestic product has fallen by 50% while the part of the budget for funding science has been reduced fivefold. This means that science as a whole has ten times less financial resources than in 1990. Since 1980 the Ministry has not funded any empirical research, but only covered the salaries of the employees and occasional purchases of books, journals and equipment. The planned percentage in 2002 is 0.2%.
[11] The institutes therefore have to rely on the market as the source of empirical research, i.e. on private enterprises (which are almost entirely disinterested in social research and/or themselves face financial troubles), government bodies and organizations, political organizations, the NGO sector (from abroad), international foundations, agencies, media, etc. Since 1997 NGOs and foreign foundations have followed a policy of not financing any empirical research in Yugoslavia, they only hold conferences, publish books and journals, travel abroad, etc.. However, it should be noted that prior to this date international NGOs and foundations gave very substantial financial assistance to research work, book and journal publishing, as well as specialization and international training for a number of researchers. By financing summer schools, courses and other forms of alternative education, they also helped many researchers to survive difficult years of low funding, in particular during 1993 which was characterized by a rate of inflation of one billion percent.
[12] The problem which financial hardship causes is the lack of interest among young people in working in the research institutes: the salaries of university lecturers are twice as high and they have additional means of earning income by taking part in the projects which are carried out by the institutes organized at the university faculties. The faculties are financed by the Ministry for Education and the Ministry of Science and Technology. At the same time, it is easier to promote university lecturers to higher positions than in the institutes, as the requirements for academic positions are lower than for research positions. A large number of young scholars have gone abroad, while many of them acquire jobs in the NGO sector, in political parties, private market agencies, media and similar institutions (where the salaries are between three and ten times higher). The majority of the employees in research institutes are older people and women (in Yugoslavia this is a very general indicator of the non-attractiveness of this job).
[13] Since the establishment of the "third" Yugoslavia, the vast majority of research work in research institutes has had a pro-opposition orientation. Almost right to the end, the regime of Slobodan Milosevic did not try to disseminate research work and the criticism of the regime contained therein, except by exhausting the finances of research institutions. The Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Serbia did not discriminate against pro-opposition institutes or their researchers in regular bids for project financing, but often "redirected" the very low funds planned for financing science to other purposes or to pro-regime-oriented institutes. Of course, a number of researchers were on the "black list" of the state media and pro-regime publishers. However, they were able to publish their works in academic journals and independent publishing houses, participate in conferences at home and abroad, and appear in the alternative media, all up to a point which guaranteed their isolation from the mass public.
[14] The weakening of the regime was accompanied by its attack on the freedom and autonomy of universities, i.e. by the establishment of partial control over universities. When pro-opposition university staff were sacked from universities (1998-1999), the situation in which they found themselves was alleviated by the creation of alternative educational institutions which were financed from abroad. The institutes were spared somewhat from this attack, primarily because they were not involved in work with students. The regime’s plan for imposing control over the institutes (a draft law had already been prepared) was "forgotten" when the regime faced serious threats to its survival from 1997 onwards. Control over institutes was carried out through management boards, composed of the representatives of the nomenclature of the ruling parties. In the last two years of its rule, the regime had practically no loyal intellectuals.
[15] The international community had a controversial influence on the development of science in Yugoslavia. On the one hand, international funding of a number of research projects and assistance for researchers helped science to survive. On the other hand, the international sanctions imposed on Yugoslavia in 1992 affected it in a very negative way. The sanctions effectively blocked exchanges between Yugoslav researchers and the international academic community: the importation of international journals and books was stopped, traveling abroad was made more difficult and a majority of international projects were halted. Researchers were punished twice – by their own government and the international academic community. Personal contacts and solidarity of foreign colleagues lessened the effects of the sanctions to some extent, but this was not enough to compensate for the lack of international cooperation. The change of regime in October 2000 had a significant impact on the freedom of scientific work and openness to the world. However, the financial status of research institutions has not yet changed. It is important to stress the role which public opinion surveys played in removing Milosevic's party from power. The results of public opinion surveys before the 2000 elections put strong pressure on opposition parties to form an united coalition by demonstrating that this was the only way to win the elections. On the other hand, these surveys increased the self-confidence of opposition-minded voters by showing them that an anti-regime mood was widespread and that no attempts to forge the election results could significantly distort the election outcome.
[16] Established in 1957. Part of the University of Belgrade since 1981. Staff: 60 full-time employees.
[17] An independent Center for Political Studies and Public Opinion Research was set up in the Institute of Social Sciences in December 1963 (with four regular programs: a program of public opinion research; a program of research on (mass) communication; a program of research on voters' political and electoral behavior; and a program of theoretical and methodological research). The Center was the first and, for many years, the only institution of its kind in the then socialist countries and in the Balkans. Since a large part of the data presented to the public were primarily political in content, conflicts between the Center and the regime were inevitable.
[18] Between 1964 and 1971 the Center conducted annual surveys of Yugoslav public opinion with an omnibus character. The results and analyses were published in a series of collective annual publications (Yugoslav Public Opinion on Current Political and Social Issues, 1964, 1965 and 1966, and Yugoslav Public Opinion on Current Economic and Social Issues, 1964, 1965 and 1970) and a series of collective and individual studies (e.g., Ethnic Distance in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [SFRY], Public Attitudes Towards Authentic Values in Culture and Barometer of Public Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction). The Center also conducted snap inquiries on the reaction of citizens to current political events (e.g., Public Reactions to the 1968 Student Protests and Public Reactions to the 21st Session of the Presidency of the League of Communists Central Committee [LCYCC]). The public opinion research program included special surveys, either with respect to specific themes of research or the views of particular social groups (e.g. Yugoslav Public Opinion on the League of Communists and the Forthcoming Congress, Yugoslav Public Opinion and the Eighth Congress of the LCY, Yugoslav Public Opinion on Economic Reform, Yugoslav Public Opinion and Economic Problems, Farmers' Public Opinions on Current Problems of the Village, Yugoslav Public Opinion on Current Problems of National Defense, Aspects of the Public Opinions of Young People, Yugoslav Public Opinion – Attitudes of Youth and Attitudes Towards Youth and Citizens' Reactions to Unemployment).
[19] As part of its research on political and electoral behavior, the Center conducted surveys on the elections in 1965, 1967 and 1969, the results of which were published in a series of books entitled Parliamentary Elections in 1965, 1967 and 1969. In 1966 it organized a symposium entitled “The Electoral System in Conditions of Self-Management” and published the papers in a book with the same title. The studies “The Republican and National Composition of Employees of Federal Bodies” and “Voters' Participation in Federal Parliamentary Elections” were also published. Within the program of research on mass communications, research was carried out on the circulation and influence of the mass media in Yugoslavia (The Mass Media in Yugoslavia), the circulation, content and influence of certain domestic newspapers, as well as foreign propaganda (Yugoslavia in the Foreign Propaganda Program of Foreign Radio Stations, Foreign Propaganda in Yugoslavia). Two books were published within the framework of this program: Mass Communication as a Scientific Discipline and Freedom of Information and Propaganda in the Contemporary International Community.
[20] As far back as 1964 the Center started international academic cooperation, initially with similar institutions in the USA and later with institutions in Western Europe (there were still no institutions of this kind in Eastern Europe and the closed regimes in that part of the world did not tolerate international cooperation). Foreign expertise and financial assistance, international competition and the affirmation and opportunity for synchronized comparisons through joint research were the main motives for the Center’s participation in international research projects such as The Transformation of Values in Yugoslav Society, The Prestige of Professions or Forms of National Identification. However, one international project from this period proved almost fatal for the Center’s continued existence. The Center’s staff participated as the complete equals of their partners in the USA and a number of Western European countries in the project Opinion Makers in the Modern World, as illustrated by a series of publications (Opinion Makers: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Yugoslavia's Social Structure and the Formation of Public Opinion, The Structure, Mobility and Social Circles of Opinion Makers, Values, Attitudes and Views of Opinion Makers, Forms of Communication: Influence on Opinion Makers and the Influence of Opinion Makers). However, the regime at that time was totally unwilling to become the subject of research that dealt with political and social elites. Before the end of the incident provoked by this project, the Center was used as a tool in the conflict between conservatives and liberals, and this brought the first phase of its work to an end. The Center was labeled as politically subversive and became unacceptable to political organizations and communities. The stigma of being supporters of the liberals, combined with the findings of public opinion polls which presented the regime with a less pleasing image of itself than hitherto, were enough to warrant the abolition of systematic research on Yugoslav public opinion.
[21] In an effort to compensate for the deficiencies in this program of public opinion research, the Center turned towards problem-oriented research. Since political organizations and communities were almost the only source of finance for empirical research, the Center sought financial support from less rigid political groups. Permanent research arrangements were established with the City of Belgrade in 1972, the Serbian Youth League in 1976 and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in 1984. Several series of books and other publications by single or collective authors emanated from this research; the majority were published by the analytical and research departments of the above-mentioned organizations. The titles of these publications illustrate the directions of research in this period: The Nature of Interests, The Interests of Young People, The Values of Serbian Youth, Attitudes and Orientations of Yugoslav Youth, The Socio-political Engagement of Youth, The Socio-economic and Material Position of Youth, The Social Activism of Young People in Serbia, The Political Socialization of Young People, Culture and Youth, The Free Time of Young People, Public Forums in Belgrade and The Consciousness and Engagement of Communists. At the end of this period the Center conducted a poll on the extent of religious belief in Belgrade, the results of which were published in five separate publications.
[22] In addition to research under these three long-term arrangements, the Center devoted a great deal of attention during this period to research on communication, including research on communication at work and in political organizations and communities: The Information System in Self-Management Decision-Making, Information in Work Organizations and the Expression of Interests, Information and the Development of Self-Management Relations in Organizations of Associated Labor, Information Processes in Socio-political Organizations. It also conducted surveys of the content, circulation and influence of mass media. There was also a series of surveys of news and propaganda activities directed from abroad towards Yugoslavia and from Yugoslavia abroad: The Dissemination of Foreign Printed and Radio Propaganda in Yugoslavia, International Communication Today and the Objective Conditions for Yugoslavia's External Propaganda Activities, Yugoslavia's System of External Informative and Propaganda Activities, Yugoslavia's Image in the Foreign Press, Foreign Images of Yugoslavia and Directions, Possibilities and Resources for Yugoslavia's External Informative and Propaganda Activity, Finally, there were varied polls on the media: Mass Communication in Serbia, The Openness of Yugoslav Television to Foreign Influences, The Incidence of Reports from Foreign Sources in Serbia's Media, The Knowledge of Yugoslav Citizens About Important Social Questions, Young People in the Mass Communication System and The Presentation of Belgrade in the Yugoslav Press.
[23] This phase of the Center’s life produced considerable theoretical efforts and some noteworthy achievements. The specialization of the academic staff and the research themes encouraged attempts at theoretical generalization. The best of these were studies produced by staff members for their own personal promotion or to gain academic qualifications, but were nevertheless still part of projects for scientific funds (Value Orientations, Personal Characteristics and Class Membership, An Approach to the Study of the Value Dimensions of International Television Exchange, The Science of Communication, Mass Communication in the Modern World, Intercultural Communication Through the Media in a Multicultural Society, The Processes and Function of Early Political Learning and The Role of the Press in Political Socialization). The Center’s rich fund of accumulated data was extensively used in these works. From the 1970s onwards the Center’s collaborators appeared increasingly as authors of articles in scientific periodicals and papers delivered at scientific conferences at home and abroad, or as co-authors of projects conducted by other scientific institutions in Yugoslavia.
[24] In the mid-1970s the Center had shifted the focus of its attention from suppressed and unchallenging research on public opinion to research on political relations as determinants of social consciousness. The reorientation towards political problems was manifested in a move towards political institutions, organizations and ideology in projects that were carried out by some of the Center’s collaborators for the Republican Scientific Fund. Theoretical and comparative studies based on the appropriate foreign literature in the fields of political science and political sociology (Political Sociology, Ideology and Social Reality and Modern Political Parties) created a theoretical basis for the Center’s concentration on political processes and institutions.
[25] At the start of the 1980s Yugoslav society found itself in a deep political, economic and moral crisis. Public opinion surveys revealed a weakening of identification with the regime, a decline in the reputation of the League of Communists and widespread dissatisfaction of citizens with the social situation and their own positions. Economic stagnation and the state of ethnic relations provoked a high level of dissatisfaction. Ethnic relations were judged to be bad at the Yugoslav level, although relations within smaller territorial units (except Kosovo and Metohia) and multinational communities (Bosnia-Herzegovina and Voivodina) were considered good or at least satisfactory. This was supported by the assumption (dear to researchers) that the perceived ethnic tensions were primarily the result of clashes between the republican national bureaucracies in their struggle for a dominant position within Yugoslavia, while the mood of the general public remained within the bounds of openness and national tolerance. Although unsystematic and partial, empirical evidence suggested that public opinion was beginning to change, and national affiliation was becoming more important than all other social and demographic characteristics as the factor that distinguished and homogenized citizens with otherwise very different views. This change was at that time quantitative. Only surveys conducted in 1985, 1986, 1989 and 1990 revealed a qualitative change in the determination of public opinion marked by the complete domination of national affiliation over all other group characteristics.
[26] At any event, as a result of the crisis at the start of the 1980s, the general public woke up from its lethargic satisfaction and realized that its future was not in either its own or good hands. Groups and movements outside the formal institutional system appeared at that time and articulated a political alternative. The young, educated and qualified part of the public accepted these alternative ideas, but the bulk of the public remained for some years politically passive, its dissatisfaction diffuse and undefined. All these changes were nevertheless early signs of a revival of public opinion and they induced the regime to revive research on the mood of the general public. Faced with a social and political crisis and divisions within its own ranks, the League of Communists of Yugoslavia resorted to public opinion research as a way of obtaining information about the mood of its members and the general public. The Center conducted surveys (whose results were published in the books “Yugoslavs on the Social Crisis”, “The Youth of 1986” and “Children of the Crisis”). The end of this phase of the Center’s activities was marked by the last survey of public opinion in the "second" Yugoslavia, which the Center conducted in 1990 for the Federal Government in cooperation with university institutes in Ljubljana, Zagreb, Sarajevo and Skopje. The results of this survey were published in the book Yugoslavia at a Turning Point in Crisis. This survey was also the last time that customers showed ambitions to control the timing of the release of some of the findings. As far as the customers were concerned, all research in this period was motivated by the determination of the regime to hold on to power at all costs, although the price of doing so was initially cosmetic changes and in the end a sharp break with the norms and values of its own ideological system. The regime wanted to find out what changes the general public saw as necessary and inevitable, and the extent to which it would tolerate the everyday frustrations that resulted from planned reforms.
[27] A feature of the Center’s activities in this period was intensive empirical work. In addition to the above-mentioned surveys, the Center completed and published the following studies: The Social-political Organization of Youth, The National Consciousness of Serbian Youth, The Political Culture of Serbian Youth, Changes in the Value Orientations of Serbian Youth, The Social Consequences of Unemployment, Belgraders on Social Differences, The Thirteenth Session of the LCYCC (a study of activities that included observation of discussions in basic party organizations) and Interests and Engagements of the League of Communists. These and other studies of republican or Yugoslav themes demonstrated that the liberation of the general public from the debilitated values of an out-dated ideological system was in full flood and that the differentiation and homogenization of the public on a national basis were both widespread and profound. While the first change provided a basis for predictions that society would move towards democracy, the second was a warning that the “second” Yugoslavia would inevitably break up.
[28] Anti-communism and nationalism were the ideological and political tenets of all the newly-formed political movements that were later legalized as political parties, although the alternative to communism was formulated, if at all, in only the most general programs, or, as in the case of the market economy, was accepted by the public only in principle. During the general collapse of accepted values and the confusion that characterized the public mood in this period, traditional values and traditional determinants of personal and group identity proved most resistant to the crisis. They offered salvation and a safe haven from traumatic realities. Nationalism and religious revivalism came to the forefront in the Yugoslav political scene and filled the vacuum left by the collapse of the communist regime. The results of public opinion research published in “Yugoslavs on the Social Crisis” and “Children of the Crisis” provided the first indications, while the results published in “Yugoslavia at a Turning Point in Crisis” were a clear signal of the country's inevitable break-up. All social conflicts had already been translated into national problems, public opinion was divided and homogenized on the same basis, and the national bureaucracies were widely accepted as the genuine and only champions of national interests.
[29] Another feature of the 1980s was that the Center finally acquired competitors. On the eve of the break-up of Yugoslavia, the hunger for information on the views of the general public and political factors led to a veritable flood of regional, republican and Yugoslav research projects. Although some were no more than amateur improvisations using small samples and dilettante methodology (whose findings could be indicative, but never representative), there is no doubt that the sharp increase in research reflected a legitimization of public opinion and public opinion research, resulting from the fact that the general public now gained the status of an unavoidable factor in political life. The competition gave birth to a number of institutions that, thanks to the application of professional methods, took their place in the small world of public opinion research. Competition had a positive effect on the Center, because it encouraged staff to use their competitive advantages – experience, organization of work, quality and the ability to analyze research problems theoretically. The break-up of the federal state and its institutions, the disappearance of virtually all the organizations that had financed the Center’s empirical research, the disappearance of the "second" and the appearance of the "third" Yugoslavia, and especially the legalization of the multiparty political system were the special stimuli for the Center’s research work.
[30] At the start of the 1990s, after the legalization of a multiparty political system in the fall, the social climate for public opinion research became very different to what it had been before. Firstly, the fact that political parties had been legalized was in itself a sign of democratization. The existence of political parties and the holding of multiparty elections strengthened the role of the general public in political life. They ended the certainty of unlimited rule by one party because power was now won and lost in multiparty elections. The mood of the public, or at least the electorate, was of great importance to political parties, particularly in the period leading up to elections when electoral programs and speeches are adapted to fit the mood of potential voters. Secondly, the general public became politically active. The processes of party identification, which began before the first multiparty elections, are still continuing. Thirdly, in their party manifestos and electoral programs the parties presented a variety of political and ideological choices to the general public. These programs encouraged the public to make political choices, while having an opinion on a social or economic problem was no longer conformism or merely permitted divergence from the almost completely rigid patterns of the single ruling ideology.
[31] However, despite a general improvement, conditions for research on public opinion remained far from good. Political parties cannot be expected to initiate and finance public opinion surveys except for their own needs and interests. This means, on the one hand, that they can be counted on to finance research primarily only in pre-election periods, while, on the other hand, the results of opinion polls are not published unless, of course, they are very favorable to the party concerned. The private sector is still too weak to provide a permanent source of finance, while state institutions (above all the federal or Serbian republican governments, which are the most logical source of finance for systematic research on public opinion) have not shown any interest in this kind of undertaking. The illusion that political organizations are interested in public opinion research has been created by surveys conducted before elections, which have taken place nine times in Serbia in the period 1990-2000. Almost all institutes and agencies for public opinion research manage to find financiers among the parties and the media. The Center itself has therefore relied primarily on the media for research during electoral campaigns and periods between elections.
[32] An equally serious problem in this period was the low level of public opinion culture. One already historical example of this was the reaction of one opposition party to the Center’s forecast of the results of the December 1990 elections. The accusations that the Center had falsified the findings of its survey of the party affiliations of Serbia's voters made the regime's criticisms of the Center in the late 1960s and early 1970s seem like a mild and friendly rebuke. At this time political parties and their supporters in the media judged research solely according to how favorable it was to the party making the judgment. The passage of time, in which the reality of electoral results has diminished the illusions of the parties, has ensured that this kind of extreme reaction no longer occurs. Of course, the Center has also had exceptionally good experience with newspapers and journalists, some of whom are entirely capable of presenting the results of public opinion research in journalistic fashion. The mass media were the main or an important source of finance for the Center in this period. The general public also lacks a developed public opinion culture. Some people are still hesitant to express their political views, and people's confidence in the reliability of public opinion research as an indicator of the views of the public as a whole is often limited, partly because of limited experience, and partly because individuals often base their judgments on how favorable the results of surveys are to the parties they support.
[33] At the present moment the Center has 10 full-time employees (political scientists, sociologists and psychologists), five holding a Ph.D. degree, three a MA degree, and two university graduates. Five of the Center’s collaborators are on the list of the top ten academics who have been cited most often in the Yugoslav scientific journals in the past ten years.
[34] The part-time staff include 24 consultants (university professors and assistants, collaborators of academic institutions) who are engaged temporarily according to needs for specific topics and projects; Permanent network of field researchers: 155 selected psychologists, sociologists and political scientists in Serbia and Montenegro, specially trained to carry out face-to-face interviews; Data-processing service: 15 selected students of psychology, sociology and political science, specially trained for data coding and technical procedures concerning content analysis; Monitoring group: 10 selected psychologists, sociologists, political scientists and journalists in Serbia and Montenegro, specially trained to monitor, analyze and evaluate media content; Presenter group: 10 selected psychologists, sociologists and political scientists, specially trained to present focus group discussions.
[35] During the past few years the Center has focused on research work in the following fields: Public opinion surveys using Yugoslav, Serbian, Montenegrin, regional and special samples: regular omnibus or specialized polls concerning political, economic, ethnic and other social issues, trust in institutions, parties and political leaders, attitudes towards international institutions, organizations, states, personalities; election predictions; Research on specific phenomena: political and election behavior, political parties, electoral system, political culture, political marketing, political motivation, values, corruption, "gray" economy, social and political elites, non-governmental organizations; Media research: media system, functioning, media exposure, consumption, audience structure, credibility, media content, effects; Political consulting: identification of problems, recommendations for short-term political action, "images" of parties and leaders, pre-election and between-election campaigns, motivation; recommendations for long-term strategic political action – solution proposals and problem-solving methods, effects forecasting; Theoretical analysis: problems of transition and democratization, comparative analysis of processes in Eastern Europe; Selection, training, control of work of the field research network, Data-processing service, Monitoring group, Presenter group; Publishing: Publishing of books, collection of works and other publications resulting from the work of the Center; Presentation of results to the academic public (articles in domestic and international journals, organization of and participation in domestic and international conferences, congresses, round table and panel discussions, etc.), and to the general public (press conferences, appearances in media, etc.); Computer database of empirical surveys (updating).
[36] The Center conducted 83 empirical surveys in the period between 1990 and 2001 for domestic and foreign clients (19 based on Yugoslav, 47 on Serbian and 17 on Montenegrin samples) (see appendix). Two of these surveys were historical milestones for the Center: the research on the 1990 elections, the findings of which appeared in “From Election Rites to Free Elections”, the first book published on Serbia's multiparty elections; and the survey of Yugoslav public opinion in 1992, which was the first study of this kind in the "third" Yugoslavia. The Center also organized three round table discussions on the elections. The Center is the only research organization in Yugoslavia with a computer database encompassing all the Center’s surveys from 1988 onwards (88 surveys in total). Access to the computer database is possible on commercial grounds or on a reciprocal principle. However, not all surveys are accessible to the public due to a full or partial embargo imposed by clients on the results of particular surveys.
[37] Although the Center devoted equal attention in its empirical research to election surveys and general surveys of public opinion, there was a great level of disproportion in the publication of the results of both types of survey. The explanation for this disproportion lies partly in the greater interest of the academic and general public in electoral studies, and partly in the interests of the researchers themselves (especially as they were permanently engaged in a project on parliamentary government financed by the Republican Scientific Fund). It is also clear, however, that frequent elections and continuous party power struggles have made electoral research more topical and useful, and pushed general surveys of public opinion into the background, making them appear less relevant for an understanding of the social situation. Empirical research on the media was also neglected in this period, although the above-mentioned surveys included data on the use and preferences of the media.
[38] The neglect of public opinion research by comparison with electoral research demonstrates primarily the instrumental relationship of political organizations (in the first place parties) towards this research. Pragmatic goals (information on voting intentions, the popularity of party leaders, the planning and adaptation of political campaigns, the determination of popular reactions to the behavior of the parties, etc.) demonstrate the political instrumentalization of public opinion research in the broadest sense of the term. It would be difficult not to understand why parties have such an attitude towards public opinion research, but this phenomenon shows that the problem of the systematic and continuous supply of political actors with information on the public's mood and the problem of supplying the public with feedback on its own opinions has still to be resolved in this country.
[39] The Center is considered to be the most prestigious institution in Yugoslavia in view of the quality of public opinion polls and other empirical surveys. It applies modern research methodology based on highest international standards. Theoretical achievements of the Center’s staff have been published in numerous books and academic journals. From the very beginning the Center has cooperated with numerous academic and research institutions throughout the world, either as a partner (Columbia University, New York; University of California, Berkeley; State University of Florida, Tallahassee; City University of New York, New York; University of Michigan; Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; University of Berlin), or as a member of international consortiums (World Consortium for the World Values Survey; World Consortium for Comparative Analysis of Electoral Systems). The Center has carried out a number of surveys, polls and media projects in Yugoslavia for foreign clients on a commercial basis (USIA)(USIA), Washington, DC; InterMedia Survey Institute, Washington, DC; Open Society Fund, Belgrade; Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Bonn; USAID/OTI, Belgrade; UNDP, Washington, DC; Penn, Schoen & Berland, Washington, DC – New York; Greenberg, Quinlan & Rosner Research, Washington, DC – New York).
[40] Since the introduction of the multi-party system in Yugoslavia, the Center has conducted nine pre-election polls including election predictions. All of them came far closer to the official election results than any other prediction, while seven (in 1990, 1993, 1996, September and December 2000 – Serbia, and in 1997, 1998 – Montenegro) were characterized by minimal deviations from the election outcomes. The Center’s expert team conducted a series of surveys and elaborated strategic plans of action concerning the 1997 presidential elections in Montenegro (for the Democratic Party of Socialists), the 1998 parliamentary elections in Montenegro (for the Democratic Party of Socialists), the 2000 local government elections in Montenegro (for the Democratic Party of Socialists), the 2001 parliamentary elections in Montenegro (for the Socialist People's Party), the September 2000 presidential and federal parliamentary elections in Serbia (for the Democratic Opposition of Serbia) and the December parliamentary elections in Serbia (for the Democratic Opposition of Serbia).
[41] In addition to the above-mentioned pre-election surveys, the Center conducted 14 election surveys, 12 political consultation surveys, ten media surveys and 48 public opinion surveys in 1999 and 2000. Between 1997 and 2001 the Center conducted ten rounds of monitoring and analysis of the RFE/RL Program in Serbia and Montenegro six rounds of focus group discussions and analysis of RFE/RL in Serbia; four rounds of focus group discussions and analysis of Voice of America (VOA) in Serbia, two rounds of focus group discussions and analysis of Deutsche Welle in Serbia, two rounds of focus group discussion and analysis of domestic media and two rounds of focus group discussion and analysis of RFE/RL in Montenegro.
[42] The findings and analysis of conducted elections, public opinion and media surveys were published in articles in scientific journals and in books. Besides those already mentioned, they include: Challenges of Parliamentarism – The Case of Yugoslavia in the Early 1990s (in English, 1995), Between Denial and Support – Public Opinion on the Legitimacy of the Third Yugoslavia (1977), Elections to the Federal and Republican Parliaments of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) 1990-1996 (in English, 1998), Political Marketing (2000), etc.. The data from conducted surveys have been largely publicized and cited in domestic and foreign media.
[43] Standard samplemodels are quota or probability, multistage, stratified, proportional samples. Sub-samples include Voivodina, the Belgrade area, Central Serbia and Montenegro in proportion to their size. Quota criteria are: stratum (urban – rural), gender, age, level of education and ethnic background of respondents. These models apply stratification in three stages (region – county – municipality) with a random choice of segments. The standard sample size is 1400-2000 respondents for Serbia, 1000-1800 for Montenegro, and 2000-3200for Yugoslavia. Other sample models are: snowball, panel, area, cluster, etc..
[44] Standard data collection techniques include face-to-face interviews, group interviews, in-depth interviews, panel surveys, focus groups, content analysis, media monitoring, observations, telephone interviews, etc.. The interview, i.e. the questionnaire for asking questions and registering answers, includes various instruments: attitude scales (Likert), knowledge tests, evaluation scales, batteries of closed questions, open-ended questions, projective questions, demographics, etc. The interview procedure is a standard one: respondents are guaranteed anonymity and are free to accept or reject the interview. The refusal rate in the Center's surveys is relatively low (on average around 13% for probability samples and less than 10% for quota samples).
[45] Set up in 1962. Seven full-time members of staff. The Center for Demographic Research has carried out a number of research projects on population (birth rate, fertility, population policy, migration, etc.) either on its own or in cooperation with the federal, republican or local statistical bureaus. It is known for its high-quality forecasts of population trends based on a special methodology. Due to the lack of an updated population census, these forecasts are the most reliable source of information on population. The Center has been publishing the journal Population since 1963. The study “Family planning as a lifestyle” (1999) contains many empirical data used as secondary sources for analyses.
[46] The Center for Sociological Research conducted very few empirical studies during the 1990s. It focuses primarily on theoretical analysis of the crisis in Yugoslav/Serbian society and the process of transition. Before 1990 the Center for Sociological Research conducted several empirical studies: Desires and Fears of the Peoples of Yugoslavia 1965, Yugoslav Students and Socialism 1966, Social Position and Orientation of Rural Youth 1971, Ethnic Belonging and Values of High School Youth 1973, Social Strata and Social Consciousness 1977, New Directions of Social Structure Change 1989. The results of these studies are published in books of the same titles.
[47] This organization was set up in 1971 as the result of a merger between the Institute for Criminological and Criminal Research (established in 1960) and the Institute for Sociological Research (1961). It has 39 full-time staff and is state-owned. The Institute is involved more in criminological research than sociological research. Recent research within the latter area includes Cultural Patterns and Ethnic Mentality (1993), Mobility and Social Structure (1994), Change of Cultural Patterns and Development of Serbia (1995), whose findings are presented in books of the same titles.
[48] Established in 1961. Employs 30 full-time staff. State-owned. The main objective of the Institute is to study upbringing and education. Regular research activities include studies on socialization processes and the development of morals, especially since the 1980s. Research is focused on children and adolescents. The results of partial research are presented in total in the books A Moral Personality (1989), Psychological Bases of Philanthropy (1990), Children, Media and Violence (1998), etc.
[49] Established in 1962 as the institute of the Faculty of Philosophy. Employs three full-time staff, but a large number of professors at the Psychology Department of the Faculty as well as collaborators from other institutes and doctoral and master students are involved in its research projects. State-owned. During the 1990s the Institute's researchers mainly used the empirical findings of other institutions as a basis for secondary analysis in the field of social psychology. In the period prior to the 1990s they implemented a number of empirical research projects (on self-management, values and national identity). The Institute conducted a survey on the students’ protests in 1992 and the findings were publicized in the book. The transformation of values was elaborated in 1995 in the article Social changes and changes of values.
[50] Established in 1968 as the Institute of the Faculty of Political Science. Employs 37 full-time staff. State-owned. Field work network: 70 members. Up until 1989 the Institute conducted nine public opinion surveys in Serbia and between 1989 and 2001 almost 80. Probability samples and quota samples were used for 1200 to 3500 respondents. Data collection techniques: personal interviews, polls and focus groups. Clients: government (ministries), media, political parties, NGOs, including international agencies and media. The results of 30 surveys conducted between 1992 and 2000 are accessible in row form on computer disks. There is a permanent or temporary time- and content-related embargo on the publication of research results. The Institute is interested in participating in the establishment of the national database.
[51] Established in 1971 as the institute of the Faculty of Philosophy. One full-time employee. Research projects are carried out by professors at the Sociology Department of the Faculty. State-owned. Field work network: 15 members. The Institute is oriented primarily to theoretical work and research on social structures. From 1991 to 2001 the Institute conducted 11 surveys. Probability samples and quota samples were used for 1100 respondents for Yugoslavia, 800 for Serbia and 500 for Voivodina. Data collection techniques: personal interviews, polls and group interviews. Clients: government (ministries) and NGOs. The results of all the above-mentioned surveys conducted between 1991 and 2001 are accessible in row form on computer disks. There is no embargo on the publication of research results. The Institute is interested in participating in the establishment of the national database.
[52] Established in 1981 as the Center for Philosophy and Social Theory in the Institute of Social Sciences, it has operated as a separate institute since 1992. Employs 30 full-time staff. State-owned. The main orientation of this Institute is theoretical. The Institute rarely conducts empirical research on its own, but its researchers regularly use empirical data for secondary analysis. In 1993 the Institute conducted an empirical research project entitled "Social Character and Social Change in the Light of Ethnic Conflicts" (the book of the same title was published in 1995), while in 2001 it is working on the project Politics and Everyday Life. Research is financed by NGOs and international foundations.
[53] During the 1990s a large number of market agencies conducting public opinion research were established. Apart from the five agencies mentioned above, the following agencies are actively involved in research: Medijum, Partner, Marten Bord and Milenijum (Belgrade) and Damar (Podgorica). Three NGOs are also engaged in empirical research – Center for Policy Studies, Center for Liberal Democratic Studies (both from Belgrade) and CEDEM from Podgorica. The oldest research organization engaged in media research and occasional public opinion research is the Center for Program and Audience Research of the Serbian Radio and Television Broadcasting Corporation. 9 (Note9: The compilation of data for Medijum, Partner, Marten Board, Milenijum, Damar, the Center for Liberal Democratic Studies and CEDEM is in progress. The chances of finishing this work are poor due to the lack of interest within these institutions.)Except for the Center for Program and Audience Research, all other organizations dealing with public opinion research operate on the market. The best position in this respect is enjoyed by the agencies which are members of large international business networks and make large profits with research projects on markets for goods and services (Strategic Marketing, Medijum). The other organizations, including academic institutes, obtain funds from domestic clients (political parties, state bodies, media) or from international clients (state agencies, media, institutes, foundations). As a rule, the clients do not allow research findings to be published or only allow it to a limited extent.
[54] Established in 1952 in Belgrade; the departments in Novi Sad and Pristina were established in 1974 and 1981 respectively. State-owned. Employs 11 full-time staff in Belgrade and 10 in Novi Sad. Field work network: 150 members. Engaged in political public opinion research since the beginning of the 1960s. Clients: government, political parties. The Center conducted 30 public opinion surveys up to the end of the 1980s and 12 surveys between 1989 and 2001. In this later period it conducted approximately 80 surveys on media use. Standardized samples are probability samples of 1200-3600 for Serbia and 300-1800 for Voivodina. Data collection techniques: personal interviews, telephone interviews. The results of all surveys conducted between 1989 and 2001 are accessible in row form on computer disks. The Center regularly publishes findings from political public opinion surveys. It is very interested in participating in the establishment of the national database. It has actually planned to establish its own database, but this has not been implemented due to financial problems.
[55] A private agency, established in 1989. Employs 14 full-time staff. Field work network: 40 members. Engaged in political public opinion research since 1993. To date Mark-plan has conducted 30 surveys of this kind, using probability samples of 1800 respondents for Yugoslavia, 1500 for Serbia and 500 for Voivodina. Data collection techniques: personal interview The results of 28 surveys are accessible in row form on computer disks. Publishes findings of political public opinion surveys quarterly. The agency is interested in participating in the establishment of the national database.
[56] A private agency, established in 1990. Since its foundation Argument has conducted public opinion surveys for clients at home and abroad (organizations, government institutions, agencies, media, NGOs). Employs 10 full-time staff. Field work network: 320 members. To date Argument has conducted 50 political public opinion surveys, using probability samples of 1200-1600 respondents for Yugoslavia and 1000-1600 for Serbia. Data collection techniques: personal interviews, in-depth interviews and telephone polls. The results of 42 surveys are accessible in row form on computer disks. The agency is interested in participating in the establishment of the national database.
[57] A private agency, established in 1990. Scan has been conducting public opinion surveys since 1990 for clients at home and abroad (organizations, state institutions, agencies, media, NGOs). Employs 14 full-time staff. Field work network: 263 members. To date it has conducted 31 surveys of political public opinion, using probability samples of 2200 respondents for Yugoslavia, 1800 for Serbia and 1200-1500 for Voivodina. Data collection techniques: personal interviews. The results of the 31 surveys are accessible in row form on computer disks. Research findings are published in the media. The agency is interested in participating in the establishment of the national database.
[58] A private enterprise, established in 1996. It has been conducting political public opinion surveys since 1997 for domestic organizations, political parties and media, as well as for international state institutions, organizations and agencies. Employs 36 full-time staff. Field work network: 986 members. To date this company has conducted more than 50 surveys of political public opinion, using probability samples of at least 1600 respondents for Yugoslavia, 1500 for Serbia and 1200 for Voivodina. Data collection techniques: personal interviews. The results of all surveys are inaccessible in row form. At present the company is constructing a database which will include 20 surveys carried out between 1999 and 2001. There is a permanent or temporary time- and content-related embargo on the publication of research results. The company is interested in participating in the establishment of the national database.
[59] A private NGO, established in 1998. It has been conducting political public opinion surveys since 1999 for domestic political parties, as well as domestic and international organizations, institutions, foundations, NGOs, agencies. Employs 6 full-time staff. Field work network: 60 members. To date the Center has conducted more than 11 surveys of political public opinion, using probability and quota samples of 2000 respondents for Yugoslavia, 1700 for Serbia and 720 for Voivodina. Data collection techniques: personal interviews. The Center for Policy Studies is interested in participating in the establishment of the national database.
[60] A private agency, established in 2000. Employs 9 full-time staff. Field work network: 50 members. It has been conducting political public opinion surveys since it was established. To date Faktor Plus has conducted 21 surveys of this kind for political parties and media, using probability samples of 2500 respondents for Yugoslavia, 2000 for Serbia and 800 for Voivodina. Data collection techniques: polls, personal interviews. The results of all surveys are accessible in row form on computer disks. There is a permanent or temporary time- and content-related embargo on the publication of research results. The agency is interested in participating in the establishment of the national database.
[61] During the past few years bureaus of statistics – federal, republican, provincial, city – have regularly collected, analyzed and published (in periodical specialized publications) data on the basic indicators of development in the fields of industry, manufacturing, services and consumption, as well as data on socio-political communities and organizations, population, culture, arts, etc. The last population census was conducted in 1991, but it was boycotted by ethnic Albanians. The census which was scheduled to take place in 2001 was postponed and will now be conducted in 2002. In view of the massive population migrations during the 1990s, the results of the 1991 census are outdated, while forecasts of population trends are not reliable enough. Statistical bureaus publish their analyses in regular publications. There is no direct access to the database from the population census, but it is possible to commission data processing from the bureaus. The federal and the republican statistical bureaus process and present data on the results of federal and republican elections on the basis of reports by the federal and republican election committees. However the Serbia and Montenegro Statistical Office participated in forging the results of the Yugoslavian presidential elections in September 2000.
[62] Since practically no scientific funds have been available for empirical research in Yugoslavia during the last ten years, this kind of research has been financed by clients at home and abroad. This means that they define access to research results. A majority of contracts with clients contain an article which defines the client as the owner of research results. Usually, the contracts only allow publication and/or use of results if this is authorized by the client. Political parties as clients are of course willing to – and encourage – publication of the results which they believe are a positive reflection of themselves. The same applies to domestic government institutions (Cabinet, ministries, etc) and media. Government agencies and public opinion and marketing organizations from abroad normally place a permanent and complete embargo on research results. Nearly every domestic and international NGO and foundation allows the general public an insight into the results of research they finance; they also encourage the publication of these results in the media, journals and books. Although findings from this research are not considered the property of the client, it is still desirable to obtain the agreement of the client and the institution which carried it out in order to gain direct access to data files.
[63] As already mentioned in the previous part, the financial situation of empirical social research is very unfavorable. Research organizations are dependent on their clients; the clients have their own, usually very pragmatic aims, and as a rule are not interested in systematic research on crucial social phenomena and problems. The present situation is worse than it was at the beginning of the past decade. The change of regime did not produce any improvement in the financial position of academic research institutions (university and non-university-based institutes). Positive changes in this area can be expected after the country overcomes its economic crisis. These changes will only take place if the economy is stimulated and a larger proportion of gross domestic product is allocated to scientific activities. After the change of the regime in Yugoslavia, some very powerful international political and economic actors, for example the European Union, the World Bank, foundations, etc., have expressed an interest in financing large-scale and long-term research projects aimed at the creation of an environment for successful economic and social reforms. However, this interest is still at the idea stage rather than any form of realization.
[64] Nearly every scientific research organization and private public opinion and marketing organization is interested in establishing a national data archive of empirical social research. However, the prospects for the implementation of their expressed interest cannot be regarded as favorable. Firstly, a number of scientific research organizations have nothing to offer the potentially established archive, because they have not been empirically active in the last ten years. Secondly, the scientific research organization and private agencies, which conducted hundreds of empirical projects in the last decade, face two problems: the first problem is the embargo imposed by clients, and the second distrust and competition between these organizations. Thirdly, endeavors of this kind require a solid financial basis, which does not exist. Fourthly, archives of individual organizations and agencies are rather disorganized.
[65] In the case of Yugoslavia, the achievements attained to date regarding the development of empirical research archives in the field of social sciences can undoubtedly be regarded as very poor. The only exception is the database of the ) Center for Political Studies and Public Opinion Research (CPIJM: Database CPIJM Research Data (which has been mentioned several times). However, it should be clearly stated that the level of interest shown by potential users (besides the members of the Center for Political Studies and Public Opinion Research) has been rather low 10 (Note10: Although fees should be charged for extensive use of the Database CPIJM Research Data, domestic scholars have not had to pay anything to date. Low use of the Database CPIJM Research Data can be attributed to insufficient knowledge of potential users regarding access to and handling of computers.)
[66] A good starting point for potential can undoubtedly be found initially in monographs which were made by the scientific institutes in 2001 for the Ministry of Science and Technology. These monographs contain basic data on the institutes, names and descriptions of all the projects implemented between their establishment and 2000, and references to relevant publications. Secondly, all scientific institutes publish jubilee publications on the occasion of their anniversaries, which contain data on the projects carried out. However, it should be taken into account that the above-mentioned sources only provide basic information on empirical research projects – title, time period, methods and techniques applied, presentation of selected processed data and interpretations of findings.
[67] The private agencies which conducted a large number of empirical surveys of public opinion and media in the last decade have said that they are willing to support the establishment of a national data archive on public opinion and media research. However, this common willingness concerns very different aspects: some organizations are only prepared to offer the archive data on the research projects (title, time period, sample type, data collecting techniques) some organizations could offer brief descriptions of the content of research; others could offer questionnaires as well (variables); some are willing to offer distributions of frequencies (marginals); while some organizations could offer complete data files on their research, if it is not under a client embargo. Some agencies are willing to participate with as much data as possible, but have lost some of their own archives. Except for the Center for Political Studies and Public Opinion Research of the Institute of Social Sciences, no other scientific organization in Yugoslavia nor any public opinion or marketing agency have a complete database of their research. Apart from Strategic Marketing, none of them plan to establish a database. This shows that there is still a long way to go from the existing interest and willingness to the actual establishment of a data archive on social science empirical research, which will act as a source of systematic and centralized data.
[68] In order to create the National Database of empirical research in the field of social sciences, the following measures have been taken:
[69] A large number of empirical research projects in the field of social sciences have been conducted in Yugoslavia, especially during the last ten years. The results of the majority of projects are preserved in electronic form (on floppy disks and/or hard disks). They provide an enormous body of data for secondary analysis, interest in which is expressed both by the domestic and international community, i.e. by domestic and international education institutions, political organizations, government institutions, NGO sector, media, etc..
[70] The use of the available data is quite low. This is due to several reasons ranging from the lack of financial resources and a poor level of information and monopolization of the data through to a number of obstacles resulting from different approaches in surveys, operationalization of research problems, and construction of instruments.
[71] The goals of this project are to solve existing problems and eliminate current obstacles in order to facilitate maximum accessibility to and easy exchange of the social empirical research data, primarily for social science researchers but also for other interested users both in Yugoslavia and abroad. These goals would be accomplished by the establishment of a National Database.
[72] The initial stage of the project will include seven academic research institutes which are active in empirical research in the field of social sciences.
[73] Representatives of these institutes will form a consortium for creating the national empirical research database and apply to UNESCO for funding for this project. The Consortium will be an open group with membership open to all other interested research organizations.
[74] Before applying for finance to establish the Database, it is necessary that the representatives of the institutes agree on basic elements relating to the establishment, maintenance and use of the Database.
[75] It is planned that the platform for establishing the Database will be the existing database of the Center for Political Studies and Public Opinion Research (Database CPIJM Research Data). The creation of the Database CPIJM Research Datastarted in September 1998. At present it includes data from 87 surveys with over 13,800 questions and more than 112,000 alternatives/categories. It encompasses all research surveys conducted by the Center between 1988 and 2001. The user interface and all entries in the Database are in English.The Database CPIJM Research Data currently requires about 190 MB of space on a hard disk. The author of the Database is Stanislav Fajgelj.
[76] The Database is written in Microsoft Access. It comprises three separate databases (sub-databases): Main, Working, and Data.
[77] The Main Database is a replicated database (according to Microsoft Access technology), with user control of permitted operations in replicas. This database contains all tables (except data tables), queries, forms, reports, macros and program modules. The main database contains:
[78] This database contains working and temporary maintenance data.
[79] This database contains all data tables and procedures for data import and conversion. Permissible import formats are dBase, Excel, Lotus, etc. Access to this database is only granted to privileged users and is read only to all other users.
[80] The Database is installed by the CPIJM Setup.
[81] Creation of the National Database requires:
[82] In order to create and operate the National Database in the way described above, it is necessary to initiate a project for the Database (system analysis and design) and provide corresponding personnel, hardware and software.
[83] This selection contains 26 surveys. The selection criteria were as follows: potentials of a survey regarding synchronic and diachronic comparability (trend variables), importance and diversity of survey topics within the framework of empirical social research development in Yugoslavia.
[84] Yugoslav public opinion towards the Federal government and the reform program: Conducted in 1990. Probability model sample of 4232 respondents. Contents: demographics, image of the Federal government, knowledge of the reform program, reactions to the reform program, attitudes towards changes in the political system, attitudes toward the introduction of a multi-party system, interethnic relations, ethnical distance, attitudes toward foreign affairs, value priorities, group affiliations, religiousness, ecology.
[85] From election rites to free elections: Conducted in 1990, three waves. Quota sample of 1400 respondents in each wave. Contents: demographics, participation in elections, party support, determination of election behavior (image of political parties and candidates, issues, media), election forecasts.
[86] Public opinion on Serbia in 1991: Conducted in 1991. Quota sample of 1489 respondents. Contents: demographics, participation in elections, party support, determination of election behavior, participation in and reaction to mass political protests.
[87] Yugoslav public opinion in 1992: Conducted in 1992. Quota sample of 1932 respondents. Contents: demographics, popularity of political parties and leaders, attitudes toward countries and ethnic groups, reactions to the sanctions imposed by the international community, use of media.
[88] Public opinion on Serbia in 1992: Conducted in 1992, three waves. Average quota sample of 1073 respondents. Contents: demographics, popularity of political parties and leaders, reactions to the sanctions imposed by the international community, participation in elections, party support, determination of election behavior (image of pa