Review
[1] This report provides a comprehensive and generally complete assessment of the state of the discipline of political science in Estonia. I would argue that its main deficiencies are a lack of evolutionary detail regarding certain academic departments where political studies are conducted, as well as perhaps an overly extensive discussion of the pre-1989 period. In future versions of the report this balance might perhaps be corrected.
[2] The author of the report is certainly correct to say that “Political Science can be regarded as one of the youngest social science disciplines in Estonia.” This youth is felt still today, when occasionally parents and schoolteachers will ask, what is “politoloogia”? Is that where people are taught to be politicians? This is a complicated issue since it is often middle-age parents and teachers, who introduce their children and pupils to new subjects. But if these topics are unknown, then it is quite difficult to adequately propagate them. True, subjects like civics and social studies have become mandatory subjects in Estonian high schools and there have been basic textbooks written. In addition, preparations are under way to introduce a state qualifying exam in social studies, which will then prepare high school graduates much better for entering the social sciences at the university level.
[3] At the same time, however, there has also been a great deal of popular alienation from politics over the last three years. Support for politicians is at an all-time low; trust in public institutions is also minimal. While it cannot be said that this alienation has been carried over directly to an alienation from political science, it is a far cry from the blissful days of the late 1980s, when politics was an innocent affair of idealistic opposition leaders, promising new ethics and popular sovereignty. Indeed, this has forced political scientists to be able to describe and explain more complicated (and perhaps more cynical) situations. Studying politics becomes as much an examination of human weaknesses and failures as it does of abstract theories and models.
[4] Turning to the institutional overview provided in the report, I would note four things. First, on page 5 of the report the author mentions that political science has been a major at the Tallinn Pedagogical University since the early 1990s. Yet, elsewhere he does not provide a more comprehensive overview of this department’s institutional history or current structure. True, the department’s major is slightly broader than that of the Department of Political Science at the University of Tartu, which the author does discuss in detail. However, the TUES’s major, entitled roughly ‘Government and Politics’ is actually the same name, which will now be adopted by the joint degree program to be launched this fall by the two Tartu departments (Political Science and Public Administration). Thus, it would seem to make sense to bring this player into the report. All the more so, because on at least one occasion, the main professor from this department (Georg Sootla) is mentioned.
[5] A similar omission concerns the institutional development of the Department of Public Administration and Social Policy at the University of Tartu. Again, one may argue that its omission is justified to the extent that its formal academic subject is slightly different from that of pure political science. Nevertheless, because the department is listed in the table of theoretical approaches and appendices, it is surprising that it is not mentioned more in section 2 regarding the redefinition of the discipline since 1990.
[6] As an aside, one should mention the fact that the report’s statement “very soon a unified Department of Political Science will emerge again” as a result of the merger of the two departments’ BA-level programs is incorrect. True, the programs were combined as part of the entire restructuring of Estonian higher education in conjunction with the Bologna declaration. However the departments themselves will remain separate, probably for some years to come. Indeed, this raises perhaps a broader commentary on the future of political science in Estonia. Namely, because all of the BA programs in Estonia will in the future be essentially ‘government and politics’ programs (and in this sense Estonia will turn more toward the Scandinavian or even German model of ‘state sciences’), political science - narrowly understood - will become more of an MA topic of study, along with of course the PhD level. Thus, we will not be able to get away from discussing the topic more broadly.
[7] Thirdly, as an additional way of presenting and assessing the different institutions discussed in the report, it may also be worthwhile to present information on the international accreditation of degree programs. This process, which took place in the case of political science last spring, was an important milestone for many of the departments, since it brought them into direct contact with foreign accreditors, who were able to give their own assessments. Many of these insights might also be valuable. Moreover, in May these departments will undergo a second international evaluation of their research achievements. I suspect that this evaluation will be even more rigorous and its conclusions would certainly be beneficial for a project such as this one.
[8] Fourthly, it should be mentioned that there is unfortunately no formal, national association of political science in Estonia as there is in most other countries. This may perhaps be unavoidable, given Estonia’s small size. However, for comparative purposes it should be noted.
[9] Beyond the institutional history provided by the report, it would seem to me that much greater attention should be paid to thematic developments in the region. The structure of the report includes two related sections on this topic. However, it would be my suggestion to try and integrate these sections more. Namely, there should be more discussion of where the approaches listed in the table in section 3 have been used in the publications listed in section 4. At the moment it appears that there is a considerable gap between the two sections. Naturally, this would be quite a bit of work in terms of evaluating these publications. However, it would provide a much deeper evaluation of the intellectual development in these countries, which I suspect would interest other political scientists the most.
[10] Again, as an aside, it would seem to me that the CB project as a whole would be able to contribute much more to the stock-taking in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by focusing more on thematic and approach-level changes in these countries, rather than simply on institutional overviews. An interesting problematics here would be to assess the degree to which CEE scholars remain essentially ‘sub-contractors’ for Western European projects. To what extent have any CEE scholars been able to carry out and publish long-term research projects on their own? In a recent lecture 1 (Note1: Delivered during the “Conference on Political Science Research in Eastern Europe”, jointly sponsored by the Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies and the European Consortium for Political Research, 9-10 November 2001, European University Institute, Florence, Italy.), Elemér Hankiss attempted to trace the epistemological evolution of CEE scholars during the last 10 years. He sought to conceptualize precisely the stages of development, whereby CEE scholars first began simply reading and learning about Western theories, then they applied these concepts together with Western partners, and finally in some cases CEE have been able to make independent contributions to the field. Nevertheless, such breakthroughs have been few and far between. Naturally, a full assessment of these developments across countries can be done by leaders of the project. But it would probably be good if also country rapporteurs were able to evaluate these changes in a critical manner.
[11] Lastly, it would be important to assess the participation of Estonian political scientists in internationally recognized conferences such as regular meetings of the American Political Science Association (APSA), the International Political Science Association (IPSA), and the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). To be sure, these are not the only important forums for scholarly exchange. However, they do indicate the degree to which political scientists attempt to participate actively in the broader circles of the discipline.
[12] To provide an evaluation of the state of the discipline in political science is not an easy task for two reasons. One is the overlap with related sub-fields such as public administration. As part of the expectation to provide more ‘practical’ knowledge, political science degree programs as well as research itself is often pushed toward policy analysis or public management issues. As a result, a report such as this one is obliged also to reflect some of these trends. Secondly, and similarly, political science often blurs into policy analysis in the form of think tanks, research centers, and policy institutes. On this score, the report focused mainly on the Institute for International and Social Studies, to the neglect of several others. 2 (Note2: Note only institutions like the Foreign Policy Institute or the PRAXIS Center for Policy Studies, but also the Future Studies Institute and certain other small research teams.) To be sure, it is an open question, how broad one pushes a report and project such as this one. This is therefore a consideration both for the author as well as the project organizers. However, it is my impression that it remains a bit unanswered, at least as far as this current draft is concerned.
Tartu, 2002
