[1] One of the ways to describe the world of scientific activities is to apply to it the term of “discipline”. The image of “discipline”, according to Goodin and Klingemann, is closely associated with the idea of “order maintenance” or supervision “both over those working within it and, most especially, over those aspiring to do so” (Goodin and Klingemann, 1996, 5). A necessary prerequisite for the discipline is the existence of professional community, whose members share the “self-imposed standards and norms”, into which the incoming members of the profession are socialized as well. Following this sketchy concept of discipline, the question in the title of this presentation could be read as follows: is there a professional community of political scientists in Lithuania already, what are its standards and norms and whether these standards are imposed upon the new members? The rationale for asking such a question could be better understood if the historical context of the emergence of political science in Lithuania is taken into account.
[2] Emergence of political science as an academic discipline in Lithuania starts only in 1989-1991. These are the years when the process for regaining independence from the Soviet Union started and was successfully accomplished in Lithuania. Surely, some political science research existed before that period. For example, more than 100 publications of the interwar period (the years of the independent state of Lithuania in 1918-1940) can be considered as political science writings (Budzinauskas, 1993). Researchers of that period had written about Lithuanian geopolitics, nationalism, theories of state and constitutionalism, there was some writing on political ideologies, political institutions and political parties. However, before the Second World War the political science as discipline has not been formed yet: there were very few cases of independent thinking and research (e.g. Mykolas Riomeris' writings on state and constitutionalism) and political science research community did not exist.
[3] After the Second World War Lithuania became the republic of the Soviet Union for 45 years and any research in any social science discipline could be done only under the umbrella of the official communist ideology, which always meant the inclusion of references from K. Marks, F. Engels and/or V. Lenin. Referring to these times, some in Lithuania express the opinion that at that time “systematic, moreover institutionalized political science” could be found neither in Lithuania nor in the whole Soviet Union (Kuris and Lopata, 2000, 2). It does not mean that no research on state or power relations was conducted; only that the research was either ideologized or sporadic or arbitrary.
[4] The discipline of political science in a modern sense started to develop only with the demise of the Soviet Union. In 1989 “enthusiasts from various specialties” (Kuris and Lopata, 2000, 3) published the first issue of the political science journal Politika (Politics), it was later renamed Politologija (Political Science) and in 1991 the Lithuanian Political Science Association was established - the first political science association in the territory of the former Soviet Union. It might be interesting to know that in Lithuanian language the term “politology” was chosen to describe the field instead of the term “political science”. As Krupavičius asserts, “since the Lithuanian academic community was the first to start the reform of the social sciences in the former Soviet Union, the term “politology” travelled very quickly to the Russian language and to other languages of the former USSR” (Krupavičius, 2002, 288). From the very beginning, political studies in Lithuania attracted a huge interest of people, interested in new ways to look at the world and to learn the achievements of Western political science research community during the last forty years.
[5] The institutionalization of the discipline is connected with the establishment of the Institute of International Relations and Political Science (IIRPS) at Vilnius University in 1992. The development of Lithuanian political science for a long time was closely tied to the activities of this Institute. The initial faculty was recruited mostly from other departments of University of Vilnius (department of law, philosophy, history, economy) and consisted, as well, of some visiting professors from abroad. Already in 1992 studies of international relations were begun, and in 1993 the bachelor programme of political science started. In 1992, a newly formed University of Klaipėda introduced political science studies as well. Soon other higher education institutions followed by creating the departments of political science and establishing the political science study programmes. Looking back to the situation in the early 1990s it is surprising how rapidly the new field of political studies evolved to become a field, which bears, at least at the first sight, all the characteristics of the discipline – there are separate departments, responsible for the study programmes and research in political science as well as separate professional periodicals. The questions, however, remains, whether there is a set of shared standards and norms and whether the institutions effectively impose these standards both on the members and newcomers of the discipline.
[6] The first Lithuanian political scientists acquired their educational background in other disciplines, ranging from humanities to natural sciences. The early stage of professional development therefore could be described as “getting familiar with basic theoretical and methodological approaches used by western academic community and acquiring research identities” (Krupavicius, 2002, 293). Teaching necessities to prepare introductory study subjects of political science for university students as well as to develop degree programmes in political science was an underlying moving force of professionalization: “incidentally, there was discussion only about the teaching and nothing about the research” (Kuris and Lopata, 2000, 3). It is not accidently, therefore, that the first periodical of the discipline, first published in 1989-1992, after had experienced a rather long period of stagnation and its fifth issue was published in 1995 only, when the contributions by Lithuanian researchers could make a rather insignificant part of its contents. A statement about the further proliferation of focus on research and not only on studies could be supported by the fact that the bi-annual periodical of political science turned into a quarterly as well as by the fact that a number of other publications, both periodicals and non-periodicals, have been published since 1995.
[7] The first generation of graduates in international relations (master's degree) came in 1993 and of graduates in political science (bachelor's degree) - in 1997. Though the vast majority of the graduates pursued their careers in civil or diplomatic service, part of these graduates continued studies for the doctoral degree. The first doctoral dissertation, prepared by a researcher with a background in political science, was defended in 2000 (the first doctoral dissertation in political science was defended in Lithuania in 1993 by a researcher with a background in social sciences).
[8] The number of both study programmes and students in political science increased rapidly. By the end of 2007, there were around 1500 students, studying in both first and second cycle study programmes in Political science (total number of programmes - 19), and around 6000 students, studying for the degree in Public administration (total number of programmes - 19) (see also Table 1). In 2008, there were 23 scientists, who had defended their PhD in the field of political science and more than 20 young researchers, doing their doctoral studies.
[9] Even though the number of graduates in political science increases, the boundaries and identity of the professional community are still not easily maintained. In 2004, when the Code of Ethics of Political Scientists was under preparation, one of the mostly debated questions was the question concerning who should be identified as a political scientist. The definition was chosen that political scientist is a person who graduated study programme of any level in political science and/or either conduct research, publish or teach in the field of political science. Some definition was felt to be needed because of a still usual practice to present oneself as a political scientist merely on the basis of engagement in public discourse and commentary on political issues. The attempts to maintain the boundaries of discipline by imposing the list of “political scientific” topics (as differentiated from those which should be dealt with by other disciplines, e.g. sociology, psychology, law etc.) are also frequent, but they operate usually at the institutional level and regulate the activities of the new-comers (undergraduate students) to the discipline. Besides, these attempts are restrained by the circumstance that already established researchers all have different ideas concerning what issues should be treated as pertaining specifically to political studies. Both a loose definition of who is political scientist/what is political science and the fact that majority of active researchers in the field of political studies still come from different backgrounds, impacts the shape of discipline and the variety of existing standards and norms, associated with the idea of political science.
[10] Institutionalisation is a necessary prerequisite for the formation and development of discipline. It concentrates human and material resources and provides the space and gives the initiative for more active research. The process of the institutionalisation of political science in Lithuania started in 1992, when IIRPS was established at Vilnius University 2 (Note2: Actually in 1991, the Department of Politology was created in the Faculty of Philosophy, but this department did not develop any study programme and did not produce any noticeable research. The creation was more a symbolic acting in showing the efforts to create a new discipline in the country. In the last years, the status of this department was changed (it is a Centre of Political Studies today and has 3 permanent researchers employed).). The IIRPS is still the strongest institution which educates the majority of members of the Lithuanian academic community of political scientists and conducts most of the research in the field. The Institute gained this position not because it was the first, but mostly because it was established in the biggest Lithuanian university and got a strong support from the researchers from other disciplines of social sciences (notably, history, law, and economics) at the University of Vilnius which had longer academic tradition than other institutions of higher education.
[11] Today, in year 2008, there are 22 accredited universities (both state and private) in Lithuania and 10 of these universities have either faculty or department of political science (see Table 1) 3 (Note3: Faculty is the main structural unit of the university. Faculties have several departments, which have scientific and pedagogical personnel that usually belong to or identify with one academic discipline, and are responsible for the research in certain area as well as for the implementation of associated study programmes.). There are two universities in Lithuania that have faculties devoted to the studies of political science – University of Vilnius and Vytautas Magnus University. IIRPS of Vilnius University has 3 departments; and Institute of Political Science and Diplomacy of Vytautas Magnus University has four departments. 4 (Note4: Although two of them cannot be easily tagged as political science department: departments of public communication and regional studies. Their existence demonstrates the still unsettled processes of development within other academic disciplines as well, and communication studies and regional studies still have not found the stable position and affiliation in the Lithuanian academic community.). Other universities have established departments of political science, which usually are part of the faculty of social sciences. There are nine such political science departments; two universities (Mykolas Romeris University and University of Klaipėda) had established two separate departments, one of political science and the other – of public administration studies. This separation is connected with the official classification of academic disciplines where public administration and political science are considered to be two different study disciplines. So, universities that have several studies programmes and do not have the faculty of political science feel the need to have two separate departments.
[12] The biggest and most active scientifically are the two mentioned faculties of the University of Vilnius and Vytautas Magnus University. Mykolas Romeris University is trying to catch-up in the field of public administration. This University has the biggest (in terms of the number of students) programmes in public administration. The rest of the departments usually are supporting either political science or other study programmes of their university and concentrate on teaching.
[13] Besides departments of the universities, another type of institutions, relevant for the description of the discipline, are various research institutes. Their main difference is that they are involved only in academic research and scientific projects. In Lithuanian the most active research institutions can be divided into three broad groups (see Table 2). The first group comprises the research institutes, which were created by the universities and usually are their structural part. They concentrate on one broad topic considered important for that university (like policy analysis, regional development or strategic studies). The most active and visible, however, is the second group of the research institutes - "think tanks". They usually are independent non-profit organisations devoted to provide the analyses for the policy makers. Some of them might have close connections with universities (e.g. Institute of Ukraine, Institute of Belarus), some with the various government institutions (e.g. Strategic Research Centre was created by state institutions - Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defence and State Security Department, or Eastern Europe Studies Centre, Vilnius established by Ministry of Foreign Affairs), some are created or/and supported by political parties (e.g. Institute of Democratic Politics), finally, some can be considered traditional think tanks promoting their own political agenda (Free Market Institute, Social Economy Institute orCivil Society Institute). Finally, research institutes with the strong emphasis on consulting practice form the third group. They usually do some academic research, but are more connected with the practical research for various state, European or private institutions. 5 (Note5: That does not mean that the second group of research institutions do not have government contracts, but the majority of their activities is directed more towards influencing policy than to profiting from the research.) In general, the market for the deep and serious academic research in Lithuania is very small and any independent research institution concentrating only on such activities could not sustain itself for a long time. Besides, it is very difficult to get private donations for the academic research, as it is usually considered as an elite and luxury activity which developing country cannot easily afford. Thus, the majority of research institutions survive because of the contracts from state institutions or from various EU research projects.
[14] The national Lithuanian Political Science Association (LPSA) was founded In June 1991. LPSA joined International Political Science Association (IPSA) in 1994. It is interesting to note that it was founded a little bit earlier than the process of institutionalization at the universities started when there were absolutely no "official" political scientists or political science research yet. So, the association did not perform any community consolidating or unifying function, instead it marked the first efforts to create such community. The understanding of the role of LPSA changed over years. Today LPSA ensures the existence of "political science community" at the national level (currently, it has more than 50 members), basically through organization of annual conferences (the first took place in 1995) and the organization of award for the best publication in political science. However, the identity of common national professional community of political scientist is relatively low, because political scientists are more inclined to establish cross-national and/or cross-disciplinary contacts and links. Therefore, despite a relatively low number of political scientists in Lithuania, the professional community is fragmented and its integration is weak. Intra-disciplinary thematic groups are rare and informal. Joint inter-institutional research projects started to emerge only in recent years, mainly as a consequence of the requirements from various state or European grant-givers.
[15] Finally, a proper and widely used indicator to assess the existence of discipline is whether there are professional journals published, which provide a forum to share the accumulated knowledge among the members of the discipline. In the beginning of 2008, six periodicals in political science and public administration were published regularly in Lithuania (for the Lithuanian political science periodicals list see Table 3).
[16] Rather loose boundaries of the national professional community and its institutional fragmentation may lead to a corresponding fragmentation and variation of the disciplinary standards, though the process may be to a certain extent overcome by the existence of the links among the various members of the community. The question therefore can be raised not only what are the core standards and norms of the discipline but also whether such shared standards exist at all. The answer to these questions is rather complicated because disciplinary standards are rarely formalized. One of the attempts to formalize the disciplinary standards and norms at the national level was the approval of the Code of Ethics in 2004. Other examples of formalization can be found at the institutional level. They consist mainly of the requirements for the scientific research, intended to regulate research activities of students and in such a way to communicate to the students the ideal of political scientific research. Still, usually the disciplinary standards are informal and preserved by "self-discipline" and "self-imposition" of the internalized image of what constitutes the political scientific research. These standards can be reconstructed on the basis of the analysis of professional practices and a variety of artefacts of scientific activities: publications, presentations, debates, study programmes etc.
[17] In his reflection upon the development of the discipline in Lithuania, Krupavičius (2002, 293) identified the following stages: 1) a period of getting familiar with basic theoretical and methodological approaches used by western academic community and acquiring research identities; 2) a period of exclusively normative, descriptive and case based research; 3) a shift from qualitative to empirical, quantitative and comparative studies. Such periodisation illustrates the conception of discipline’s development in terms of its changing aims and methods – from description towards causal explanations, based on rigorous research designs. It is doubtful indeed whether such a shift took place already in Lithuania. A standard peace of research can still be described as exhibiting the following features:
[18] study of Lithuanian case, ideally, presenting and describing quantitative data;conceptual analysis and illustration of concepts with references to local reality;comparisons, aimed mainly at classification of the Lithuanian case and positioning it in the broader context of cross-national experiences – comparison provides a perspective for treatment of Lithuanian case and is not intended to check the validity of causal claims.
[19] Even though most of the researches are still descriptive and case-oriented, there exists a gap between scientific practice and its ideal, professed in various forums (the existence of such a gap could be illustrated by the fact how often methodological education is identified as the weakest part of the professional education and by usual laments of the lack of good “methodologists” in Lithuania). A number of researchers, who belong mainly to the “elder” generation, which represents the first members of the professional community, are proponents of “hard” positivistic orientation. Such an orientation is imposed, though not always successfully, on students and is more peculiar to ‘Kaunas’ school. 6 (Note6: Two ‘schools’ can be identified (though with certain precautions) in Lithuania: the one is based in Kaunas and could be characterized by domination of empirical quantitative research (most of the collection of quantitative data, both survey data and content data, was initiated mainly by Kaunas researchers, though the situation changed slightly during the last years). The other school is based in Vilnius –as it comprises representatives of various subfields, its methodological profile is less clear and could be characterized by methodological pluralism and certain relativistic moods concerning the scientific method and standards of objectivity.) The "professional" scientific community of Vilnius, on the contrary, allows for a wider variation of methodological approaches and is more ready to accept "soft" political science.
[20] Apart from methodological standards, it is worth to address the understanding of the ‘core’ of the discipline and whether there is a single concept of what are the basics of the discipline. Again, the agreement concerning the ‘core’ is tacit and implicit. The undergraduates from different departments bring different ideas and knowledge. This is easy to understand, bearing in mind the differences between the study programmes. An indirect measure of the disagreement can be applied: comparison of the reference lists, provided by the researchers and by students, who work on the same topic. It is notable that if the researchers of the same topic come from different institutions, there is a tendency also that they will build their analysis on different literature. It is easy to get an impression that Lithuanian political scientists are still “playing” with theories: they take the ones which are available to them (maybe because of the books acquired by the library or because of the lists compiled by lecturers during the traineeships) and apply them. Theoretical discussion is impeded considerably in such a way. On the other hand, this also enables an easy introduction of variety of ideas into academic discourse and enriches the debates.
[21] To summarize, despite some shared standards among the members of professional community, these standards are vague and flexible, generating extensive variation of scientific production in terms of its topics, aims, methods and references. A certain “discipline” may be found only in some of the subfields of political science.
[22] The research agenda of the discipline is heavily impacted by the peculiar status of the discipline in Lithuania. Close connections with policy makers (and certain institutional interest in scientific research) means that the research agenda is generally set by political agenda. During the first ten years the popular topics were political science as academic discipline; political history of the Lithuanian state and its institutions; democracy and democratization, political culture and political parties, electoral analysis, security and foreign policy of Lithuania and Baltic States - coincided with developmental problems of Lithuanian state, mainly state and institutional building processes. Later, two other themes get popular also – public administration and Lithuanian integration studies (EU and NATO). The focus on Lithuanian society and state policy and political problems (EU integration, national security, democratization, stability of political system, public administration reform etc.) prevail and most of the changes in research agenda seem to reflect the changes of political agenda.
[23] Certain "parochialism", which can be described as exclusive interest in local politics and reluctance to engage into broader cross-national comparisons, is currently widely reflected and debated. The debate does not limit itself to political scientists only, but is characteristic for the social sciences generally. A number of researchers, especially the younger ones, are strong advocates of "internationalization". They claim for the re-vision of research agenda, advocate a focus on questions which would be relevant for the current debate of the "international" (basically, Anglo-Saxonic) political scientific community and require to make more efforts to join the international scientific debate. On the other hand, there are also arguments for "national" political science, which would be first of all directed to national audience and would take into account its needs and its interests. The proponents of the national political science build their arguments on the understanding of the mission of social sciences. Social science has to provide the tools for self-reflection of the society itself, therefore, it has to be closely linked to the domestic agenda and develop “local” concepts and typologies.
[24] In parallel with the trends described above, another characteristic feature of Lithuanian political science is specialization. The professionalization of the discipline, which brought into Lithuanian context the vast variety of topics and approaches, which characterize Western political studies, together with the scarcity of human resources produced a trend towards ever increasing specialization and subsequent fragmentation - "one person-one field". Of course, this trend should not be overestimated – the analysis of the references shows that the cases, when no references to any Lithuanian scholar are given, are rare. However, arguments, developed by other Lithuanian researchers, are appropriated to support one’s own argument and not to critically reflect upon them.
[25] To summarize, research agenda reflects two different processes: focus on the nationally relevant research topics, on the one hand, and fragmentation and specialization of the research topics, on the other hand. The “fragmentation”, or the structure, of the research agenda basically follows the same lines which are characteristic for the standard account of the discipline of political science. The following major sub-fields can be identified: normative political theory, comparative politics, international relations, European studies and public administration. A general review of these subfields is provided below.
[26] The community of ‘normativists’ is small, scattered across various departments and universities, though concentrated basically in Vilnius, with several representatives from institutions in other cities. As majority of them come from the same Faculty of Philosophy at Vilnius University, either as graduates or as faculty staff at some stage in their career, this helps to sustain rather strong informal ties, which link the community together and sustains its identity despite the vast variety of interests and topics. Another factor, which contributes to the integration, is the existence of several periodicals (mostly – ‘non-recognized’ officially 7 (Note7: There is a list of periodicals, recognized by the Ministry of Education and Science as periodicals, where one should publish in order to be qualified as University researcher. The publications in periodicals, not included into the list, are not taken into account when decision, whether the research meets certain requirements of qualifications, is made.)), where most of the publications appear and which serve as a forum for presentation of ideas and discussion. Despite ‘specialization’ in a certain area or question, it is a usual practice to regularly organize seminars on some topic, where the various theoreticians are invited to contribute and to bring their own perspective and approach to some pre-defined issue. For that reason, the boundaries of political philosophy are vague, no clear distinguishing line can be drawn between those who are political philosophers and those, who are engaged in normative theory or social theory generally.
[27] The publications of the ‘normativists’ can be grouped into two groups. Majority of these publications comprise a group, which can be labelled “critical public discourse”. These publications are usually concerned with the political and social situation of the country and apply the ‘western’ concepts and metaphors to give to a society, in the words of Walzer, its “real” image. It is not usual in such publications to develop an independent philosophical argument. Another group of publications is “professional” publications, which address a specialized professional audience and not a broad public. Among the topics addressed in these publications the critique of liberalism dominates along “communitarian”, “aesthetisaztion of politics” lines (with the only exception – Degutis, who is a “libertarian” thinker). In other words, the peculiar feature of the theoretical discourse in Lithuania is playing into “one gate” – there are many critics of liberalism and virtually none of the proponents of it. 8 (Note8: Wyn Grant, who participated in the last annual conference in 2007 in Vilnius, had noticed evident pessimism concerning democracy and popularity of its critique (Grant, 2007). The same observation can be expanded to liberalism and its principles, as well.)
[28] A new phenomenon (in the context of Lithuanian political science) is the development of the “New Left” group – a group of young philosophers, political scientists and social scientists generally, established couple a years ago. They actively participate in public debate and are guided by the ideal of orientation towards action rather then pure theoretization. Whether this group will inspire and develop an original theoretical argument is something to be yet seen, though it may be said at the moment that the group does not limit itself only to public activities and organize occasionally “scientific” events as well.
[29] The most visible feature of the subfield is an enthusiastic reception of post-modern ideas (relativistic moods, scepticism and suspicious concerning the “grand narratives”, dissatisfaction with rationalist and instrumentalist ideals) with only several exceptions. It would not be easy to give an explanation for such a situation but it seems to be caused by the fact that post-modern way of thinking provides better opportunities for critique – it gives a very vivid, expressive vocabulary and allows for pessimistic diagnoses of current situation, which are better suited to make ones position heard in the public discourse. Such reception can be also attributed to the dissatisfaction with the modern forms of life and search for adequate ways to describe the current experiences and reality. The same characteristic is peculiar, though in different form, to the subfield of comparative politics and political sociology.
[30] To name the subfield "comparative politics" is somehow misleading, especially if the identity of this subfield is associated with the comparative method. A much better label would be "intra-national politics", as the field often defines itself by what it is not, by putting itself in opposition to the study of inter-national politics. Among the variety of the topics the dominating ones are political parties, political culture, political behaviour and civil society. The topics are heavily influenced by the national political concerns with the instability of party system, phenomenon of populism, weak civil society and decreasing political participation. The approaches to these topics as well as the aims of research differ from scholar to scholar. From the very beginning the overarching aim was and still is to describe the complex reality, to find the theoretical concepts which reality could fit in. Some of the researches simply employ the theoretical instruments, developed in the Western contexts, for data collection and for subsequent categorization of Lithuanian case into widely accepted classification schemes. This research strategy generated vast data about political cultural attitudes and behaviour, which also to a certain degree allows for cross-national comparisons (because of the instruments used). Besides, it contributed both public and academic debate with ready labels to describe the local political reality without loosing the touch with the broader cross-national context. In parallel, however, some researchers, disillusioned with the applicability of imported theoretical concepts, attempted to develop theory and concepts which could better describe the unique, as it is conceived, postcommunist reality. These attempts introduced into the field more diversified sociological methods and "legitimized" qualitative techniques, such as in-depth interview, for example.
[31] The beginning of the development of the subfield could be characterized by attempts to probe the imported theories (mainly the "paradigmatic" ones without giving close attention to their later critique and development) onto Lithuanian reality. But the changing political situation of Lithuania makes researchers less optimistic concerning the possibilities to find in the Western 'reservoirs' the ready theoretical instruments, which would help to conceive post-communist reality 9 (Note9: The idea that Western concepts do not travel to Lithuanian (or generally – post communist) case was articulated from the very beginning of the discipline, though did not gain an overwhelming support. See Zeruolis (1996), Buivydas (1999).). Besides, there is growing “awareness” that Lithuanian case can categorized as a case of postmodern countries and post-modernity is not yet properly conceptualized by the Western academics themselves who for a long time were conceived as theoretical pioneers. Therefore, instead of simple mechanical borrowing and application of the “Western” concepts, a critical appropriation of these concepts and modest attempts to find original theoretical ideas becomes more visible.
[32] Case study of Lithuania is a dominating research design, though it has to be noted that the study of national politics employs a variety of research techniques and research logics, among which statistical method and large-N research designs are implicitly acknowledged as the properly scientific ones. The cross-national comparisons are still rare and most often engaged by researchers who take part in certain international projects. When the international cooperation is not the case, the aims and scope of cross-national comparisons are determined by certain 'ontological' assumptions. Though some of the contemporary political processes are termed as post-modern and therefore similar to these which take place all over Western world, it is more common to treat Lithuania as a case of specifically post-communist reality. Therefore, the scope of generalizations as well as, consequently, the population of countries from which the samples are drawn, limits itself to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Despite these changes, the efforts to find useful typologies as well as proper categories to describe the processes, which take place in the country, still dominate the activities within the subfield. To summarize, the subfield could be described as mainly concerned with the questions "who are we" and what labels would describe Lithuanian case the best.
[33] Finally, it has to be noted that part of the researchers within the subfield tend to take an approach of “political sociology” (they treat the political processes as the outcomes of general social situation and attitudes). Such an approach encourages increasing communication among various fields of social sciences and the cooperation with the sociologists (joint research projects) is quite a usual phenomenon: political scientists contribute with the concepts and sociologists contribute with more rigorous research designs.
[34] The discipline of international relations not only has the same name as the reality it analyses, it also tends to be very closely connected with the contemporary situation in international politics and the policy makers of one’s own country. In a small country these two communities of academia and foreign policy making worlds are inevitably very closely connected. Because of that, we have to mention it again, a lot of academic research tends to be very practical, policy-oriented and mostly atheoretical (at least it was such for the first ten years), usually justifying and motivating the importance of the membership in the EU or NATO or describing the development of bilateral relations of Lithuania with neighbouring countries.
[35] In recent years two broad theoretical positions have clearly emerged in Lithuanian International Relations (IR) field – realism and constructivism. This situation is a little bit unusual compared with general tendencies in IR discipline. One can hardly find any liberal tradition or pluralistic approaches and its variations (more liberal view is represented in European studies, mostly because of the EU’s pluralistic nature.) Apart from some review articles there is almost no post-modern international research, other critical approaches are also rarely used.
[36] Realist tradition in Lithuanian IR is based on geopolitical reasoning. It is considered that geopolitical method or approach provides the best understanding about position of the state in global as well as in regional politics. The general assumption is made that the ability of the state to use its geographical position determines its place and role in international politics. Using this theoretical framework mostly Lithuanian foreign policy is analysed concentrating on bilateral relations (e.g. Lithuanian-Russian or Lithuanian-Polish relations), their historical development and issues, or discussing Lithuanian foreign policy strategy. Integration to NATO and EU also has been and still is analysed. Before both memberships the IR researchers discussed the pros and cons of Lithuanian choice mostly concentrating on security questions and possible threats arising from Russia. After the membership the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy and European Defence Policy got a lot of attention. During recent years the biggest debates in the IR community have been around the future Lithuanian foreign policy and Lithuania's possible and plausible impact on the democratic development of its Eastern and South Eastern neighbours (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia). These discussions were also first initiated by policy makers promoting the idea of Lithuania as a regional centre.
[37] If theorising in realist tradition has started immediately with the development of political science in general, constructivism into Lithuanian IR discipline came in late 1990s. The main driving forces for its development were the discontent with the policy-oriented, positivist narrative of most realist writings and the desire to react to the stormy discussions in the IR field over the epistemological and ontological questions that were emerging at the end of the last century. Besides, they tried to be more theoretical and critical towards the Lithuanian foreign policy making community and tried more specific about their assumptions and methods used (mostly discourse or language analysis).
[38] There are three broad topics in which constructivist researchers are concentrating. First, Lithuanian foreign policy development in connection with its identity issues is analysed, usually by showing how the foreign policy behaviour is influence by the broader state identity issues; second, security policy of the country and its securitization processes have been researched, and, finally, some effort have been made to find the ways to apply constructivism in the policy making framework.
[39] Realist and constructivist researchers despite small IR academic community in Lithuania rarely debate among themselves. Except the security studies where the real debate between these two positions took place. During the last couple years also Russian studies and European Defence Identity problematique began not only attract more researchers, but also started to generate livelier academic debates. The tendency to move away from the foreign policy problems of Lithuania and analyse other (Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia) countries and their issues in international politics or pay attention to different problems (e.g. future of the EU, terrorism, Iraq war etc.) is also emerging.
[40] In Lithuania there is also a separate sub-field devoted to the analysis of the role of the European Union - European studies. European studies analyse the EU as the unique independent actor in international politics. That is either the impact of the EU on Lithuania or other (usually member or candidate) countries (on their domestic politics, institutions etc) is analyzed or the impact of member states on the EU decisions (e.g. various policy proposals or institutional reform) is researched. It is the analysis of the EU relationship with the member states or candidate states, the EU's internal processes or its role in global politics, not the analysis of separate policies of the EU members states (this section is based mostly on Vilpišauskas, 2007).
[41] Very similar to the international relations discipline European studies in Lithuania are very practical and connected with political, economical, institutional development of the relationships between the EU and Lithuania. The tendencies of the European studies in Lithuania are very similar to the processes in European studies field in the rest of academia - the quantity of articles depend on the EU visibility, and the topics analysed are closely connected with the current EU decisions and its political agenda. However, the difference lies in the almost exclusionary focus on the analysis of Lithuanian case (sometimes Baltic States). Analysing how the main research themes changed over time we can clearly seen this synchronization of the discipline development and political processes.
[42] The analysis of the agreements between Lithuania and the EU, the politics of association and the general EU integration problems dominated the field the first six or seven years (approximately from 1994 when Lithuania officially declared the wish to become the member of the EU till 2000 when the country was officially invited to the membership negotiations). At that time attention was focused on prospective EU membership and its advantages, to the experiences of the Central and Eastern European countries in the EU integration process and on education the population about the EU by issuing introductory material about the EU (like encyclopaedias, reference books).
[43] The process of the negotiation between the EU and Lithuania took place between 2000 and 2004. During this period the field was most active. Legal consequences and perspective of the EU membership, the impact of the membership on agricultural policy, foreign policy of Lithuania etc are analysed. The literature on Europeanization also influences the research and Lithuanian Europeanization processes are discussed. More attention is paid also the EU impact on various policy areas, the ongoing and prospective EU institutional changes, the EU constitutional process.
[44] Since Lithuania became the member of the EU in 2004 European studies lost some of its viability. No the impact of the EU on Lithuania is considered the most interesting topic. But the four years of experience do not provide a lot empirical material so far. European Neighbourhood Policy towards its Eastern neighbours is popular topic also, though it is more researched by the researchers from international relations field. Lithuania scientists started to get more interested also in the political integration of the EU in general (e.g. 2007-2013 financial perspective, open method of coordination, Lisbon strategy). Lithuania’s role in the decision making process of the EU, how it defends or should defend it interests, the role on non-state actors in the EU politics have a perspective to become popular research topics also.
[45] Researchers of the European studies in Lithuania do not use a wide range of methods. Initially, the traditional perspectives of international relations were popular (like realism, various liberal theorizing, integration theories), now the public administration discipline influences the European studies (like Europeanization models, interest group analysis, analysis of regulation politics etc). Qualitative analysis of a case or comparative analysis of several most frequently is used. Positivist epistemology is absolutely dominating the field.
[46] Notwithstanding the variety of topics analysed during the development of European studies, Lithuania does not have active and representative academic community. Majority of the scientists in the field combine their research work with the consulting activities or the work for the government. It is one of the reasons why the practical research and the problems of Lithuanian politics are dominating.
[47] Public administration and policy analysis is the last bigger sub-field of political science research in Lithuania. From all the subfields reviewed public administration studies have almost exclusively the practical, applied dimension. Those that do not address the issues of Lithuanian public policy usually tend to review the classical or new theoretical concepts and approaches or present and review the experience of other countries, usually Western European, in various public policy fields. Anyway the general assumption of the scientist working in this area is that policy analysis has to provide the advice and recommendation for policy maker to solve public policy problems (Brožaitis & Nakrošis, 2003, 2).
[48] The first group of the two broad problem groups analyzed and “solved” are either current problematic state of Lithuanian public administration and policy process or its reform issues and perspectives. Besides the analyses of various sectors of government and their performance, the research on e-government, the development of local communities and municipal institutions, the issues of public service and corruption in public sectors are constantly reviewed in the context of Lithuanian case.
[49] The second direction which public administration studies are taking in Lithuania are the efforts to understand and/or evaluate the impact the EU is making on Lithuanian public policy institutions and process. Here, the researchers tend to focus their studies on how the EU policies, its requirements for various public administration areas are influencing Lithuanian public policy institutions and processes, or how the state's administration is adjusting, sometimes even challenging the impact and pressure of the EU. The growing importance of the second research topic is also reflected in the creation of master programme of European Public Administration at the IIRPS (besides, its emphasis on the need to have experts in EU public policy processes).
[50] Traditional positivist methodologies dominate in the public administration sub-filed and because of their practical aspects the studies very often tend to be descriptive, or the general theoretical model is applied to explain the particular problem without forgetting to give the set of recommendations for Lithuanian policy makers and public servants.
[51] We started this presentation with the question whether a discipline of political science has emerged already in Lithuania. The preconditions for its existence seem to be well established – the discipline is institutionalized, a number of study programmes are implemented and some sporadic efforts to maintain its boundaries can be seen. As a result, the academic identity is getting stronger and theoretical discussions livelier as well as methodological discussion could be taken as an evidence of the search for shared standards and their subsequent articulation. On the other hand, these standards are not easily imposed upon new-comers and tend to vary across different subfields (for example, “comparativists” tend to denigrate international studies as too “un-scientific”, raising the question whether international relations can be considered as science at all).
[52] The development of discipline and of its self-image is impeded by several causes: very short tradition of social sciences research and theoretical and methodological thinking, close connections with policy practitioners which forces the researchers to balance between more “theoretical” orientation and more “practical” orientation. The latter is not interested in sophisticated conceptualization and methodology. All it requires is simple and straightforward answers to the questions, formulated by political practice itself.
[53] The future outlook of the discipline can be derived from the reflection of current trends:
[54] An articulated need to master methodology may lead to ever increasing variety of methodological approaches, as epistemological issues are also brought into debate when discussing methodology. The consequence is that together with the appropriation of “positivistic” research designs their critique is appropriated as well and the resulting methodological orientation is a matter of a subjective judgement of a researcher. The methodological variety may lead to an increasing fragmentation and specialization within the discipline and encourage establishment of academic links cross-nationally. We can conjecture therefore that Lithuanian political science (exhibiting certain “national” characteristics) is not very probable – the institutional environment is such that all the methodological and epistemological approaches may easily cohabitate in most of the departments. The research agenda will remain closely linked to the political agenda and concerns. Such a conjecture is based on the growing awareness of the mission of political science within the society which may lead to the continuing importance of extra-academic forces in shaping academic agenda. Also, politically and socially relevant researches will prevail because the funding of the research is usually acquired from various national and international grants, thereby retaining the power of grant-givers to shape the research agenda. More elaborated conceptualization of post-communism may be developed having in mind the disposition to treat Lithuanian as case which study may lead to theoretical hypothesis, relevant for other post-communist countries. The perception of the uniqueness of the regional conditions may lead to a complicated relationship with the international academic community and ideas. As before, the Western community will be treated as a source of theoretical insights; on the other hand, active search for models, appropriate to the experienced “realities”, may lead to discard most of the Western ideas as irrelevant. The trend, conjectured in the above paragraph, should not be treated as hundred percent probable. There are other factors, which may easily overcome that trend: intensifying academic exchanges and cooperation may lead to an increasing integration into international community. The answer, which of these trends will prevail, depends on how the debate concerning the mission of political science will be solved and whether institutional setting will change to such an extent as to enable certain perspective to impose its own standards on the majority of community.
published August 2008
| Department | Faculty, University | Study programs (level, number of programmes, the start of the first programme) | Number of students* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. |
Institute of International Relations and Political Science** | Vilnius University | Bachelor in Political Science (1) | 676 |
| Master in Political Science (5) | 143 | |||
| Master in Public Administration (2) | 60 | |||
| 2. |
Institute of Political Science and Diplomacy*** | Vytautas Magnus University | Bachelor in Political Science (1) | 243 |
| Master in Political Science (5) | 79 | |||
| Bachelor in Public Administration (1) | 556 | |||
| Master in Public Administration (2) | 69 | |||
| 3. |
Public Administration Department | Faculty of Social Sciences, Kaunas University of Technology | Bachelor in Public Administration (1) | 690 |
| Master in Public Administration (1) | 99 | |||
| 4-5. |
(a) Department of Political Science (b) Department of Public Administration and Law |
Faculty of Social Sciences, Klaipėda University | Bachelor in Political Science (1) | 192 |
| Master in Political Science (1) | 16 | |||
| Bachelor in Public Administration (1) | 267 | |||
| 6-7. |
(a) Department of Political Science (b)Department of Public Administration |
(a) Faculty of Strategic Management and Policy, Mykolas Romeris University (b) Faculty of Public Administration, Mykolas Romeris University |
Bachelor in Public Administration (1) | 1111 |
| Master in Public Administration (7) | 2195 | |||
| 8. |
Department of Political Science | Military Academy of Lithuania | Bachelor in Political Science (1, ) | 61 |
| Master in Political Science (1, ) | 19 | |||
| Bachelor in Public Administration (1) | 170 | |||
| 9. |
Department of Political Science and Sociology | Faculty of Social Sciences, Vilnius Pedagogical University | none | |
| 10. |
Department of Philosophy and Political Science | Institute of Humanities, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University | Master in Public Administration (1) | 16 |
| 11. |
Department of Public Administration | Faculty of Social Sciences, Siauliai University | Bachelor in Public Administration (1) | 611 |
| 12. |
European Humanitarian University | Bachelor in Political Science (1) | ||
| Master in Political Science (2) | ||||
|
TOTAL
|
Bachelor in Political Science | 1172 | ||
| Master in Political Science | 257 | |||
| Bachelor in Public Administration | 3405 | |||
| Master in Public Administration | 2439 | |||
| Research institutes | Comment | Webpage | |
|---|---|---|---|
I. University research institutes |
|||
| 1. |
Policy and Public Administration Institute | In Kaunas University of Technology | http://internet.ktu.lt/en/kut/fakult/admin/policy/frames3_1.html |
| 2. |
Regional Policy and Planning Institute | In Klaipėda University | http://www.ku.lt/en/rppi/ |
| 3. |
Strategic Research Centre | In Military Academy of Lithuania , partner - Vilnius University | http://www.lka.lt/index.php/en/102992/ |
II. Research institutes - Think tanks |
|||
| 1. |
Centre for Geopolitical Studies | http://www.geopolitika.lt/ | |
| 2. |
Centre for Strategic Studies | Established by three government institutions | http://www.ssc-lietuva.lt/index.php?en |
| 3. |
Civil Society Institute | Established by Opens Society Fund Lithuania and Valdas Adamkus Fund | http://www.civitas.lt/en/ |
| 4. |
Eastern Europe Studies Centre | Established by Ministry of Foreign Affairs | http://www.eesc.lt/en |
| 5. |
European Integration Studies Centre | Established by Vilnius University and Ministry of Foreign Affairs | http://www.eisc.lt/en/ |
| 6. |
Institute for Social and Economic Research | Social Democratic | http://www.seti.lt/ |
| 7. |
Institute of Belarus | ||
| 8. |
Institute of Democratic Politics | Conservative | http://www.dpi.lt/ |
| 9. |
Institute of Ukraine | ||
| 10. |
Lithuanian Free Market Institute | http://www.lrinka.lt/index.php?lang=2 | |
| 11. |
Social Economy Institute | ||
III. Research Institutes - Consulting Practice |
|||
| 1. |
European, Social Legal and Economic Projects | http://www.estep.lt/en/ | |
| 2. |
National Development Institute | http://www.npi.lt/?lang.en | |
| 3. |
Public Policy and Management Institute | http://www.vpvi.lt/en/ | |
| 4. |
Strategic Research Institute | http://www.institutas.lt/ | |
| No. | Title | Published since | Published by | Language |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Politologija | 1989 | Vilnius University | Lithuanian |
| 2. | Lithuanian Political Science Yearbook | 1999 | Vilnius University | English |
| 3. | Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review | 2002 | Lithuanian Military Academy | English, Lithuanian |
| 4. | Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review | 1998 | Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania | English |
| 5. | Public Policy and Administration | 2002 | Mykolas Romeris University and Kaunas University of Technology | Lithuanian |
| 6. | Public Administration | 2002 | Lithuanian Public Administration Training Association | Lithuanian |
