[1] In 2007 the political science in Russia could celebrate its coming of full age. In 1989 the decree of the State Committee on science and technique opened a way for its institutionalization as officially admitted discipline. In practical terms it meant that academic degrees in political science could be awarded, departments established, courses taught. In Russia an individual comes of full age at eighteen. Can a Russian political science claim the same?
[2] It would be premature to assume that political science in post-Soviet Russia started from scratch. Well back in the USSR political studies were carried out under the guise of some other disciplines - theory of state and law, area studies, international relations, studies of labor movement, ‘critique of bourgeois theories’ etc. Soviet scholars were represented at IPSA since 1955 (since 1960 – by the Soviet Association of Political and State Studies). In 1979 11th World Congress of IPSA took place in Moscow. So, ‘de facto political science’ existed in the USSR as early as in 1960s 2 (Note2: Prior to that in the USSR from 1920s on there existed criptopolitologia (hidden political studies) – Ilyin M. Otechestvennaia politologia – osmyslenie traditsii. // «Politicheskaia nauka», 2001, № 1 (Ilyin M. National political science – rethinking tradition. // “Political Science”, 2001, № 1 – In Rusaian).) before it became ‘de jure political science’ in 1989.
[3] With all the achievements of de facto political science many important factors necessary for institutionalization of the discipline were lacking. Political science was not taught at universities so there were no specialists educated for this field. There was no developed system of tutorship of scientific personnel. There were no specialized magazines with the exception of Yearbook of the Soviet Association of Political and State Studies published since the middle of 1970s. Besides, ideological limitations left ‘de facto political science’ with little chances to develop wertfrei political studies. It could be done only on limited range of issues (mostly those that were chronologically or geographically distant).
[4] The decision of 1989 legalized already existing tradition of political studies. But it had not reshaped it into a full-fledged academic discipline. Political scientists of Russia had to pass a difficult way to develop infrastructure for their discipline and consolidate their own academic community. One should note that conditions were not easy. On the one hand, Russian political scientists confronted a political challenge. The ongoing political transformations objectively demanded well-grounded prognoses and recommendations (though the actual demand for expert knowledge usually is considered insufficient). So, political scientists had at the same time to educate themselves (they were recruited from the fields as different as maths or history), to teach their students, to do research and also to provide expert judgments – and to combine all of this was not an easy task. On the other hand, economic reforms of the 1990s significantly reduced economic basis for production and reproduction of scientific knowledge – and for the developing professional community that had almost no ‘stored resources’.
[5] During the period a lot was done for establishment of political science both as a research field and an academic discipline. Dozens of political science departments and research centers at universities and institutions in many regions have appeared. Several specialized magazines are published not only in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but also in some other regions. Four national congresses of political scientists have taken place (the Fifth one will be in 2009). Dozens of conferences and seminars are organized every year. Amount of academic publications constantly grows etc. Data of the operation of Scientific Councils awarding academic degrees give some idea about the quantitative growth of the professional community of political scientists. Prof. Pleis calculated that in the period of 1990/1991 to 2005 411 doctoral and 2125 candidate theses were defended. Remarkably that if during the first ten years (1990-2000) 175 doctoral and 603 candidate dissertation were considered by Learned Councils, then during the next five years (2001-2005) there were respectively 236 and 1522 ones 3 (Note3: Pleis, Iakov A. Ot stanovlenija k ustoichivomu razvitiju. Nekotorye itoi razvitija politicheskoi nauki v Rossii za 15 let. Rostov-na-Donu : SKAGS, 2006, p. 5. The system of academic degrees in Russia is two-level; the defence of doctoral thesis (a higher degree) started in 1990, of candidate ones – in 1991.). So, we might speak about geometrical progression.
[6] But does quantity transform into quality? Could we argue that political science in Russia has been established? In this paper we will try to answer this question basing on the results of collective research that was done by the Russian Political Science Association in 2005-2007 with support of the Russian State Foundation for Humanities. The participants of the collective project – the leading specialists in their fields – analyzed the experience of development of various research subfields and also of formation of the elements of academic schools at some regions of Russia. It needs to be specified that the picture represented in the volume that resulted from this project 4 (Note4: See Malinova, Olga et al. (eds.) Politicheskaia nauka v Rossii: problemy, napravlenija, shkoly (1990-2000e gg.). Moscow: POSSPEN, 2008. It is not the first attempt of analysis of political science in Russia. See: Ilyin, Mikhail. ‘Desiat’ let akademicheskoi politologii – novye masshtaby nauchnogo znanija’, Polis, 1999, no. 6, p. 135-143; Pleis, Iakov. ‘Otechestvennaia politicheskaia nauka v dissertatcionnom zerkale’, Polis, 1998, no. 2, p.116-121; Pleis, Iakov. ‘Politicheskaia nauka v Rossii v 1998 godu: chto novogo?’, Polis, 1999, no.3, p. 175-182; Pleis, Iakov. ‘Tvorcheskij potentcial rossijskogo politologicheskogo soobschestva (Osnovnye napravlenija issledovanij), Polis, 1999, no. 6, p. 144-163; Sheslopal, Elena. ‘Mirovaia politologija v rossijskom kontekste’, Politicheskaia nauka: novye napravlenija. Moscow: Veche, 1999, p. 9-19; Shestopal, Elena. ‘Transformatcija politologicheskogo soobscestva v postsovetskoi Rossii’, Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser. 18, 1999, no. 1, p. 23-39; Ilyin. Mikhail (ed.) Otechestvennaia politologija: Itogi XX veka. Moscow: INION RAN, 2001; Meleshkina, Elena (ed.) Razvitie politologii v rossijskih regionah. 1991-2000. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001; Malinova, Olga and Pleis Ia., Smirnov W. (eds.) Politicheskaia nauka v rossijskih regionah: Formirovanie i razvitie “tochek rosta”. Moscow: INION RAN, 2007 etc.) is not quite comprehensive: from the one hand, selection of the objects for analysis was unavoidably limited by temporal and financial terms, from the other; general conclusions are based on assessments of experts whose competence does not exclude certain measure of subjectivism.
[7] In the first part of this paper we will try to access the dynamics of development of professional community, and then we will analyze the experience of development of major research subfields. In conclusion we will address some problems with which a further development of political science in Russia meets.
[8] The development of political science was marked by two major tendencies in the scientific community and in society in general. One was a general distrust of political scientists and institutions that were engaged in political science. Anti-communists accused political scientists of being "false" scientists and of having served the old regime. This atmosphere of animosity created heavy moral and professional strains on those who had worked for the introduction of political science under the old regime. They had to face a certain ignorance and ideological animosity from those pretending to be the "true" bearers of democratic ideals. This had a detrimental effect on some institutions, especially in the realm of the . Two of the major institutions dealing with political science - the Institute of Contemporary Social Theories and the Institute of International Affairs - were disbanded, and most of their members were actually left without jobs and had to look for new professional careers. These institutes were victims of the first wave of anti-communist euphoria and of in many ways unfounded ideological attacks. Many of the people working in these institutes were competent scientists with a proficient knowledge of political science, and some of them, through their works, had played an important role in reforming the Communist Party and had helped to bring about the radical changes in 1989.
[9] Science is by definition a collective enterprise. A growth of systematic knowledge about empirical world is a result of hard work of generations – not just brilliant efforts of talented individuals. It is academic milieu that engenders common languages and standards of professional activity. They are partnerships of colleagues who critically access achievements and failures of their associates. They are academic communities who socialize new generations of scholars etc. One might argue that two decades since formal recognition of political science in Russia are enough for the people engaged in this field to make up a distinctive academic community that shares common identity and standards of professional activity. To which extent such a claim could be justified?
[10] To answer this question one may resort to surveys and other studies of Russian Political Science Association 6 (Note6: The Russian Political Science Association is a successor of the Soviet Association of Political Science (former Soviet Association for Political and State Studies). During the last years its membership has stabilized around 500-600 persons who represent more then 50 regions. In 2006 the Youth Branch of RPSA was reconstituted (it combines more than 200 young political scientists from 25 regions). PRSA is an initiator and organizer of the national congresses of political scientists that are held every 3 years.) membership. The empirical investigations were conducted in 2005-2007. Not all individuals who might consider themselves political scientists are members of RPSA. Still the facts of belonging to this organization or participation in its activities could be an evidence of a more explicit professional self-identification. So, our conclusions are more applicable to ‘organized’ and in fact more active sectors of academic community 7 (Note7: Though this ‘organized nucleus’ is relatively small if we consider the number of people getting academic degrees in political science with the number of members of RPSA and participants of its events.). Our analysis is based on statistics of membership in RPSA 8 (Note8: It has been registered since 2005.) and on a survey of participants and guests of the Forth All-Russia Congress of Political Scientists 9 (Note9: Questionnaires were emailed to registered participants and guests. 121 respondents took part in the survey; 69 per cent of them are men, 31 per cent – women, the average age is 38,2 years.).
[11] First of all, we were curious about the boundaries and criteria of belonging to the community. The usual criteria of professional identification – education, academic degrees etc. – in our case can have limited and/or varying relevance. When political science has got official recognition in 1989 no political scientists were formally educated in the country. By and large professional backgrounds of the elder generations of Russian political scientists were connected with some other disciplines. And in spite of quick numerical increase of academic degree holders in political science the share of those who have got their degrees in some other field is still high. Furthermore, it is not at all exceptional that quite a number of people turn to political studies from other fields of scientific knowledge. Finally, professional activity of self-proclaimed political scientists might be connected not only with research and/or teaching, but also with political analytics, political consulting and journalism. Self-identification and identification by the other members of community not always coincide.
[12] Our data prove that criteria of belonging to community are becoming more clear and acceptable. But they also confirm that the boundaries between political science and ‘related’ disciplines are still remaining vague. The majority of participants and guests of the Forth All-Russia Congress of Political Scientists (68 per cent) claimed to belong to political science community, but every fifth respondent (21 per sent) declared that at the same time he/she belongs to some other professional community and 11 per cent does not consider themselves to be political scientists at all (none of them is a member of RPSA) (see table 1).
[13] The other universities mentioned combine political science with sociology or history and law. This is also true for the universities in , , and . In 2001, the in Veliko Tirnovo also started an undergraduate course in political science.
[14] There are "state requirements", a list of subjects that are a compulsory part of a university discipline. For Political Science these are:
[15] It would be reasonable to assume that identification with community correlates with the character of professional activity. Indeed, the majority of those who deems to belong to the community said that they are engaged in research activity (73 per cent) and teaching of political science (74 per cent). The similar proportion was demonstrated by respondents with ‘plural’ identities (the portion of those who are engaged in teaching here is even higher – 81 per cent). But those who do not identify themselves with community have significantly different structure of professional activity. Only 42 per cent of them teach political science. At the same time the share of those involved in political analysis and consulting is higher among this group (25 percent) then among colleagues with a single (14) or ‘plural’ political science identity (4) (see table 2).
[16] Research in political science is being carried out at the universities and in non-state institutes, mostly NGOs. As mentioned, there is no longer an institute of political science at the , after the two earlier ones were disbanded. Among the best known of the new institutes of research - think tanks working on several projects with the aid of different foundations - are the , the Center for Liberal Studies, the , the , and the . Since they are still young institutions, research in all of them is still at the initial stage, but their first achievements are encouraging. Some of them have already published interesting books and conducted empirical studies, which have attracted considerable attention among political scientists and others. A rather specific institution is the at Sofia University, which is engaged mostly in empirical studies.
[17] So, we can conclude that the major factor of self-identification with professional community is engagement in research and teaching activity while activity connected with political consulting and political analytics are minor factors.
[18] The analysis of statistics of membership in RPSA demonstrates certain dynamics of the structure of the ‘self-organized’ part of the professional community (see table 3).
[19] As we can see, the professional structure of the members of RPSA is relatively stable during the period. There ids only one exception. The number of members with no academic degrees is increasing (we come back to this issue later). The main body of the organization is composed by the representatives of three academic disciplines – political science, history and philosophy (about 60 per cents of members hold their academic degrees in these fields). Remarkably among doctors the holders of degree in political science in 2006-2007 began slightly dominate, while among candidates a parity of three groups remains more evident.
[20] The other remarkable thing is a low representation of holders of academic degrees in law: originally political science in the USSR was institutionally based on the theory of state and law. The current database of RPSA proves that political science in Russia has diverged from its ‘mother discipline’.
[21] It should be recognized that the structure of RPSA from the point of academic backgrounds of its members is still multi-disciplinary. It is too early to predict which trend will dominate in coming years – further consolidation of disciplinary boundaries or multi-disciplinary interaction.
[22] Finally, there is a new trend – the sustainable growth of members of RPSA who have no academic degrees. To a great extent it is a sign of ‘greening’ of RPSA. Involvement of relatively younger scholars is a very positive tendency. The crisis of 1990s caused by economic and social reforms negatively affected the age structure of academic communities: in particular, the number of young specialists who choose an academic carrier significantly decreased. And now we can note signs of revival of the interest to political science among younger people. This conclusion is partly confirmed by an active development of the Youth Branch of RPSA re-established in 2006 (now it combines more than 200 students and graduate students from 25 regions). The same trend is supported by the age structure of the participants of the Forth All-Russia Congress of Political Scientists (see figure 1). One may suspect that no degrees members would run for degrees in very near future.
[23] Thus, we can conclude that qualitative consolidation of professional community is followed by stabilization of its formal boundaries (though its structure still remains multi-disciplinary).
[24] The other question is whether this process is supported by development of professional capacities and specialization inside the community. The data of the survey of the participants and guests of the Forth All-Russia Congress of Political Scientists give some grounds for conclusion that this process is going on, though we are still on its early stages.
[25] The most remarkable finding is a great diversity of interests and fields of activity. When asked about their research field interests, respondents named about two hundred (!) different positions that were very heterogeneous by their content and measure of generalization. The same was the situation with identification of the fields that deserve greater attention of the Russian political scientists: our respondents indicated about 170 positions that were hardly reducible to each other. It looks like a significant part of participants of the survey tried to specify some problems that they considered urgent, but were not quite clear about identification of their research interests with some subdisciplinary fields where coordination of efforts and cumulating of results becomes possible. In other words the structure of political science in Russia remains quite vague and its subfields are ill-defined.
[26] The other remarkable fact is that the majority of respondents estimated the field of their research interests as “insufficiently developed” or “underdeveloped” (56 percent and 7 per cent), while the answer “rather developed” was chosen only by 2 per cent. And 33 per cent of participants of the survey were relatively optimistic claiming that their fields are “enough developed”.
[27] To sum up, we can conclude that Russian political science more or less successfully establishes itself as a distinct academic discipline. The structure of the professional community of the political scientists remains multi-disciplinary. Its boundaries become more clear (though not strict) and are determined more by prevailing professional activity than by education and academic degrees. We also can mention some signs of the gradual crystallization of the research field for the discipline. Russian political scientists are more confident in identification of the problems that should be an object of their attention. But they are not always certain about the sub-disciplinary attribution of these problems as well as not always sufficiently conscious about their theoretical and methodological approaches. In our opinion there are good grounds to claim that the professional community of Russian political scientists has already passed the most decisive stage of its institutionalization, although a number of crucial problems are still to be solved.
[28] With all the importance of the process of formation of a professional community the most crucial question is whether a community is able to produce new knowledge that satisfies both needs of political practice and conventional standards of the discipline. It is difficult to give a definite answer to this question since development of various subfields is quite uneven.
[29] One may presume that the most decisive success should be expected (1) in the fields that are more intensively investigated, (2) in the spheres dealt with by ‘de facto political science’, (3) finally, some handicap could be expected in cases of the new research fields, where the Russian scholars started almost simultaneously with their colleagues from the other countries. Those hypotheses partly determined the choice of subfields that became objects of expert analysis within collective project done by RPSA in 2005-2007. Although our selection is not quite comprehensive 10 (Note10: Our analysis concerned comparative politics (L. Smorgunov), electoral studies (V. Gel’man), studies of political elites (O. Gaman-Golutvina), of political parties and party systems (Ia.Pleis), studies of political regionalism (V. Avdonin, A. Baranov, A. Dakhin), studies of political conflicts (L. Nikovskaia), political psychology (E. Shestopal), studies of political culture (O. Malinova), studies of politics and ethnicity (Yu. Shabaev), studies of political ideologies (La. Pleis), gender studies (N. Koukarenko, O. Pospelova) and studies of law and politics (W. Smirnov). ), results of the project indicate the factors of relative success and failures in development of different subdisciplinary fields in Russian political science.
[30] All subfields that became the objects of our analysis demonstrated more or less intensive development since 1990s. This development implied solution of many infrastructural problems, such as elaboration of conventional terminology and research standards, development of professional communications and – the last but not the least – coping with a large amount of literature produced by foreign colleagues. It was a serious trial. There can be different opinions on measure of success in passing this trial. Still, the fact is that in many subfields today we have well-established professional communities the most advances representatives of which are quite competitive at the world ‘market’ of political expertise. According to assessments studies of political elites, electoral studies and political psychology are quite advanced. Although our expert on comparative politics Leonid Smorgunov is rather critical about the condition of this discipline, he confirms that it has successfully passed the stage of institutionalization and there is a good basis for further development. One of the evidence of it is an ambitious project “The Political Atlas of the World” that is presented at section III of this conference.
[31] At the same time many subdisciplinary fields in the Russian political science still have not got the condition of ‘a normal science’: there are no ‘common languages’ and sometimes – even no common interpretations of the boundaries of the research fields. Such are the cases of studies of politics and ethnicity, conflict studies, gender studies and studies of political culture. However, it should also be mentioned that the absence of ‘common language’ might be stipulated by the ‘firmness’ of the object as well as by methodological problems that are experienced by scholars not only in Russia.
[32] What factors are the most decisive for development of research and institutionalization of the disciplinary subfields?
[33] It might be assumed that the demands of political practice – especially when it is converted into flew of resources – must be the most obvious impetus for research activity. In the other words, the most ‘urgent’ problems must be studied more intensively giving more significant results. But analysis of the experts involved in our project shows that the connection between the interest to problem and the development of research is more complex. The high public interest to the objects of their study indeed was an important factor that stimulated attention of the scholars to certain problems. The wave of broad interest was an initial stimulus for development of research and formation of professional networks in the subfields of electoral studies, studies of political elites and political regionalism. Such research networks were composed of the specialists from different disciplines (sometimes rather distant from political science). But the factor of the interest turned into both advantages and shortcomings. From the one hand, the newcomers from the ‘distant’ fields were relatively free from the legacy of official dogmatism, were more disposed to adption of empirical methods and more inclined to integration to the new professional networks. Besides, the higher level of research interest resulted in higher publication activity. But from the other hand, the subdisciplinary fields that developed on the peak of public interest felt what V. Avdonin, A. Baranov and A. Dakhin called “higher level of pressure of non-scientific forms of knowledge”. This really was a serious challenge. The most reliable way to overcome it consisted in professionalization (assimilation of experience of the political science all over the world and methodological reflection) and development of networks of professional communications.
[34] Our analysis indicates that the former without the later is insufficient. It is obvious that former historians, philosophers, lawyers, philologists and even engineers could become political scientists only by means of intensive self-education – and the factor of availability of the literature (first of all – of the classical works) can not be overestimated. Probably in a time historians of our discipline will be able to ascertain a correlation between a number of translated works and a progress of this or that research field. But adoption of knowledge extracted from the foreign literature was necessary but not sufficient thing: it was not automatically converted into capability to produce knowledge in significantly new context of post-Soviet political transformation. It was not accidental that in the end of the first decade of development of political science in Russia Alexei Bogaturov complained that the result of Western charity programs became an education of ‘the generation of translators’ who can only ‘translate’ the local circumstance to the language that is familiar to their sponsors and readers abroad 11 (Note11: Bogaturov, Alexei. 'Desiat' let paradigmy osvoenija'. Pro et contra. 2000, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 198. For further discussion see issues of 2000-2002.). Actually the problem of gap between the ‘Western’ theories and Russian reality is a permanent challenge to political science in our country. And there are different receipts of its solution. But in our opinion the search for the ‘golden mean’ between pure empirical description and futile attempts to ‘translate’ ready theoretical schemes was the most successful in the fields were more or less integrated professional networks guided by competent leaders and/or centers emerged.
[35] The other important factor of success was integration into international research networks, establishment of contacts with international professional associations and universities in the other countries, participation in joint projects, publications in foreign magazines etc. Activity of this kind is not only an indicator of recognition of professional skills of the Russian scholars, but also an opportunity to ‘synchronize watches’, to bring our own research experience into correlation with efforts of political scientists in other countries. And what is particularly important are not the facts of ‘individual’ integration of the leaders (the examples of such integration might be found in the most of research fields), but appearance of the critical mass of scholars who are adopting to the international market of labor. This task must be a matter of special concern (in particular – for RPSA).
[36] An inclusion of courses covering particular subdisciplines of political science to university curriculums became another strong catalyst of development. It stimulated wider ‘adoption’ of basic literature by faculty; a work at text-books and readers also was very useful for collective systematization of ‘stored’ knowledge. In a sense teaching became a major factor of ‘normalization’ of subdisciplines: it was conducive to dissemination of systematic knowledge and to shaping of conventions about the boundaries of the research field and appropriate standards of research procedures. This effect of ‘normalization’ through educational standards was mentioned by many experts of our project. At the same time N.Kukarenko and O.Pospelova who analyzed the experience of political gender studies in Russia reasonably argued that the absence of such course in university curriculum at political science departments is one of the obstacles to development of this subfield.
[37] As for the factor of ‘groundwork’ of the Soviet scholarship – it turned to be ambiguous. From the one hand, the groundwork of ‘de-facto political science’ became an important resource for development of some research fields (especially at the starting point). Thus, electoral studies grew from three ‘pre-political-science’ sources – empirical sociology, constitutional law and political geography. The latter played a major role in formation of political regional studies. Political psychology developed on the basis of psychology, sociology and political science and was able to produce a new knowledge on the ‘junction’ of disciplines, using not only the experience of political psychologists from abroad, but also certain achievements of the ‘mother disciplines’ in the USSR. The same is situation with studies in politics and law that had an opportunity to lay upon the theory of state and law and other branches of jurisprudence. There also was some groundwork in the field of comparative politics – in area studies, political sociology, comparative historical studies etc.
[38] But from the other hand, in some cases the store of knowledge accumulated in the frames of Soviet social studies became an impediment to the progress of research in political science. An example is the case of studies of politics and ethnicity: the ideological approaches to the study of ethnicity and nationalism in the USSR had shaped terminological conventions that hamper political studies of ethnicity in post-Soviet Russia and interfere with development of more advanced research approaches. The difficulties caused by inertia of stereotypes educated by the Soviet social studies might be found also in the other subfields of political science.
[39] Finally, one of the most important factors of development of research subfields are the forms of its institutionalization. Our analysis indicates that the most evident success became possible when the formal organization in the frames of departments, faculties and scientific councils (stimulated by standardization of curriculums and by the procedures of awarding of academic degrees) was supplemented by self-organization in research networks. In some cases (political regionalism, studies of politics and ethnicity, studies of political elites etc.) networking was facilitated by the need of monitoring of political processes in the regions of Russia. Sometimes networks were formed for purposes of particular research projects, sometimes they resulted from collective projects as an unintended by-product. But most often the development of professional networks of researchers was based on dispersed resources and took place in the forms of conferences and seminars, exchange of literature, critical assessment of the works of colleagues etc. An important form of self-organization of communities in subdisciplinary fields became the research committees of RPSA.
[40] So, we can record certain irregularity in development of different fields of research in the Russian political science. This irregularity is produced by combination of factors among which the most decisive are: development of formal academic institutions and informal professional networks, inclusion of particular sub-disciplines to university curriculums and integration to the international research networks. As for the factors of public interest and of ‘pre-political-science’ groundwork – both of them turned to be ambiguous: partly facilitating development of political science they at the same time create certain impediments that are overcame more or less effectively.
[41] It would be premature to overestimate positive prospects for our new academic discipline in Russia. The main difficulties that haunted its development during the first two decades are still there: deficiency of means for research and development of university centers, need for funds for empirical research, a shortage of academic literature, disproportion in allocation of resources between center and periphery, deteriorating status of political science in university curriculums (at non-political-scientist departments) etc. At the beginning of 1990s one of the major problems was absence of professionals with special education. Later in 2000s with the first graduations at political-science departments the keenest problem turned out to be low inclusive capacities of the academic labor market. There are a lot of problems with connections between political science and political practice. Although our research indicated that the level of expert activity of the Russian political scientists is relatively high, the results of their research cannot make their way to political practitioners.
[42] This list of problems of the political science in Russia could be further lengthened. But the most important of them are linked to the trends of evolution of the very object of our study. The reforms of the Russian political system in 2000s dramatically changed the research agenda. Visible decline of electoral competition and reduction of the sphere of electoral politics questioned prospects for further studies of electoral processes. A high degree of convergence of regional political processes reduced the field of political regional studies. Non-transparent character of recruiting and rotation of political elites complicates research of dynamics of those processes etc. All those developments are really critical for the perspectives of political science. Samuel Huntington wisely claimed that ‘where democracy is strong, political science is strong; where democracy is weak, political science is weak’ 12 (Note12: Huntington, Samuel. ‘One Soul at a Time: Political Science and Political Reform’. American Political Science Review. 1988, vol. 82, no. 3, p. 3-10.).
[43] Of course, in societies with higher level of political competitiveness political scientists find more objects for study – and more material for theoretical generalization. But does it mean that the opposite is true as well? Is political science ‘strong’ only in democratic regimes? Some reasons for optimism might be found in Jorge Heine’s description of the case of Pinochet’s Chile. According to Heine, at the end of military dictatorship in 1990s Chilean political science was even stronger than in 1970s and its representatives significantly contributed to designing and implementation of the constitutional reform 13 (Note13: Heine H. ‘Democracy, Dictatorship, and the Making of Modern Political Science; Huntington’s Thesis and Pinochet’s Chile’. American Political Science Review, 1993, vol. 87, no. 3, p. 273-278.). Though this state of things became possible mostly due to exogenous factor: in 1970-1980s the Chilean political scientists were out of necessity forced to integrate into the international networks (education and fellowships at North American and European universities, work at private research centers in Chile subsidized by grants from abroad etc.). This led to emergence of a critical mass of scholars and creation of a professional community. With the change of political context the latter not only expanded a ‘normal’ academic infrastructure but also could be effectively involved into political practice.
[44] This extreme case demonstrates that the change of parameters of political system does not abolish the research field of political science. This example warns against premature pessimism. Russian political scientists still have an object for study and – let us hope – will be able to do their job. In a certain sense it might be possible even to take advantage out of necessity: circumstances push us to study the problems that formerly were on the periphery of research interests of political science. At least the fact of emergence of the main body of professional community gives some hopes for the future of political science in Russia.
published 2008
| Do you consider yourself a member of the professional community of political scientists? | Research activity | Teaching | Political consulting | Political analytics | The other | All answers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
73 | 74 | 15 | 14 | 3 | 67 |
| Yes, though at the same time I belong to some other professional community(ies) |
74 | 81 | 22 | 4 | 0 | 23 |
| No |
75 | 42 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 10 |
| All answers |
73 | 72 | 15 | 13 | 2 | 100 |
| Degrees and academic fields | Number of persons | % | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| Doctoral degrees in: |
||||||
| Political Science |
23 | 53 | 54 | 6,7 | 9,3 | 8,5 |
| History |
21 | 33 | 33 | 6,1 | 5,8 | 5,2 |
| Philosophy |
28 | 44 | 31 | 8,1 | 7,8 | 4,9 |
| Sociology |
5 | 9 | 10 | 1,4 | 1,6 | 1,6 |
| Law |
3 | 5 | 5 | 0,9 | 0,9 | 0,8 |
| Psychology |
1 | 0,0 | 0,2 | 0,0 | ||
| Economics |
1 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,2 | ||
| Other |
3 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,5 | ||
| Candidate degrees in: |
||||||
| Political science |
48 | 79 | 97 | 13,9 | 13,9 | 15,3 |
| History |
48 | 83 | 92 | 13,9 | 14,6 | 14,5 |
| Philosophy |
37 | 67 | 53 | 10,7 | 11,8 | 8,4 |
| Sociology |
11 | 11 | 17 | 3,2 | 1,9 | 2,7 |
| Law |
1 | 4 | 3 | 0,3 | 0,7 | 0,5 |
| Psychology |
2 | 2 | 0,0 | 0,4 | 0,3 | |
| Economics |
3 | 3 | 5 | 0,9 | 0,5 | 0,8 |
| Pedagogy |
2 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,3 | ||
| Other |
4 | 9 | 7 | 1,2 | 0,8 | 0,6 |
| No degree |
64 | 164 | 220 | 18,6 | 28,9 | 34,8 |
| No information |
49 | 14,2 | 0,0 | 0,0 | ||
| Total |
345 | 567 | 633 | 100,0 | 100,0 | 100,0 |
