Review
[1] The basic and primary question missing in this paper, and perhaps in other papers as well, is what should be included into the study of political science? Should there be 27 categories or sub-fields included, as in questionnaire of Directory of Political Science in European Thematic Network in Political Science (from comparative politics to discourse analysis), or only more standard four sub-categories, i.e. political philosophy, theory of politics (or political system), comparative political science and international politics (as in Berg-Schlosser and Stammen, 2000)? Do these four sub-categories cover all of above mentioned 27 sub-categories? Should they? These questions are not answered, but perhaps this is not a direct fault of the authors. However, whatever approach we adopt, if any, it could have been a potential and quite useful framework for the analysis.
[2] It is not clear what the criteria for selection of articles and books in the references provided by the authors were either. Are these articles and books the best ones available in Slovakia, or are these sources used for writing this article or in some way typical or the most valuable contributions to political science research in Slovakia? Or perhaps, do articles and books mentioned by the authors belong to all these and other unclear criteria? Further, why has international political science research on Slovakia been omitted? Reviewing this very interesting article, I still feel that the authors should have explained in more detailed way how they gathered evidence, which problems they faced while doing research, and what is missing or needs further research.
[3] After reviewing this paper for the second time, I feel that some additional research tasks ought to be carried on, for example the analysis of research projects in political science granted (or not) by Slovak Grant Agency for Science (VEGA), Slovak state agency for scientific research. This would show us what kind of projects sought support at this level and which were granted support by the body of scientists. Personal or institutional questionnaires sent to departments of political sciences and various related research institutes would allow basing this paper on more solid research (or proper research). Of course, not all departments would answer, but if this would be the case, then perhaps personal visits would be necessary.
[4] In addition, detailed review or at least a summary of the available - more or less - critical reviews would perhaps enable better understanding of current status and quality of political science output in Slovakia.
[5] There are some claims in this report, which may or may not be true. The necessary evidence is simply missing. For example, the authors argue that: “For reasons of historic timing and institutional context, the process (of establishing political science in Slovakia - my comment) has been slower than in other Central and Eastern European countries”. How do we know it? Perhaps this volume will verify or falsify this and similar claims. I would personally challenge this assumption with the claim that this process might have been slower in Belarus or Albania.
[6] The authors did not mention activities of official research institutes, both communist and more academic ones during the last years of communism. Among other activities, some influential works by futurologists (e.g. by Toffler) had been translated at that time for limited audience. The authors argue that: “During the period of ‘building communism’, which lasted 41 years, neither politicians nor social scientists favored the theoretical approach to politics.” I would still argue, contrary to this claim, that both groups preferred the theoretical approach to politics, but this meant theory of Marxism-Leninism, or “scientific communism”, as the authors correctly write in the next sentence. Maybe this is only a matter of interpretation.
[7] The authors state that the Department of Political Science at the University of Cyril and Methodius offers an MA degree. This is partly correct, because it was allowed to offer an MA degree for one year just to let the students finish their studies, but in the future it will most probably offer only BA degrees.
[8] “Articles in journals, chapters in edited volumes and also all other publications focus on gathering, presenting and interpreting data on Slovakia”. Three comments seem to be necessary: firstly, it is not correct that “all” publications and articles focus only on Slovakia. Secondly, not all articles offer “interpretation”. Quite often we can find only “gathering and presentation” of information. Consequently, the research is sometimes strongly influenced by the media reporting and commenting. Thirdly, analysis of various methods of “gathering, presenting and interpreting data” should in itself show us methodological orientations of authors, however weak these may be. Indeed, as the authors show later, this could be possible - of course, if it is useful for our knowledge.
[9] The sentence “…traumatic character of nation-building after several centuries of stateless, survival oriented existence under Hungarians and further foreign nations…”, seems to me a gross exaggeration of reality. There were no “several centuries of stateless, survival oriented existence”, if we do not take into account day-by-day survival oriented existence in the past in most if not all countries of the world. This claim, the way it is put, is, in fact, a kind of modern nationalistic mythology. There was national oppression, but this lasted less than one century, from about mid 19th century till 1918.
[10] One of the main research questions is, as the authors argue, why after sharing a common starting-point with the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Slovakia followed a quite different path. The authors state that “The simplest answer is that, in 1993, Slovakia had to start building state institutions from scratch”. This is indeed the simplest answer, but it is perhaps too simple. I would argue that the problems of Slovakia's transition to democracy actually started before the independence. They were intensified following independence. This seems to me obvious, since elections were held in June 1992. The authors modified their original claim with additional variables such as different terms of economic development, ethnic homogeneity, etc, which makes the explanation more persuasive but at the same time even more blurred. In any case, the paper turns here into defense of political culture variable in explaining all perceived and real problems with Slovak “transition”. Firstly, I do not think that political culture would explain a lot. Secondly, and crucially, this should be a paper about political science in Slovakia and NOT about problems and explanations of Slovakia's political and other features. This is of course related, but in this part the paper turned into something else than in discussion about core theoretical and methodological orientations. In any case, the paper could be more structured in this part. This would help to understand various approaches, their strength or rather dominance in research, and their eventual weaknesses too.
[11] The report under review is a good start into the study of political science in Slovakia. Although it was initially largely descriptive, it has moved to more analytical stage. Some observations, like growing danger of inbreeding and others, certainly show an attempt for an unbiased study. Some other claims, like Slovak Political Science Association “doing its best” to create forum for scientific discussion, seem to reflect wishes (or they reflect different perception of what is possible) rather than the reality. Further research would be useful and in some cases perhaps necessary.
[12] In general, the authors followed the instructions given by the organizers. However, I would like to note that I miss in these instructions some important and interesting questions: Firstly, what is the quality of political science research output? In other words, how do we know that what is being produced is supported by evidence, innovative, original, possible, persuasive and internally consistent (Etzioni-Halevy 1985, 36-37)? What role does internal and international criticism and peer-review process play in this process in general?
[13] Secondly, what is the quantity of the research? In other words, how many articles and in what thematic and qualitative categories have been published?
[14] Thirdly, how international grants and foundations helped in developing political science? To what degree my personal experience can be generalized that at least in some cases, and not always directly related to political science (Füle et al 1998; Hrubý, Cave, Doyle and Marcinčin 1999; Mistríková et al 2000;) what was produced with the help from abroad could hardly match any serious qualitative or indeed scientific criteria? Finally, what is relationship between quality and quantity? These fundamental issues remain unanswered. We cannot argue that it is difficult or impossible to find out answers. On the contrary, I suppose that the next step in this research project should be exactly consideration of these few broadly stated fundamental questions. Otherwise, we will remain in many cases in the realm of assumptions.
[15] For the future, I would support promotion of open international competition in this academic field too. There are two ways at the minimum how to improve academic output of this kind. The first option is to use open tender for this kind of research. The second option, which might simply supplement the first one, is to ask to write this kind of report independently by two different individuals or groups.
Bratislava, 16 October 2002
The author teaches at the University of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, Slovakia. askolkay@hotmail.comaskolkay@marta.sk