Review
[1] The “Political Science in Slovenia” by Danica Fink-Hafner represents an ambition of a scholar from Slovenia to take up a demanding task to reflect on the state of the art, as it were, of the said discipline in her country. This said, a few random remarks could be in order, with a sole ambition to offer possible - but not exclusive - avenues to continue research on this path. A research that at the end of its road should end up with a book on its own - perhaps the author has already contemplated such a challenge.
[2] As the “whose-side-were-you-on-during-the-communist-rule” questions still have an appeal, one might as well start with the context in which the Political Science had been developing in Slovenia. The beginnings in the 1960s were certainly not to the advantage of those willing to study the field beyond the prevalent Marxist school of thought. One may also share the author's view about the Slovenian political scientists as not being among the foremost opposition leaders in Slovenia. Such an argument would receive verification also with regard to the 1970s, which represented a particularly difficult period for the Slovenian academia in social sciences as a whole. Nevertheless, the Political Science in Slovenia gradually began to take its shape. The civil society vs. the state debate did indeed serve as a catalyst for the development of the discipline. Whether intended or not, the debate, especially in the eighties of the past century, in its searching for an alternative to the Western democracy, did have an important underlying mission: it was actually preparing the domestic academic community and the society at large for that same Western democracy.
[3] The 1990s had only a moderate influence on the spread of institutions responsible for teaching and/or research in the field of Political Science, as the author correctly states. Ljubljana remained the gravitation center for would-be political scientists. What appears to be missing in the author's own section on institutions is a reflection on why the institutions dealing, one way or another, with Political Science still remained confined to Ljubljana. It would be wrong to answer this question by saying what looks like an obvious thing: that Ljubljana as the Slovenian capital somehow “usurped” the development of the field. One should bear in mind that only a decade ago Ljubljana, at least as far as the Political Science is concerned, was itself an intellectual province. When still within the Yugoslav state, Ljubljana was but one of the smaller settings in which the discipline had been nourished. But Belgrade and to an extent Zagreb did seem to be the major driving forces, influencing the way the discipline was to develop. While it would be too far-fetched to argue that the two cities in the southern part of former Yugoslavia enjoyed the exclusive influence over the state of the discipline in the region, it would be fair to say that they certainly had by far the largest share of that influence. The analysis of the author's reference list, though not exhaustive, speaks volumes to this end - only a few Slovenian political scientists published in the period before 1990. 1 (Note1: See the discussion on outputs below.) Consequently, when Slovenia became independent, the Political Science as a whole was in an adolescent stage, with only a handful of Slovenian authors recognized abroad. In many respects the Faculty of Social Sciences itself, the only existing institution in Slovenia focusing on teaching and research in Political Science at the time, yet needed to be consolidated. It had yet to bring up a critical mass of scholars which would help developing the discipline at home and possibly in other regional centers.
[4] Of course, things have changed since independence. That the author stresses how the Faculty of Social Sciences is not the lonesome institution in the field is important in this respect. New institutions, where political scientist could work, did spring up. Beside the Peace Institute (Mirovni inštitut) and the Faculty of Arts, mentioned by the author, one should also add the Institutum Studiorum Humanitatis (Graduate School of Humanities). All the institutions mentioned are located in Ljubljana, however. Indeed, the initiatives to set up regional centers are already existing, as the author says. One would be advised to wait and see how these initiatives will materialize. 2 (Note2: See below the discussion on employment possibilities.) Yet given the interest of young generations for enrolling in one of the study programs within the Political Science Department, the actual development of at least two regional centers (the East of Slovenia in Maribor and the littoral area in either Nova Gorica or Koper-Capodistria would seem obvious locations) should come as no surprise.
[5] If one takes a brief look at the research output in Slovenia, one may or may not subscribe to the author's argument about the diversification of the Slovenian Political Science in the past decade, it being more internationally integrated and visible. At first sight, there are different fields in which the Slovenian political scientists appear to be active. The curricula are particularly revealing in this respect. 3 (Note3: See below, the section on study programs.) Yet that does not necessarily reflect on scholars' publishing record, especially when one looks at publications abroad.
[6] The author is right when saying that Slovenian scholars find ever less room for maneuver to avoid Western standards of research evaluation and habilitation, vigorously pursued by the Slovenian government. The latter found little understanding for the fact that the tradition in Political Science scholarship in Slovenia was in an early development stage and could hardly be compared with the majority of countries in the region. The government did not care much for the fact that, as already indicated, only a handful of Slovenian authors published abroad prior to 1990 Examples would include Vlado Benko, Adolf Bibič, Stane Južniè, Ernest Petriè. One could add some others, e.g. Anton Bebler, Bojko Buèar 4 (Note4: For the list of their publications visit http://izum.izum.si/scripts/br?lang=win and enter the name of the author.) (whoever should have been missed here, the list would not have expanded much further). Nevertheless, the domestic scientific community responded promptly. The authors realized that they needed to publish abroad extensively if they wanted to earn international recognition. They began to understand that their works would not be taken for granted and that regardless of the (local) fame, their submissions would be subject to an independent review.
[7] This is not to imply that Slovenia is a kind of a trendsetter in publishing abroad (see below the criticism of such claims). What I am trying to say here is that this is the road not only the Slovenian but also other Eastern European authors will eventually need to follow, if they have not done so already. As for my own limited experience as an editor of the Journal of International Relations and Development (JIRD), this tells me that scholars from many countries in Eastern Europe tend to produce overly descriptive articles with little if any methodological and/or theoretical backing. They found it surprising if their papers are rejected outright by the journal, and in many cases they failed to return to the JIRD when they had received reviewers' comments. That there is a small percentage of the Eastern European authors that publish with the JIRD compared to authors from other regions (Drulàk and Königova, 2001: 39) may of course be attributed also to other factors, such as that Eastern European authors do not know the journal or prefer to publish with more prestigious journals in the field. Be it as it may, it would appear to me that the required standards of publishing are not any journal's whim; in fact, they should not at all be referred to as “Western”, but rather as universal standards, as, I am sure, ever more Eastern European scholars will find out. 5 (Note5: The JIRD itself strives to change the situation for the better, and hopefully the results are going to be visible. The special issue on Alexander Wendt (No. 4 in 2001) has a decent portion of Eastern European authors. Another special issue for the year 2002 is likely to be represented almost exclusively by Eastern European authors.)
[8] Whether the heightened standards of research output also mean diversification is up for a debate, however. At least as far as Political Science in Slovenia is concerned, I have my doubts that the diversification - meaning diversity in terms of subjects covered, schools of thought followed/developed, and the like - has actually taken place. My sense is that the Slovenian scholarship in the field of Political Science is still deep in the transition period. Take, for instance, another quick look at the list of references provided by the author. One will quickly find out that words such as “Slovenia” or “Yugoslavia” often feature in the titles of the papers and books. In fact, if my calculation is correct, 60 % of the sources referred to by the author in her paper concern Slovenia and Yugoslavia in one way or another. In other words, to make their way into the world of the Western scholarship, Slovenian political scientists exploit the only niche they have had at the time - the knowledge about Slovenia and the region. I am willing to argue that the list of sources provided by the author is rather representative of the state of affairs in the domestic output. 6 (Note6: I am no exception here; see Šabiè and Bukowski (2002). ) Hence, I would subscribe to the rather sobering conclusion: in the global scientific community, the Slovenian political scientists are becoming renowned specialists on Slovenia.
[9] Now this is not what I would call diversification. I would rather call it a problem, which Slovenian political scientists need to face sooner, rather than latter, if they (well: we) do not wish to end up in the distant periphery of European scholarship. As indicated earlier, other scientific communities in Eastern Europe might face similar or even worse problems, with possibly the same consequences. As put nicely by Guzzini, lamenting about the sorry state of International Relations (IR) theory teaching in Eastern Europe:
[10] Indeed, there is a risk in the relative comfort the semi-periphery provides. Academic communities, for instance in Central and Eastern Europe, might simply accept the position in which the international division of academic labor will try to slot them, namely one in which they teach and research only on their particular region, passively relying on theories invented by somebody else (or worse, without even any theoretical background which would make them able to relate to other phenomena). The risk is great that scholars will be content with filling out those chapters where “regional expertise” is needed. “The view from...” litters book chapter headings like titles in UN reports. PhD theses will be guided by these requirements mainly (Guzzini, 2001: 108; my emphases).
[11] I was somewhat surprised by the descriptiveness of the study programs' section of the author's paper. This might have been brought about by the overall approach agreed to beforehand, which the rapporteurs simply needed to follow. Surely, there is more to teaching Political Science in Slovenia than the author has offered - bare two pages of an overview. One thing that is worth developing into a greater detail, for example, might be the interdisciplinarity vs. specialization argument - which strategy, for instance, has Slovenian scholarship taken (if at all) and why? Are we happy with the situation as it is? Even if all the answers to these questions are at hand and/or seem obvious, one should still have drawn certain conclusions from the state of affairs in the Political Science curricula in Slovenia. I miss that in the author's paper and think that a few words should be spent on this important issue.
[12] If one specializes in public administration, for example, he or she should get all the relevant knowledge that there is in this area, in order to be competitive on the market. But the knowledge in public administration per se will not do, and must be complemented by a broader expertise from what is perceived as relevant fields within the social science in general. When universities in Eastern Europe offer courses within the field of Political Science they should accept the interdisciplinarity as a matter of course, and should certainly not shy away from consulting expertise from other disciplines such as Economics or Law; or even natural sciences. As has been put by a political scientist, by way of example, “We must teach students not just European Thought or History, but also Econometrics, Microeconomics, and Rational Choice Theory, in order not to surrender to economists a vast terrain in the analysis of politics, nor to weaken the employment prospects of young political scientists” (Maravall, 1999: 5).
[13] Strangely enough, in some cases the interdisciplinarity might not be well received by the students. Take the IR undergraduate study program within the Political Science Department at the Faculty of Social Sciences in Ljubljana as an example. In the first year, there is only one, perhaps two, courses that could be attributed to the field of Political Science. Neither of them fits entirely to IR. We have the same situation in the second year. The third year marks an important qualitative change, as IR courses begin to dominate, whereas it is only the fourth year which fully brings the IR to students' attention.
[14] Students tend to be annoyed with such a model of studying. After the second year they are confused, and they start asking themselves why on earth have they enrolled this program if they have to wait two years and pass some strange, “not-really-IR” subjects taught? I hear such complaints on a daily basis. I advise students to take the most of “those” subjects which range from statistics to the sociology of culture, for they might provide them with an important edge over their more specialized competitors.
[15] Indeed, as Maravall has pointed out, 'Our students will have 40 years of professional activity ahead of them, and will experience profound changes in their societies. We must prepare them as best we can: this means to provide them with every professional tool' (ibid.). Here, however, the University of Ljubljana lags behind. Due to the lack of the credit system (the problem, which the author has rightly exposed in her paper), the Political Science students have only a limited possibility of selecting the courses of their choice both within the Faculty of Social Sciences and outside it. They need to compensate for this deficiency at the post-graduate level where more possibilities for a “tailor-made” study exist. Speaking of post-graduate studies in the field of Political Science, a detailed analysis of this important level of education in Slovenia seems to be missing in the present version of Fink-Hafner`s paper. Why? After all, the demand for experts with post-graduate diplomas is increasing and we, teachers in Slovenia, also need to reflect whether we offer our post-graduate students enough value for their money, and consequently prepare them well for entering the job market.
[16] This brings me to the question of employment possibilities. Given the broad range of issues covered in the paper, the rather meager attention which the author has paid to this issue comes as a surprise, not least from the perspective of the discipline's development in Slovenia. While it would be unfair to say that younger scientists are not knocking on the door, as it were (in the past decade, the Political Science Department has increased by ten or so younger researchers) it would be an overstatement to say that the situation is a rosy one. In the same decade there have been losses, too (some members of the Department have retired or are close to retirement, some have died prematurely, some have left). My calculation says that at least five scholars could belong to such a group, which is a lot for Slovenia. If one wishes the Slovenian Political Science to develop further, there will be a need for additional human resources and close co-operation with scientist abroad. Here, of course, several other questions, concerning funding, internal organization, etc. arise. There is not enough space to enter this debate here. Nevertheless, my point is that, surely, an in-depth study of job opportunities and, within the context of the debate the author contributes to her paper, of quality human resources for institutions engaged into Political Science research in Slovenia is and should be in order.
[17] In sum, this paper is a candid attempt by Danica Fink-Hafner to carry out a job of considerable importance. This is not something that is being done on an everyday basis. As such, these initiatives and eventually efforts should be highly appreciated. At the same time, as I am sure the author herself is aware, such undertakings warrant a thorough, coherent investigation, but one must appreciate that it would take more than a contribution in the present volume (and, I daresay, the guidelines she had to observe) to do that. Even so, Danica Fink Hafner has now become one of the very few political scientists in Slovenia who embarked on reflecting on the state of the art of the science in that country. She should not only be congratulated for the work she has contributed to the present edition. With expertise she has accumulated, she should be encouraged to provide an as yet non-existent comprehensive volume on political science in Slovenia.
Ljubljana, January 2002
