Review
[1] First, on the whole, I agree with the main propositions of Aivars Tabuns’s report on the state and prospects of development of Latvian sociology. I want to underscore my colleague’s acknowledged academic level in sociology, his experience in doing sociological research, his persuading “backstage” experience in organizing scientific work in Latvia as well as his knowledge of theoretical and practical aspects of sociological education.
[2] Aivars Tabuns is one of the few sociologists who systematically analyze the history of Latvian sociology; therefore, I have no additional comments on his analysis of the situation before 1989. Only one question remains - what can be gained from that experience, what should be preserved and used at the same time considering the needs and demands of today, and how the tradition of Latvian sociology is and will be observed and followed if one could speak of the very existence of it.
[3] Analyzing the main trends after 1990, I would not agree that exactly 1990 was the turning point of the paradigm shift. Empirical sociologists were already least influenced by the dominant ideology during Soviet times. Sometimes the Marxist-Leninist theoretical base of research constituted only a superficial appendix that vaguely influenced the subsequent empirical part of the research, which, from the point of view of methodology, corresponded with the paradigm of quantitative research. Of course, in interpretation, independent empirical generalizations were considered to be of greater significance. Attempts were not made to use the empirical data to prove the models of the Marxist-Leninist theory. No doubt, one can speak about the increasing role of the quantitative paradigm just after 1990. The trend still remains strong - the weight of the paradigm in research and curricula compared with the others are good indicators of it.
[4] One could also speak of the shift of an “institutional paradigm” in sociology in Latvia. One could speak of the transition from stable, long-standing research collectives usually rigid in their organizational structure and located in one place to mobile - in terms of time, space, and structure - research projects. Of course, they could be realized largely thanks to the development of information technologies. The discontinuation of the work of the Latvian Sociological Association. is to be considered as a serious drawback. The effective work of the association would help to deal with current issues of sociology in Latvia - it may foster the growth of professional prestige in society on the whole as well as among prospective clients. Implementation of the results of sociological research in social and political praxis, improvement of communication among sociologists and raising the level of qualification as well as determination of evaluation criteria could be some of the tasks the association should deal with.
[5] Speaking of the change of “sociological elite”, the trend resembles the demographic situation in European countries with a negative growth when generations are not reproduced in sufficient quantity. The prospects of development seem to be very slim in this respect. The problem of the change of generations could be one of the priorities of the Latvian Sociological Association (LAS). The LAS could play a significant role in facilitating public and academic debates that would ensure the circulation of sociological (and social) knowledge both in academic milieu and in the society on the whole.
Riga, 2002
