Review
[1] The object of the analysis is wide and manifold. It is not easy to describe all the problems and trends in a short paper. Anelė Vosyliutė provided a big and diligent work and managed to present the key issues in the situation of sociology in Lithuania. On the other hand, this paper provokes discussions and comments as well.
[2] Anelė Vosyliutė devotes to this period even too great attention (more than six pages). Especially good analysis of pre-war heritage was done. On the other hand, it would be risky to overestimate the impact of this tradition on modern sociological discourse in Lithuania. It is a pity, but tradition was broken during the Soviet time and attempts to actualize the ideas of pre-war time play more symbolic role.
[3] Speaking about sociology in soviet period a proposition that “the base of writings of sociologists were concepts of Marx, Lenin…” (Vosyliutė, p.1) can be discussed. This proposition is absolutely right, if one speaks about the so-called “historical materialism” or “scientific communism” (theoretical disciplines). However, these disciplines were not perceived in society as “sociology”. Sociology de facto was understood as empirical science even aside ideological ideas. In this period quite huge attention was paid to methods and methodology of sociological research and to mathematical methods of analysis. Maybe because of this reason an absolute majority of “Soviet” sociologists easily found the place in a new open and democratic society.
[4] Anelė Vosyliutė has done a good overview of thematic issues in sociological studies of that time: industrial and work sociology, time budgets, sociology of youth. Of course, it is possible to find more themes such as family problems, education, culture, etc. It could be said that sociologists covered more or less the majority fields of investigations. But, quite obviously, religious sociology, political sociology, sociology of inter-ethnic relations were absent at that time.
[5] Speaking about the impact of Western theories one more question should be mentioned. Because of some reasons sociology in Lithuania and in all Soviet Union was perceived as empirical science mainly and positivistic paradigm was very strong. For example, there are no doubts that works of Paul Lazarsfeld directly or indirectly had important influence. Positivistic and empirical approach is widespread until now.
[6] In her paper Anelė Vosyliutė described changes in paradigms, theoretical and methodological orientations. It is possible to add some features on the development of empirical background of sociology.
[7] After 1990 in society deep structural changes occurred, which touched and the scientific sphere. There was a substantial decrease of demand for research related to the industrial complex of the USSR (for instance, in physics and mathematics). In a sphere of the social sciences just the opposite process had occurred: a demand for sociologists had increased in universities; researches on new topics which were forbidden before had begun (politics, religion, inter-ethnic relations). Western scientists and politicians closely monitored problems of the transition period, and they needed the empirical data; state institutions, political parties, non-governmental organizations wanted to know the real situation in the society as well. Many European and especially East-Central European projects are carried out in Lithuania.
[8] Until 1990 in Lithuania the empirical research was concentrated at the Institute of Philosophy, sociology and law (The Academy of Sciences) and at Vilnius University. Later the process of decentralization had occurred. A structural and institutional situation of the empirical social research is not rigorously defined, it is continuously changing.
[9] It is worth noting that the execution (fieldwork) of the empirical research has concentrated in three private companies (public opinion and market research) and at the Department of Statistics (this institution is also capable of carrying out the analysis of gathered data). Smaller-scale projects (expert polls, for example) are executed by the analytical centers of the social sciences themselves. There is a constant problem that unprofessional companies appear from time to time which claim to provide empirical research (which is of a poor quality) for a lower price. However, this issue primarily concerns the public opinion research.
[10] The main centers of the social research are at the Lithuanian Institute of Philosophy and Sociology (Department of Social Organisation, Department of Ethnosociology, Department of Research of Social Changes, Demographic Research Centre); at Vilnius University (Department of Sociology, Department of Social Work, Institute of International Relations and Political Science); Kaunas University of Technology (Institute of Policy and Public Administration, Institute of Educational Studies); Vytautas Magnus University (Department of Sociology).
[11] In Lithuania there also are some NGOs, conducting projects based on the empirical data, for instance Lithuanian Free Market Institute, Lithuanian Human Rights Centre.
[12] Anelė Vosyliutė carefully analysed thematic orientations of Lithuanian sociologists. It should be said that she covered an absolute majority of themes that have been touched upon in the recent period. A big part of these themes could be put together under the title “Society in transition”. In this field the edition of four volumes of “Social Studies” should be stressed (Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, editor M. Taljunaite). These books include the main Lithuanian authors writing on problems of transitional society. It is also important that Western scientists actively took part in preparing these editions. Speaking about Western scientists the name of Richard Rose (Strathclyde University) should be mentioned. He organized five waves of “New Baltic Barometer” (1993, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001). The questionnaire of this sociological research devoted to measure changes in society includes more than two hundred indicators. Publications of R. Rose have helped to understand differences and similarities in the Baltic States (Rose, 1995, 1997, 2000). The problems of transition were deeply analyzed in a monographic book “Social Changes: Lithuania 1990-1998” (Dobryninas, 2000).
[13] Speaking about funding it is important to mention that national resources are quite modest and Western funds are playing important role sustaining sociology (especially its empirical part) in Lithuania. On the other hand, this support in some sense did not help to consolidate community of sociologists in Lithuania. “Vertical” relations became more intensive instead of “horizontal” ones, i.e. Lithuanian sociologists intensively communicate with their Western colleagues and it is very difficult to get information about sociological projects, which were carried out by Lithuanian colleagues. A lack of information of this kind is crucial.
[14] One of the functions of sociology in a society is its critical function, i.e. to revise existing stereotypes, to show the situation behind official “façade”. In this context relations between power structures and sociologists have been changing during the last 12 years.
[15] Conditionally, this period can be classified into three periods. In the first period (1989-1990) sociologists and especially studies based on public opinion polls played a peculiar role. The critical function of sociology was successfully used to fight against the old regime. Newly emerging political elite used it as an instrument to consolidate its position. The second period (1991-1996) can be characterized by distrust in sociologists. A painful transitional period caused many social problems and a critical analysis of them was sometimes perceived as criticism of the new system or even a “nostalgia” towards the past. Attitudes towards results of the public opinion polls from the side of state institutions were skeptical as well. The wrong prediction of 1992 parliamentary election results had here a considerable impact as well. Later (1997+) period could be characterized by successful predictions of election results and increased understanding of importance of surveys for political life by politicians. Sociologists began to be advisers of politicians and administrative elite. In the same time sociologists began to play an active role in the media agenda.
[16] A question on the creation of data bases has arisen since the first empirical sociological surveys. However, this appeared to be not feasible even in the centralized Soviet system. There is a lack of well-organized data bases till nowadays. This situation is determined by several reasons.
[17] Although empirical surveys are financed by various institutions, funds, etc., the scientists participating in researches are unwilling to share information with others. Psychologically, such information becomes like their property. No one wants to transmit the data to a certain center accumulating information, therefore no one could easily use it (“use one’s work”) or other scientists could not access the data and check conclusions or look for methodical and methodological errors.
[18] Creation of a data base is labor intense, complicated and expensive work. Sociologists linger to conduct new, actual researches rather than employ financial, intellectual and time resources for quite arduous, depersonalized work. Maintaining contacts with authors of researches, description of methodologies of researches, etc. is especially time consuming.
[19] The data of first empirical surveys were held on magnetic tapes. Later some of the data was rewritten on the floppy disks. Only a part of information was rewritten from floppy disks onto hard disks and CD-ROM. The programs for data entry were also changing. At present, a big part of information is not accessible for an ordinary user.
[20] Due to the mentioned and other reasons the data of empirical sociological surveys is dispersed, part of the methodological information about the parameters of surveys is lost unrecoverably. At present, only the bigger private public opinion research centers possess larger resources of information. In state-owned sociological centers the empirical data is vanishing very quickly due to the structural reforms and changing authorities.
[21] International co-operation is described in the paper of Anelė Vosyliutė quite well. One may also mention some other remarks on this issue.
[22] International co-operation had been important not only because of methodological support and understanding of new sociological trends by Lithuanian sociologists, but it also had been providing economic support for the academic sphere during a hard transitional period (especially in 1990-1995).
[23] Lithuanian sociologists got financial support to provide different studies. They got grants, scholarships, and possibilities to participate in the international conferences, to buy books, etc. Indeed, Western support helped the discipline and its representatives to survive during the transition period.
[24] Western sociologists sometimes played the role of experts or “judges” evaluating the situation in Lithuanian sociology. Of course, Lithuanian sociologists are critical enough evaluating works of their colleagues. Although, in a small country it is sometimes difficult to criticise recognised scientific leaders. For example, in 1996 a group of Norwegian sociologists evaluated in written form all articles (24) in a book Changes of Identity in Modern Lithuania (M. Taljunaite (ed.), Social Studies, Vol.2. Vilnius, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, 1996). The result shocked the community of sociologists: some key leaders of the discipline were evaluated very low, while some new names - very high.
[25] International co-operation, as a rule, is described only in the bright colours. Very rarely somebody mentions critical notes on it. In 1997 Goteborg University conducted a survey among social scientists of Lithuania (N=186, survey provided by Public Opinion Research Centre “Vilmorus”). The aim of this study was to reveal not only bright but also problematic aspects of international co-operation. Here we present some results of this study (answers to the questions of the questionnaire). “Lithuanian scientists receive grants abroad, but after that they do not do anything important (go for personal profit, scientific tourism)”: often - 13%, sometimes - 62%; “Abroad Lithuanian scientists receive knowledge hardly applicable in Lithuania”: often - 9%, sometimes - 40%; “Following their visits abroad scientists are unwilling to share the experience with the Lithuanian colleagues”: often - 13%, sometimes - 43%; “Scientists in contacts with foreign structures are unwilling to participate in “local” projects for national needs”: often - 12%, sometimes - 38%; “Works of Lithuanian scientists abroad are superficial”: often - 7%, sometimes - 40%; “Access to publication for Lithuanian scientists abroad is easier than in Lithuania (publications from a “barely known” country)”: often - 7%, sometimes - 20%; “In order to get grants and scholarships, personal contacts outside the academic field are used”: often - 40%, sometimes - 40%; “The ones who get grants or scholarships are not the most qualified”: often - 20%, sometimes - 55%; “While abroad, scientists give an unfoundedly negative evaluation of the state of social sciences in Lithuania”: often - 14%, sometimes - 39%; “Foreign scientists treat Lithuanian scientists as cheap labour force”: often - 20%, sometimes - 34%; “Foreign scientists have already turned into the “big brothers”, inclined to control and instruct”: often - 29%, sometimes - 32%; “Foreign scientists are trying to apply theories on Lithuania which are not relevant for the present situation”: often - 19%, sometimes - 43%; “When returning from abroad Lithuanian scientists find themselves isolated from their colleagues”: often - 8%, sometimes - 19%; “In Lithuania no interest is taken in the experience of people returning from abroad”: often - 32%, sometimes - 40%; “Lithuanian scientists who go abroad do it only to get money”: often - 12%, sometimes - 50%.
[26] In sum, these empirical figures show many interesting problems in the sphere of international co-operation, at least in 1997.
[27] Speaking about further development it is useful to separate theoretical and empirical dimensions. Development of theoretical sociology depends on development of the educational system, especially system of universities. In spite of serious economic difficulties, this sphere had not suffered during the transition period. On the contrary, now we have more students and professors. Keeping in mind that voters in Lithuania are quite sensitive to educational problems, it is possible to expect that the a system of universities will develop in the future, as well. Especially this development ought to influence a quality of studies and scientific researches at the universities. There are departments of sociology at every university and academy, this discipline and profession is quite prestigious, the staff is comparatively (to other disciplines) young. So, a further development of universities will strengthen sociological units as well.
[28] We should take into account one more circumstance. Lithuania is finishing negotiations on accession into the European Union. It is probable that within a few years Lithuania will become a member of the European Union. Lithuania’s sociologists will become members of a sociological community of Europe. This prospect provides further increase of scientific standards, exchange of ideas, participation in the international projects.
[29] Speaking about the empirical sociology we can find more problems. The state cannot finance empirical surveys because they are too expensive. We cannot expect such a financial support in the nearest future either. Empirical studies will concentrate on the private market and in public opinion research centres. The gap between empirical and theoretical sociology will deepen. An exchange of ideas between these two sociological spheres (theoretical and empirical) will be weak, as it has been during the last ten years.
[30] On the other hand, a new Institute for Social Studies is now being created in Lithuania. The concept of this institute is to harmonise a theoretical and empirical approach and to invite the best productive sociological forces in Lithuania.
[31] Empirical sociological studies will develop in the context of euro-integration, as well. The consequences of euro-integration for the social sphere will be measured, and comparable sociological surveys will be conducted more often than nowadays.
[32] Some general notes by the end. In the paper more or less all relevant aspects of Lithuanian sociology were covered. Nevertheless, the report could be better structured according to the initial plan proposed by Collegium Budapest. It would be more convenient for a reader to get lists of the key projects, institutions, themes, and a selection of publications in world languages, etc. separately in annexes, for example.
Vilnius, 2002
