Suchergebnisse

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they cannot be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism cannot win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules. Adapted from the source document.

This article is an attempt to overview the recent state of European studies in Lithuania & some problems arising in this field of research. Because of the 'constructivist' essence of contemporary science, the social sciences, including European studies, are exposed to a threat of losing 'a sense of reality.' If this ever growing tendency gets stronger & becomes irreversible, the knowledge acquired in the course of those studies would become only 'doxical' knowledge reflecting daily realities & needs of short-term political conjuncture. One of possible ways to solve the problem of a loss of 'a sense of reality' in the field of European studies is to expand the research horizons by paying more attention to European history & especially to its religious & philosophical heritage. Adapted from the source document.

The article analyses the European studies in Lithuania since the reestablishment of independence in 1990. It discusses the main issues researched and their dynamics. First, what factors have been behind the changing subjects of European studies in Lithuania & how do they compare with the European studies in Western academia. Second, what have been the dominant subjects of European studies in Lithuania since 1990 & how do they relate to political developments between the EU and Lithuania as well as the nature of academic community in Lithuania. Third, taking into account the experience with European studies so far, to suggest possible future developments of this academic field in Lithuania, in such a way providing a map of potential subject of future research. Adapted from the source document.

On purpose to analyse a certain part of social world it is useful to apply a concept of field introduced in the field theory of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Field is a structure of relations between the objective positions occupied by its agents. Lithuanian political science field was chosen as the object of the research. The main problem analysed in the article is the "origin" of different perceptions of political science If only individual experience affects these perceptions, how could we explain the fact that some beliefs are more typical to certain groups of scientists and are not inherent to other groups? The investigation using semi-structuralized survey method was executed. Eighty-eight Lithuanian political scientists took part in the research. Received data was analysed by multiple correspondence analysis technique and other methods of statistical analysis. It was identified that those political scientists who own the highest academic and scientific capital tend to support a vision of political science not oriented towards practical politics. These results might be interpreted as demonstrating the above mentioned interests to impose such perceptions of political science which could be the most useful to the scientists and as confirming the hypothesis of the research. Adapted from the source document.

Galios savoka yra viena is pagrindiniu, taciau taip pat ir viena is labiausiai gincijamu savoku politikos moksle bei gimininguose socialiniuose moksluose. Straipsnyje apzvelgiami teoriniai debatai del galios savokos reiksmes tarp sociologu ir politologu, prasideje XX amziaus septintajame desimtmetyje - vadinamieji 'galios veidu debatai' - bei galios santykis su giminingomis autoriteto (teisetos valdzios) ir prievartos savokomis. Straipsnio tikslas yra sudaryti 'tarpparadigmine' savokos taksonomija ir isskirti konceptualias 'galios' ribas. 'Galios' savokos ribozenkliais pasirenkamos butent 'autoriteto' ir 'prievartos' savokos, pirmaja is ju tapatinant su galios maksimumu, o antraja - su visisku galios eliminavimu, kai ja pakeicia fizine kontrole. Tai nera vienintele politologiniame diskurse aptinkama galios samprata, nes kai kurie politikos mokslu atstovai, ypac tarptautiniu santykiu tyrinetojai, galia tapatina butent su fizine jega. Vis delto dauguma sociologu ir politikos teoretiku palaiko pozicija (jai atstovaujama ir straipsnyje), jog galia baigiasi ten, kur prasideda prievarta Power is one of the basic, but at the same time one of the most disputed concepts in political science, as well as other social sciences contiguous to it. The article starts by reviewing an ongoing debate between political scientists and sociologists which started around 1960s - the so-called 'faces of power debate' - and moves on to evaluate the conceptual relation between power, on the one hand, and authority and coercion on the other. The somewhat modest goal of this endeavour is to design a taxonomy of, as well as to mark the limits of the concept in question. 'Authority' and 'coercion' (meaning 'physical force') are thus chosen as conceptual markers, the former corresponding to the maximum power with minimum opposition and the latter denoting the complete loss of power in exchange for sheer physical control over outcomes. This is not the only perception of power typical to the political science discourse; some political scientists, namely scholars of international relations, identify the exercise of power precisely with physical coercion by which certain object of value is secured. However, most of the more sophisticated accounts of power in social and political theory favour the conceptual limits proposed in this article. Adapted from the source document.

Contemporary political science has long been focused less on the policy content than on "polity" & "politics," in particular. In the middle of the last century, many political scientists decided that such a self-restraint poses certain difficulties, deciding to launch discussions on how the social scientists can & should examine policy. Harold Lasswell's 1951 essay "The Policy Orientation" has launched the discussions. Here, Lasswell claimed that policy research should be separated from a traditional research, ie., focusing on theory, the subject & descriptive in terms of the style it pursues. An essay may, beyond doubt, be described as one of the political science's classics. Not because Lasswell in the space he had, managed to think with subtlety & in depth from a theoretical point of view, but for the reason that he clarified the parameters that later became decisive in analyzing the content of what politics is: analysis must focus on problems; it must be multi-subject & clearly normative. Thus, these three parameters become the part of the fundamental criteria the European Association of Public Administration Accreditation, founded in 1999, uses in accrediting European public education systems. In spite of the fact that many had agreed on the requirements Lasswell posed with regard to public policy as the focus of the social sciences, there was still a lack of common understanding on how these requirements should be implement. To the contrary, they have become the object of unresolved vigorous discussions. Some might interpret this as a weakness of policy analysis, yet some would see this as a proof of healthiness, ie., that the public policy analysts develop the subject of their expertise. Adapted from the source document.

The article deals with the impact of globalization on social security & social exclusion in Lithuania for the first time in Lithuanian social sciences literature. The article consists of 5 parts: in the first part "globalization risk" & related non-traditional methodology is examined, in the second part the relation between globalization & glocalization is analyzed, in the third part of the article the changes of Lithuanian macrosocial indicators are examined, in the fourth part the role of libertarian ideology & practice for social exclusion development is shown & the fifth part reveals the positive & negative shifts in Lithuanian state social security. The author relies on Lithuanian macrosocial data & tries to prove that parallelly with globalization its antipode -- glocalization -- is thriving in the social processes. Globalization impact on social exclusion may be understood not only in its narrow sense -- as marginalization of different "traditional" social risk groups but also in the wider meaning because globalization is raising risks for many life spheres & even for entire society. Globalization often positively influences the social position of the "winners" & enables their better self-realization. But globalization often negatively influences the situation of the "losers" when they are imprisoned in glocalization for the longer or shorter time without any clear perspectives to rise. Among social security backwardness & the reasons of social exclusion formation were: a) the lack of financial resources, b) accelerating globalization & transformation rates -- when the system could not "develop into deepness" but was forced to chase headlong perfunctory all the time accelerating processes. The strife was followed not against the reasons but against the separate negative social consequences. The preventive activities were very limited, c) the lack of new progressive administrative theories & decisions, d) insufficient development of social policy, social security & social exclusion research, e) frequent confinement of social administration agents on barely theoretical solutions & solving problems "on paper," f) unfavorable international & native influence of ideology & practice of extreme liberalism. The article shows that globalization had influenced the distinctive administrative reforms & measures in Lithuania, which have given controversial results (New Public Management, private pensions funds reform, development of social services). The conclusion is possible to make that characteristic contradiction in Lithuanian social security is between organizational maturity & scarcity of real results after implementation of social security measures. Adapted from the source document.