A practical guide for political science students presents basic and special requirements for writing and presentation of various types of research papers: essay, term paper, bachelor and master theses. The first part describes the most important general requirements and advices. The second part discusses specific requirements and issues related to every type of research paper. The book recommends how to structure the text, what elements should be included into the introductory part, how to prepare the references and bibliography. At the end of the book students may find various appendixes of the elements discussed in the book.
A practical guide for political science students presents basic and special requirements for writing and presentation of various types of research papers: essay, term paper, bachelor and master theses. The first part describes the most important general requirements and advices. The second part discusses specific requirements and issues related to every type of research paper. The book recommends how to structure the text, what elements should be included into the introductory part, how to prepare the references and bibliography. At the end of the book students may find various appendixes of the elements discussed in the book.
A practical guide for political science students presents basic and special requirements for writing and presentation of various types of research papers: essay, term paper, bachelor and master theses. The first part describes the most important general requirements and advices. The second part discusses specific requirements and issues related to every type of research paper. The book recommends how to structure the text, what elements should be included into the introductory part, how to prepare the references and bibliography. At the end of the book students may find various appendixes of the elements discussed in the book.
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 can not 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 can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.
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 can not 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 can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.
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 can not 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 can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.
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 can not 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 can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.
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.
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.
Globalization and evolving knowledge society are the major fundamental challenge to the social science. Diversification of social life on the all levels of reality - individual, family, community, state, mankind - opens new opportunities and give birth to the new threats. To grasp these two - positive and negative - sides of our life the more precise, relevant cognitive means are needed. Better conceptualized, free of ideological and political influences.
Globalization and evolving knowledge society are the major fundamental challenge to the social science. Diversification of social life on the all levels of reality - individual, family, community, state, mankind - opens new opportunities and give birth to the new threats. To grasp these two - positive and negative - sides of our life the more precise, relevant cognitive means are needed. Better conceptualized, free of ideological and political influences.
Globalization and evolving knowledge society are the major fundamental challenge to the social science. Diversification of social life on the all levels of reality - individual, family, community, state, mankind - opens new opportunities and give birth to the new threats. To grasp these two - positive and negative - sides of our life the more precise, relevant cognitive means are needed. Better conceptualized, free of ideological and political influences.
Globalization and evolving knowledge society are the major fundamental challenge to the social science. Diversification of social life on the all levels of reality - individual, family, community, state, mankind - opens new opportunities and give birth to the new threats. To grasp these two - positive and negative - sides of our life the more precise, relevant cognitive means are needed. Better conceptualized, free of ideological and political influences.
The goal of this article is to analyse the peculiarities of the application of comparative method in political science. The analysis focuses on the historical development of comparative research and major factors that have influenced this development, mainly, historical events, development of research techniques and advancement of the data storage and processing. The analysis covers investigation of various models of comparative research classification as well as the problems of sampling. The comparative method is frequently used in political and social research as it broadens the perspective and could improve understanding of social phenomena. Many methodological problems encountered by scientists earlier on still remain unsolved, while some new challenges have been encountered such as ethnocentrism, sampling issues and cultural biases. The major goal of this article is to promote the scientific discussions on the application of comparative method in the political science in Lithuanian language. ; Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjami lyginamojo metodo panaudojimo politikos moksle savitumai. Trumpai apžvelgus lyginamųjų tyrimų vystymosi istoriją, analizuojami veiksniai, kurie turėjo įtakos tyrimų poreikiui ir plėtrai. Ypatingas dėmesys skiriamas lyginamųjų tyrimų klasifi kacijos analizei. Straipsnyje analizuojami keli lyginamųjų tyrimų klasifi kacijos modeliai, sukonstruoti remiantis skirtingu požiūriu į laiko ir erdvės parametrų svarbą. Taip pat analizuojama kiekybinė (tyrimo vienetų skaičiaus) klasifi kacija. Šio straipsnio tikslas – prisidėti prie lyginamosios politikos metodologijos analizės plėtojimo lietuvių kalba.
Although the representatives of different social sciences are trying to highlight and raise the methodological and methodical peculiarity of social sciences with respect to natural sciences, it should be noted that a big part of social sciences research is based on the positivist research paradigm. The positivist tradition allows a researcher to choose certain research methods that originated from natural sciences and to apply them in the research of social sciences. Regarding the possibilities to determine causality, an experiment is considered to be the best empirical research method. However, the emphasis is placed on the complicated application of this method to social sciences due to certain practical, political and ethical aspects. When developing ideas about an appropriate and effective use of the experimental research method in social sciences, the use of natural experiment is recommended. Although in recent years, the research based on the methodology of natural experiment is gaining popularity, there is still a lack of literature on how and when this methodology can be applied, what problems it can help to solve, how data can be collected and analysed. Thus, on the basis of methodological literature analysis, this article is an attempt to present natural experiment as a method for social researches, to provide guidelines and recommendations for the application of the methodology of natural experiment and to inspire scientific discussion about using the strategy of natural experiment in social sciences.
