Suchergebnisse

In memoriam Profesora Marcelego Kosmana (1940–2023)

The purpose of this article is to show Poland's path to European Union membership from the perspective of the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Accession Treaty. Joining the Community was proceeded by many years of preparation and efforts. Poland had to meet many necessary requirements to finally join the ranks of the member states. The negotiations, which began on April 3, 1998, were concluded on April 16, 2003, with the signing of the Accession Treaty in Athens. In Poland, the decision was also decided by the public expressing its opinion in a referendum held on June 7–8, 2003. On July 23, 2003 the Accession Treaty was ratified, and on May 1, 2004. Poland became a member of the European Union. Poland's entry into the European Union made it possible to take a civilizational step. Poland benefited from its presence in the EU in many dimensions, primarily political, economic and social. The benefits of Poland's accession to the EU far outweigh the costs. This assessment is also confirmed by the opinions of citizens expressed in surveys. In June 2022, the number of supporters of Poland's EU membership reached a record 92%.

In the EU, advanced international cooperation is a characteristic feature of relations between neighbouring states. The idea behind cross-border cooperation spreads into various fields, including daily life, common programmes, priorities, and strategies. The primary motives behind it include the will to communicate with your neighbours, overcome hostility and prejudice between the two co-existing nations, enhance democracy and develop local administration structures, overcome isolation and remoteness, and quickly merge with the integrated Europe. The article discusses cross-border cooperation between universities in Poland and Germany, with particular attention paid to cooperation taking place between neighbouring cities of Słubice, Poland, and Frankfurt (Oder), Germany. However, before the cross-border cooperation is addressed, the article elaborates on a broader context.

Since the number of academic specializations and disciplines has consistently been increasing, it has become necessary to supplement present classifications and categorizations, as well as come up with new ones, on a regular basis. Therefore, it has become feasible to distinguish a new branch of science as well as to assign the existing disciplines to different branches. It is owing to such a process that political sciences have been reassigned in Poland. Before September 30, 2011, political sciences had been categorized as the humanities, but later on they were encompassed by a new branch of social sciences, created as a result of the division of the humanities. I adopt the thesis that this decision was substantially justified since, given current legal status quo, political sciences as a discipline have more in common with other disciplines assigned to social sciences than the humanities. Additionally, by way of developing a new register of disciplines, the administrative divisions in Polish science were to a large extent aligned with the classification of branches and disciplines adopted by the OECD, UNESCO and Eurostat, which will facilitate the internationalization of academic collaboration. The above organizations and institutions, and – consequently – some of their member states, have already divided the humanities, sometimes also named social sciences, into two separate branches: social sciences and humanities. In order to justify the above‑mentioned thesis it was necessary to determine how academic specialization, discipline, branch and field of science are perceived today; to indicate the determinants of divisions in science and basic criteria for such divisions; to attempt to define the specific nature of the humanities versus social sciences; and to present the factors confirming the relation of political science to the latter category.

W roku 2011, na mocy decyzji administracyjnej, dokonano korekty podziału polskiej nauki na dziedziny i dyscypliny naukowe. W rezultacie takiego procesu zmieniła się przynależność dziedzinowa m.in. nauk o polityce. Do 30 września 2011 r. dyscyplina ta zaliczana była do dziedziny nauk humanistycznych, a po tej dacie włączono ją do nowej dziedziny nauk społecznych, która została wyodrębniona w wyniku podziału tej pierwszej. Ponieważ zmiana ta wywołała trwającą do dziś dyskusję na temat celowości dokonanej reformy także wśród politologów, ważnym zadaniem podjętych badań była próba potwierdzenia tezy, wg której decyzja taka była uzasadniona merytorycznie. Założono bowiem, że dyscyplina nauki o polityce, w porównaniu z dyscyplinami nauk humanistycznych, ma więcej cech wspólnych z innymi dyscyplinami zaliczonymi do dziedziny nauk społecznych. Ponadto, poprzez ustalenie nowego wykazu dziedzin i dyscyplin naukowych, administracyjne podziały w polskiej nauce zostały w znacznym stopniu dostosowane do klasyfikacji dziedzin i dyscyplin wypracowanych na forum OECD, UNESCO i EUROSTAT, co ułatwi internacjonalizację współpracy naukowej. Na forach tych organizacji i instytucji, a co za tym idzie także w wielu ich państwach członkowskich, już wcześniej podzielono nauki humanistyczne – kiedyś zamiennie nazywane naukami społecznymi – na dwie dziedziny: nauk społecznych i nauk humanistycznych. W celu potwierdzenia słuszności ww. tezy w toku rozważań konieczne było: ustalenie współczesnego pojmowania istoty specjalności naukowej, dyscypliny naukowej i dziedziny nauki; wskazanie najważniejszych podziałów w nauce; podjęcie próby określenia specyfiki dziedziny nauk humanistycznych oraz dziedziny nauk społecznych, a także ukazanie relacji nauk o polityce z tymi dziedzinami nauk. Ocena intensywności takich relacji umożliwiła potwierdzenie słuszności przyjętej tezy. ; By virtue of an administrative decision, the division of Polish academia into fields and disciplines was verified in 2011. It is owing to this process that political science, among others, was reassigned in Poland. Before September 30, 2011, political science was classified as one of the humanities, but later on it was included in the new field of the social sciences, created as a result of the division of the humanities. This decision started an ongoing discussion, also in the circles of political scientists, on the issue of how advisable this change is, and it has become an important task to confirm the thesis that this decision was substantially justified. It is assumed that political science as a discipline has more in common with other disciplines assigned to the social sciences than the humanities. Additionally, by way of developing a new register of academic fields and disciplines, the administrative divisions in Polish academia were to a large extent aligned with the classification of fields and disciplines adopted by the OECD, UNESCO and EUROSTAT, which will facilitate the internationalization of academic collaboration. The above organizations and institutions, and – consequently – some of their member states, have already divided the humanities, which used to be alternatively named social sciences, into two separate fields: the social sciences and the humanities. In order to justify the above-mentioned thesis it was necessary to determine how academic specialization, discipline and field of science are perceived today; to indicate the essential divisions in academia; to attempt to define the specific nature of the humanities versus social sciences; and to present the relations of political science to the latter category. The assessment of how intensive these relations are, made it possible to confirm that the above-mentioned thesis is justified.

By virtue of an administrative decision, the division of Polish academia into fields and disciplines was verified in 2011. It is owing to this process that political science, among others, was reassigned in Poland. Before September 30, 2011, political science was classified as one of the humanities, but later on it was included in the new field of the social sciences, created as a result of the division of the humanities. This decision started an ongoing discussion, also in the circles of political scientists, on the issue of how advisable this change is, and it has become an important task to confirm the thesis that this decision was substantially justified. It is assumed that political science as a discipline has more in common with other disciplines assigned to the social sciences than the humanities. Additionally, by way of developing a new register of academic fields and disciplines, the administrative divisions in Polish academia were to a large extent aligned with the classification of fields and disciplines adopted by the OECD, UNESCO and EUROSTAT, which will facilitate the internationalization of academic collaboration. The above organizations and institutions, and – consequently – some of their member states, have already divided the humanities, which used to be alternatively named social sciences, into two separate fields: the social sciences and the humanities. In order to justify the above-mentioned thesis it was necessary to determine how academic specialization, discipline and field of science are perceived today; to indicate the essential divisions in academia; to attempt to define the specific nature of the humanities versus social sciences; and to present the relations of political science to the latter category. The assessment of how intensive these relations are, made it possible to confirm that the above-mentioned thesis is justified. ; W roku 2011, na mocy decyzji administracyjnej, dokonano korekty podziału polskiej nauki na dziedziny i dyscypliny naukowe. W rezultacie takiego procesu zmieniła się przynależność dziedzinowa m.in. nauk o polityce. Do 30 września 2011 r. dyscyplina ta zaliczana była do dziedziny nauk humanistycznych, a po tej dacie włączono ją do nowej dziedziny nauk społecznych, która została wyodrębniona w wyniku podziału tej pierwszej. Ponieważ zmiana ta wywołała trwającą do dziś dyskusję na temat celowości dokonanej reformy także wśród politologów, ważnym zadaniem podjętych badań była próba potwierdzenia tezy, wg której decyzja taka była uzasadniona merytorycznie. Założono bowiem, że dyscyplina nauki o polityce, w porównaniu z dyscyplinami nauk humanistycznych, ma więcej cech wspólnych z innymi dyscyplinami zaliczonymi do dziedziny nauk społecznych. Ponadto, poprzez ustalenie nowego wykazu dziedzin i dyscyplin naukowych, administracyjne podziały w polskiej nauce zostały w znacznym stopniu dostosowane do klasyfikacji dziedzin i dyscyplin wypracowanych na forum OECD, UNESCO i EUROSTAT, co ułatwi internacjonalizację współpracy naukowej. Na forach tych organizacji i instytucji, a co za tym idzie także w wielu ich państwach członkowskich, już wcześniej podzielono nauki humanistyczne – kiedyś zamiennie nazywane naukami społecznymi – na dwie dziedziny: nauk społecznych i nauk humanistycznych. W celu potwierdzenia słuszności ww. tezy w toku rozważań konieczne było: ustalenie współczesnego pojmowania istoty specjalności naukowej, dyscypliny naukowej i dziedziny nauki; wskazanie najważniejszych podziałów w nauce; podjęcie próby określenia specyfiki dziedziny nauk humanistycznych oraz dziedziny nauk społecznych, a także ukazanie relacji nauk o polityce z tymi dziedzinami nauk. Ocena intensywności takich relacji umożliwiła potwierdzenie słuszności przyjętej tezy.

Although each of us is unique there is no one who could not be substituted. We can usually agree with this statement although sometimes we accept that there are exceptional individuals, though it is regretful that we do not encounter them frequently. There are people whose contribution to the life of a social group or an institution is diffi cult to replace. They integrate the group, motivate the group's members to work better, offer a good example, willingly advise and help others, represent the ambitions of the group well, and so on. In the Poznań circle of political scientists Professor Czesław Mojsiewicz was such a fi gure. He had a tremendous infl uence on the profi le of this circle over the forty-two years of its active creation and shaping.

The last couple of decades have brought a significant increase in personal movement from and to Poland. In consequence, it is very probable that the issues of linguistic diversity and linguistic inclusion more and more frequently will become subjects of multi-level and multi-institutional discussion reshaping the Polish public sphere. It is a matter of consideration which institutions will take leading positions in this debate, formulating main narratives and polemics. However, answering its advisory and opinion-making responsibilities, the Polish Language Council may be expected as one among the crucial actors in this discourse. The article presents pivotal attitudes of the Council's members referring to the problem of linguistic diversity and linguistic inclusion in Poland. The presentation of the sources is combined with endeavours to answer the question: Do these materials allow considering the Council as a strong candidate for an essential designer of incoming public debate on linguistic diversity and linguistic inclusion in Poland? The research is conducted concerning the main assumptions of Joshua Fishman's (1997) sociology of language and Harold Schiffman's (2006) analysis of language policies as parts of linguistic cultures. Moreover, the methodological foundation of the text is supported by a general theoretical framework of historical institutionalism, and finally by Peter M. Haas's conceptualisation of 'epistemic community.'