Newsletter - Social Science in Eastern Europe 1996-4
GERMAN RESEARCH ON EASTERN EUROPE:
CONTRIBUTIONS
The meeting organized by the DGS-branch "Sociology of Eastern and East
Central Europe" as part of the twenty-eighth congress of the DGS has been the
tenth independent convention of this branch since its foundation as an
ad-hoc-group in 1990 at the German Congress of Sociology in Frankfurt. This is
a welcome occasion to take stock and look at the present situation and future
perspectives of a sociology of Eastern Europe. The collapse of the Eastern
European systems could justifiably be viewed as one of the major challenges of
this century to be dealt with by social sciences in general and specifically
by sociology, in effect, a test case for the weaknesses and strengths of its
approaches in explaining society. Has sociology actually accepted this
challenge?
Considering sociology as a whole within the context of social science research
on Eastern Europe and the fact that its boundaries as a discipline cannot
always be easily discerned due to its claiming to be an interdisciplinary
science, the answer appears to be a positive one. In the past five years alone,
between 1990 and 1994, both the number of research facilities dealing with
Eastern Europe and the number of research projects involved in studies on this
region have tripled, with the amount of literature published on this theme
doubling. Approximately 2,000 to 2,500 social scientists are now presumed to
belong to the scientific community presently doing research on Eastern Europe.
As to the amount of projects, sociologically oriented facilities rank third
behind those oriented toward economics and political science. In terms of
research issues, sociological agendas also place high on the list (BECKER
1996). Thus, it appears that sociology, at a first glance, has mastered its
role as one of the basic disciplines in the research on Eastern Europe
(ANWEILER 1980). However, a closer look at the practical aspects of truly
genuine sociological research on Eastern Europe reveals that amidst the general
expansion of social science research on Eastern Europe, there is reason to
believe that the sociological view on the process of Eastern European
transformation is somewhat neglected if not marginalized.
Since the fifties, for instance, there has been one professorial chair in
sociology for Eastern Europe in the Federal Republic of Germany that, following
the death of its holder, was not filled until 2 1/2 years later, whereas there
are 26 existing professorships in contemporary history, twelve in geography,
eleven in political science, ten in legal science, ten in pedagogics and nine
in economics, all dedicated to university research and teaching with an
emphasis on Eastern Europe (JAHN 1995, 1996). The same pattern is seen among
the junior staff: In the interdisciplinary graduate courses on Eastern Europe
sociologists are a minority, and courses related to Eastern Europe are
predominantly offered in political science or in the science of history. The
question of whether sociology has dealt with the challenges evolving from the
Eastern European transformation becomes tangible when viewed in light of these
conflicting numbers. It is necessary to specify wherein the challenge to a
sociology of Eastern Europe lies and thereby initiate a reflection process
which can only be productive when, more so than in the past, emanating from
sociology itself. An investigation of the following three questions will begin
to lay the foundation for a revival of such a discussion. A number of these
ideas are also valid for the research on Eastern Europe in general:
1. What are some of the specific difficulties of a sociology of Eastern
Europe?
2. What is a sociology of Eastern Europe able and not able to achieve?
3. Which building blocks necessary for a sociology of Eastern Europe have
already been compiled?
Sociological analyses about Eastern Europe are, to a large degree,
impacted by outside influences (VON BEYME 1995) on their theory formation,
model construction and concept formation, more than is the case with other
subdisciplines. First of all, this branch of sociology is heavily marked by
the national traditions and recurring controversies of the generally disputed
research on communism ranging from theories of totalitarianism over convergence
theory models and up to the various approaches of a political sociology focused
on totalitarian societies and bureaucratic governments. Secondly, competition
with other disciplines is relatively high and problems with defining the
boundaries in relation to other subjects are common, as the sociology of, and
the research on, Eastern Europe can only be conceived as an interdisciplinary
program (KÖNIG 1993). In fact, it turns out that the greatest problem is
that no explicit definition of the research subject whether issue-related,
geographical or with respect to time, has been reached yet. Even the search
for an adequate name for the discipline, free of ideology and far from the
heavily weighted terms like "Eastern sociology" and "research on communism",
proved to be difficult. Thirdly, the production of sociological theories about
Eastern Europe is constantly affected by the changing conditions of the
research subject, the reproduction of "cases" in light of newly emerging
countries, the incremental increase in topics due to the revival of conflicts
long put to rest as well as new sources. While there is an encouraging
tendency to include a number of Eastern European countries in the comparative
analyses, the sociology of Eastern Europe has not yet overcome its historical
legacy of being largely oriented toward Russia, a trait carried on from the
era of research on Eastern Europe. Apart from this, the irony of social science
research on Eastern Europe lies precisely in the fact that whenever minimal
consensus was reached on a research concept promising great knowledge,
fundamental changes began to happen in the Eastern European countries
(RYTLWESKI 1989). Fourthly, even after the fall of the Iron Curtain the
sociology of Eastern Europe, a product reflecting the East-West-conflict, is
susceptible to non-scientific influences and normative temptations despite all
claims of being free of value judgements (ANWEILER 1977; GLAESSNER 1995).
Analogous to the need for information on Eastern Europe, there is pressure in
the expectation to at least come up with a "transformation theory", especially
since the collapse could not have been predicted beforehand. Simultaneously, an
enormous pressure exists to justify the necessity for research on Eastern
Europe in general and specifically for a sociology of Eastern Europe, while
during these existential struggles for financial funding and institutional
restructuring valuable research time is lost.
Research on Eastern Europe claims to go beyond "area studies" and therefore is
demanding a theoretical and methodical awareness linked to the respective main
disciplines. Especially the relationship between the subdiscipline familiar
with the region and the theory-guiding main discipline, one that showed very
little interest in Eastern Europe before 1989, turns out to be difficult in
sociology and, so far, has assumed more the quality of a distant coexistence
rather than that of a constructive discourse. For the longest time, the
sociology of Eastern Europe, therefore, has had a perimeter position with
respect to sociology in general, because sociologists studying Eastern Europe
did not sufficiently intervene in the theoretical and methodical discourse
taking place in the school of sociology, and the latter in turn closed itself
off from any approaches other than the traditional mainstream-approaches. One
of the difficulties with a sociology of Eastern Europe lies in the fact that
despite the previous situation of resource privation, it is empirically
oriented, thereby forced to operationalize its theoretical positions to a much
larger degree, and therefore does not benefit from great universal theoretical
drafts. In the past, however, it has partially lost its connection to the
classic tradition of social theory (BENCE/LIPSET 1995). At the same time, it
becomes unpopular by discussing dominant Western models such as democracy and
market economy and modifying these models while allowing for cultural
characteristics to be included. As a result, the sociology of Eastern Europe is
left alone with the laborious endeavour of coming up with the definition of
basic concepts, if it does not want to restrict itself to the "informed
description" (RYTELEWSKI 1989) of Eastern European societies and thereby become
reduced to the ranks of supplying scientific services to sociology in general.
In addition, the sociology of Eastern Europe is now, as it always has been,
forced to defend itself against the accusation of having failed to produce a
prognosis, even though due to the rarity, complexity, non-linearity, and
interference of radical societal change, it is really not the task of sociology
to come up with these kinds of prognoses (MAYNTZ 1996). Although the
sociologists studying Eastern Europe had asked the same questions as their
fellow researchers concerned with Western societies, they did it referring to
their respective research fields and the question of how socialist systems
work. Such a question, however, implies a relative concentration on stabilizing
factors.
The scope of a sociology of Eastern and East Central Europe as it is
practically pursued by the DGS-branch of the same name, can be divided up into
a theoretical, a methodical and a practical section. Its theoretical
contribution is the result of a pressure towards a revision, under which social
science terminology has found itself since the beginnings of the transformation
processes in Eastern Europe. This comes in combination with the question, of
whether the characteristics of social change can still be examined using the
traditional terms (VON BEYME 1995). The pressure lies in showing that
explaining post-socialist societal conditions does not require a new system of
terms. Instead, existing models are basically enriched when applied to new
contexts. The lack of theory, often regretted in social science after the
breakdowns of systems appears to be merely a lack of openness of these
theoretical models towards abrupt change, unstable societal conditions and the
inner logic of national developments. The limitations of routine concepts
evolving when applied to Eastern Europe, for instance the lack of historical
perspectives in many approaches, will lead once again to the discussion of
overlooked contradictions and to the extension of existing models. Topics like
the problem of nationalism, for the longest time neglected as a marginal
problem in sociology, will regain significance even for general sociology on
account of its virulence in Eastern Europe. Hereby, the reception of a "view
from inside", i.e. concepts developed by Eastern European sociologies to
explain their own societies as well as preferred general-sociological
categories are of special significance (BALLA 1990). Additionally, a sociology
of Eastern Europe could, out of requiring a need of explanation, make possible
in an unconventional fashion what sociology has not accomplished since its
beginnings: a mutual elucidation of competing offerings of theories by means of
combining functionalist, structuralist as well as action and culture
theoretical elements (MERKEL 1995). Of course, one should not expect a
future-predicting transformation theory. In the medium term, it appears to be
more sensible and realistic to compile and systematize building blocks for a
medium range theory, one that is empirically safe allowing for the deviation of
realistic scenarios of possible developments, rather than to search for great
new paradigms. The main purpose of a sociology of Eastern Europe with respect
to its theoretical implications, therefore, is not to look back into the past
or forward into the future, but lies in the evaluation research and
accompanying analysis of the processes actually going on in Eastern Europe.
This is to say, to open the "black box" connecting the initial conditions and
the results of transformation (MAYNTZ 1996), in order to counteract the bias
which holds that sociologists would always be too late. Second on the list of
topics are subsequent "historic" analyses of the breakdowns as well as the
generalization of analysis instruments for "future" radical changes
(SCHIMANK/WEYER 1996).
The methodical strength of the sociology of Eastern Europe consists of both its
comparative and interdisciplinary/historical research approach as well as the
familiarity of its researchers with the cultural and societal conditions and
the languages of Eastern Europe. Thus, the search for new research paths is
being stimulated (STERBLING 1990), through which a comprehensive analysis of
post-socialist society is all the more possible. Finally, the practical
concern of a sociology of Eastern Europe is to point out the uncertainty of the
outcome of transformation in Eastern Europe and to demonstrate its openness to
models of democracy and market economy that are not necessarily in accordance
with classical Western ideas. Simultaneously, the sociology of Eastern Europe
sensitizes us to the special nature of Eastern Europe and its origins. In an
effort to consciously perceive this practical aspect of its analyses, the
sociology of Eastern Europe would be able to supply interpretation and
information for the general public and might as well become the centre of
communication and discussion for representatives of various fields of practice,
thereby counteracting possible speculation and unilateral views.
The multitude of social science models and concepts developed to explain
what is going on in Eastern Europe is immense and has always caused more
confusion than it has shed light on the matter. The merit of a sociology of
Eastern Europe lies in its success in reducing, as far as research is
concerned, the complexity of Eastern European reality to some practical,
manageable, predominantly urgent questions. The account of sociological
attempts at clarification of the Eastern European transformation processes is
therefore not as poor as Ulrich Beck put it in 1992 (BECK 1993): whoever has an
explanation for this period of time, is no longer suspicious.
The following is a list of topics within the framework of explanations of the
transformation processes in Eastern Europe that have already exhibited some
meaning:
a discussion of approaches used in the research on communism and the political
sociology of real socialism;
the critical examination of existing theories of general sociology and their
potential to explain the Eastern European context as well as the resulting
re-discovery of both historical modernization research and the facilitating
strength of world views for the change of political, societal and economic
systems;
new accentuations in theory formation that apply to the specific subject area,
seen from the perspective of the sociology of disasters, the sociology of
action, the sociology of religion and sociolinguistics; the beginnings of a
sociology of the "nationalistic sentiment";
the combination of theory and empirics in analyses of the change of political
and social structures in general as well as with special respect to cities,
rural areas and industry;
multi-level analyses studying the significance of the interdependence of
various dimensions of the transformation process for the consolidation of the
new systems, including economical, historical and cultural scientific
approaches;
research designs aimed at processing the past and present of Eastern European
sociologies.
The challenges for the sociological thought process and its ability to come up
with explanations resulting from the Eastern European systemic breakdowns were
immediately accepted from the beginning, when the sociological subdiscipline
focusing on Eastern Europe established itself, and first results were
submitted. However, the initiators of a critical review of both routine
paradigms and narrow systems of concepts generated by the sociology of Eastern
Europe have not yet been adopted by sociology as a whole. The ability to
permanently surmount the mutual contact fears and biases and to integrate the
various approaches of the main sociology and its respective subdisciplines in a
co-operative fashion, as this is already the case on work conferences organized
by the DGS-branch as well as in various sociological volumes, could lead to a
considerable gain in terms of the potential for explanations illuminating
present Eastern and Western societies.
Ahlberg, Ren, Die soziologische Osteuropaforschung, in: Osteuropa, 30. (
1980), No. 8/9, P. 790-798
Anweiler, Oskar, 25 Jahre Osteuropaforschung - Wissenschaft und Zeitgeschichte,
in: Osteuropa, 27. ( 1977), ed. 3, p. 183-191
Anweiler, Oskar, Aspekte und Probleme der Osteuropaforschung seit 1945, in:
Osteuropa, 30. ( 1980), No.8/9, p. 673-687
Balla, Blint, Soziologie Ost- und Ostmitteleuropas als Beitrag zur Allgemeinen
Soziologie, in: W. Glatzer, ed. 25. DeutscherDeutscher Soziologentag 1990. Die
Modernisierung moderner Gesellschaften. Sektionen, Arbeits- und Ad hoc-Gruppen,
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag 1991, p. 592-594
Beck, Ulrich, Der feindlose Staat. Militär und Demokratie nach dem Ende
des kalten Krieges, in: B. Schäfers,ed., Lebensverhältnisse und
soziale Konflikte im neuen Europa, Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus 1993, p.
746-753
Becker, Ulrike, Deutsche Osteuropaforschung 1990-1994, Berlin:
Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften 1996
Bence, György/Lipset, Seymour Martin, Der wohlfundierte Irrtum. Die
Sowjetologie und das Ende des Kommunismus, in: Transit, 6. (1995), No. 9, p.
90-114
Beyme, Klaus von, Theorie der Politik im Zeitalter der Transformation, in: K.
v. Beyme/C. Offe, ed. Politische Theorien in der Ära der Transformation,
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag 1995, p. 9-29
Glaeßner, Gert-Joachim, Kommunismus - Totalitarismus - Demokratie.
Studien zu einer säkularen Auseinandersetzung, Frankfurt a.M: Peter Lang
Verlag 1995
Jahn, Egbert, Professuren-Verzeichnis zur Osteuropaforschung, in: Osteuropa,
45. (1995), No. 4, p. 349-356
Jahn, Egbert, Professuren-Verzeichnis zur Osteuropaforschung: eine
Ergänzung, in: Osteuropa, 46. (1996), No. 6, p. 617-618
König, Helmut, Geistige und soziale Prozesse des Systemwandels. Bericht
über die erweiterte Redaktionskonferenz 1993, in: Osteuropa, 43. (1993)
No. 9, p. 871-889
Mayntz, Renate, Gesellschaftliche Umbrüche als Testfall soziologischer
Theorie, in: L. Clausen (Hrsg.), Gesellschaften im Umbruch. Verhandlungen des
27. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Halle an der
Saale 1995, Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus 1996, p. 141-153
Merkel, Wolfgang, Theorien der Transformation: Die demokratische Konsolidierung
postautoritärer Gesellschaften, in: K. v. Beyme/C. Offe, ed. Politische
Theorien in der Ära der Transformation, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag
1995, p. 30-58
Müller, Klaus, Paradigmenrevision. Folgen des osteuropäischen Wandels
für die allgemeine soziologische Theorie, in: L. Clausen, ed.
Gesellschaften im Umbruch. Verhandlungen des 27. Kongresses der Deutschen
Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Halle an der Saale 1995, Frankfurt a.M./New
York: Campus 1996, p. 164-178
Rytlewski, Ralf, Führt die Perestrojka auch zur Umgestaltung der
Sozialistische Länder-Forschung? Ein Plädoyer für mehr
politische Kulturforschung, in: R. Rytlewski, ed. Politik und Gesellschaft in
sozialistischen Ländern. Ergebnisse und Probleme der
Sozialistische-Länder-Forschung, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag 1989, p.
15-36
Schimank, Uwe/Weyer, Johannes, Der Untergang des Staatssozialismus:
Vergangenheits- und zukunftsgerichtete Herausforderungen an die soziologische
Theorie, in: L. Clausen, ed. Gesellschaften im Umbruch. Verhandlungen des 27.
Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Halle an der Saale
1995, Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus 1996, p. 179-190
Sterbling, Anton, Die soziologische Ost- und Südosteuropaforschung in der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der
Rumänienforschung, in: Südosteuropa-Mitteilungen, No. 1 (1996) p.
76-82
Sterbling, Anton, Zu Einführung: Lage und Perspektiven der deutschen
Osteuropa-Soziologie, in: W. Glatzer, ed. 25. Deutscher Soziologentag 1990.
Die Modernisierung moderner Gesellschaften. Sektionen, Arbeits- und Ad
hoc-Gruppen, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag 1991, p. 590-592
(Dr. Katrin Mattusch,
Humboldt-University of Berlin,
Chair for
Comparative Structural Analysis)
Until 1989, the research on Eastern Europe in the Federal Republic of
Germany and the German Democratic Republic had been jointly carried out by
different disciplines in the respective countries and also partially
interdisciplinarily co-ordinated in special research institutes. In both
countries it also had the function of providing consultation to
politicians1. As is well known, the unexpected change of system
meant a general decline for the GDR-social sciences, but even the West German
research on Eastern Europe experienced this change as a "black Friday" (Beyme).
How did the latter recover from this low 2 ?
In 1994, Beyme anticipated a much higher participation of Eastern European
researchers in the scientific discourse, a deeper specialization of the
discipline and a stronger reverse commitment of the area researchers to the
methodical level of the discipline3. What has actually happened
since then? The scientists from the countries themselves have begun to occupy
the role of regional specialists. They were invited to conferences and asked to
participate in the publication of volumes, but could not escape the role the
West imposed on them, namely that of supplying information for the research
projects being co-ordinated from the West. Exceptions like the Polish political
scientist Attila Agh, who forms his own research networks, only confirm the
rule.
After 1989, the infrastructure for doing research on Eastern Europe
significantly improved: state archives were opened, the opinion poll
research4 (and subsequently the quantitative election and party
research as well as cultural research) underwent an upswing in all countries.
With this, a very important foundation for the strengthening of the social
science research on Eastern Europe was laid. This was especially true for the
Federal Republic, because this meant a decrease in the significance of the
special cultural competence of the German researchers. The research approach
oriented towards the history of thought and ideology criticism dedicated to the
defence of the Western values, was pushed to the background, as was also the
"kremlinology" (Beyme). With the following skirmishing over earlier political
assessments of the fallen systems (in the Federal Republic, this was
predominantly done with reference to the subject of the research on the
GDR5) this previously significant research line was ultimately
forced from the stage. Yet, what remained was a strange division of labour
between the area research oriented towards contemporary history and the
orientation that leaned more towards the dominating theoretical concepts of
political science. In addition, the upswing of the second, the theory-guided,
empirical-analytic orientation in the research on Eastern Europe evidently was
of a heavily fluctuating nature. After 1989, a lot of political scientists
switched their preferences from studying other subjects and rushed into the
research on Eastern Europe in an attempt to implement their theoretical
predilection in the new field of transformation research. However, no
productive dialogue was ever established between these scientists and the
particular regional scientific stream within the traditional research on
Eastern Europe that was mostly historically (oriented towards contemporary
history) and culturally oriented. Moreover, there were even signs and reactions
of resistance.6 Both sides have been, up to now, face to face,
dumb-founded. When finally the issue of Eastern Europe began to abate, and the
new enthusiasts dispersed, all that was left of the research on Eastern Europe,
was mainly the regionally oriented research and the study of individual states.
It turned out that the above mentioned beginning of the area researchers'
stronger attachment to the methodical development of the subject was generally
of short duration. In my opinion, a thorough reorganization of "comparative
political science" would be necessary, a branch discipline presently leading
more or less a shadowy existence in Germany despite the twelve newly
established professorial chairs in East Germany.7
Those were some of the major tendencies of the political science research on
Eastern Europe covered during the past year. At this point I would like to give
a risky, because it is essentially incomplete, reference to one crucial
publication from this research domain: Since 1993, a series of monographs
containing results of the comparative political scientific transformation
research has been published. In the Federal Republic, books by Beyme,
Glaeßner and Offe were published.8 To what extent they were
able to develop new theoretical concepts, or whether or not their books are
merely successful illustrations of already known approaches using new material
from those regions, remains controversial and will not be discussed
here.9 Due to the systemic changes in Eastern Europe, however,
political science and its comparison of the democratization process of
previously authoritarian systems in various regions of the world, did receive a
fresh input.10
Notes
1 As the little institutionalized research on Eastern Europe in the GDR
is largely unknown, I am restricting myself to referring to the formation of
the "Institute for Politics and Economy of the Socialist States" as well as to
the associated "Scientific Council in the eighties. They were both located at
the Academy for Social Sciences at the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity
Party of Germany (GDR). Compare also the first (and up to now only) analysis by
M. Heinrichs, G. Pollach, A. Schwarz and M. Stelter: Die Osteuropaforschung der
DDR: Bilanz und Perspektiven. Berichte des BIOst 8/1991.
2 It is certainly not necessary to point out this fact, but it shall be done
nevertheless: the following sketch is based on the author's personal
impressions from his own research focused predominantly on the analysis of
Eastern European parties and transformation processes and does not claim to be
complete.
3 Klaus von Beyme: Systemwechsel in Osteuropa, Frankfurt a. M. 1994, p. 35
ff.
4 The most interesting appearing studies were conducted by the Austrian
Paul-Lazarsfeld Society in conjunction with scientists from the University of
Glasgow and Eastern European fellow researchers within the scope of a "New
Democracies Barometer" performed in three stages. For the second stage compare
Richard Rose/ Christian Haerpfer: Adapting to Transformation in Eastern Europe,
Glasgow 1993.
5 See also Jens Hacker: Deutsche Irrtümer. Schönfärber und
Helfershelfer der SED-Diktatur im Westen, Berlin 1992. Compare Beyme,
Systemwechsel (Note 3), p. 16 ff., G.-J. Glaessner:
Kommunismus-Totalitarismus-Demokratie, 1995, p. 216 ff.
6 A proof for such a resistance can be found in the work of Margarete Mommsen:
Wohin treibt Rußland? München 1996, Einleitung, p. 10, 18.
7 H. J. Lietzmann: Politikwissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In:
Lietzmann/Bleek (Ed.): Politikwissenschaft. Geschichte und Entwicklung in
Deutschland und Europa, München/Wien 1996, p. 59.
8 The year of 1994 represents the peak of publication activities so far. Books
like the one already quoted, Beyme: Systemwechsel in Osteuropa as well as
Gert-Joachim Glaeßner: Demokratisierung nach dem Ende des Kommunismus and
Claus Offe: Der Tunnel am Ende des Lichts were published.
9 See also the special edition 26/1995 of the PVS published by Klaus von Beyme
und Offe, here especially the contributions by Beyme: "Theorie der Politik im
Zeitalter der Transformation" as well as Wolfgang Merkel: "Theorien der
Transformation: Die demokratische Konsolidierung postautoritärer
Gesellschaften" Compare also the recently published author's position (Die
Transformationsanalyse Osteuropas. Denkanstöße, theoretische
Fortschritte und Defizite. In: Internationale Politik, 8/1996.)
10 Compare the publication of the results of the workshop "Systemwechsel":
Merkel (Ed.): Systemwechsel 1. Opladen 1994; Merkel u. a. (Ed.): Systemwechsel
2. Opladen 1996.
(Prof. Dieter Segert,
Humboldt-University Berlin,
Chair for
Comparative Studies on Eastern Europe)
The institutional and content related breadth of the German language
research focused on Eastern Europe can be evidenced by its development in IZ's
database SOFIS. The information on the projects in SOFIS is obtained through an
annual survey among 5,000 German language research facilities. The database
presently holds 36,259 descriptions of research projects from the survey years
1986-1996. It reflects the social science research issues for every year and
allows, therefore, specifications in terms of the research on Eastern Europe as
well. The theory that the topic-related and institutional diversification of
the German social science research on Eastern Europe is continuously
increasing, simultaneously spreading the demand for a network of activities and
services, is the underlying thought for the following analysis. IZ's literature
database SOLIS (Social Science Literature Information System), which provides
references to social scientific monographs, journal articles and grey
literature since 1945, is also included for comparison to arrive at
specifications in terms of the quantitative increase in social science research
on Eastern Europe.
The following figures illustrate the amount of literature references (SOLIS)
and descriptions of research projects with respect to Eastern Europe in
relation to the total size of the data bases (SOLIS: 199,273 documents from the
publication years 1945-1996 and SOFIS: 36,259 documents from the resource years
1986-1996. They also show by means of comparison the total increase in social
science literature as of the publication year 1990 and the research inventory
as of 1991, again in relation to the increase in literature/research concerned
with Eastern Europe as of this same period.
Figure 1: Increase in Literature References with Respect to Eastern Europe
- SOLIS-Database 1945-1996 (199.273 documents)
Figure 2: Increase in Research Projects Concerned with Eastern Europe
-SOFIS-Database, Inventory 1986-1996)
(36,259 references, the yearly
figures represent initial recording and project up-dates)
In just under a period of six years, the share of publications and research
projects concerned with Eastern Europe has increased significantly. This leads
to the assumption that an independent research field with the name "Social
Science Research on Eastern Europe" has established itself.
In order to arrange the following figures with utmost clarity, the searches for
the different countries of East Central Europe and Eastern Europe were
summarized based on current classifications:
East Central Europe comprises Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and
Slovakia.
Albania, Bulgaria, Rumania, Yugoslavia and its successor states belong to
Southeastern Europe.
The group of the former Soviet states includes the Ukraine, Belarus as
well as all the countries of the CIS (Community of Independent States) except
for
Russia, which is listed separately due to its special status. This is
also true for the Baltic provinces that were combined in a separate
group consisting of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
The USSR was treated as an independent country, because first, it was
still in existence as a historical formation in 1991 and, second, maintains its
own significance in terms of serving as a point of reference for questions
related to the present transformation in Eastern Europe.
The final group comprises all projects referring to Eastern and Southeastern
Europe in general rather than to a specific country.
Figure 3: Total Amount of Literature References and Research Projects in
SOLIS and SOFIS Focused on Eastern Europe Classified by Country Group (multiple
classifications possible)
The following assessment refers exclusively to the research database SOFIS.
Considering the increase in projects per year between 1991 and 1996, a trend
towards an increasing concern with Eastern Europe can easily be demonstrated.
Figure 4: Incoming Research Projects Focused on Eastern Europe Listed by
Years (SOFIS-Data Base 1991-1996)
The increase is spread over all country groups, whereas the researchers'
greatest interest, and this is the case before as well as after 1990, was
naturally concentrated on Germany's neighbouring states, summed up under the
heading of East Central Europe. As far as the group considered "former Soviet
states" is concerned, a disproportionate increase can be recorded, which could
be explained by the fact that these states were not formed until 1992 and
therefore could not be depicted as regions for scientific examination before
that. In the meantime, there have already been 28 projects from the Ukraine
that were registered in SOFIS (in SOLIS 62 projects), 17 projects from Belarus
(in SOLIS 32 projects) and between two and eight projects even from countries
such as Turkmenistan, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan (in SOLIS between 17-39
projects each). It is also remarkable that since 1992 interest in the USSR as
a research topic has not declined. This can be taken as an indication that
previous events and situations are significant reference points for
transformation research.
Main regional areas and institutional mainstays of social science research
on Eastern Europe
Approximately 1,700 individuals from almost 600 institutions (here
research institutes and professorial chairs per university are counted
separately) have been taking part in the 1,021 research projects on Eastern
Europe that were entered into SOFIS since 1991. Assuming an overall coverage of
80 % of all research projects by SOFIS and taking into account that with a
research branch just starting, the percentage of coverage would possibly be
less, because neither each institution nor every researcher concerned with
Eastern Europe can be reached by IZ's annual survey, one can assume a total
number of 2,000 to 2,500 researchers belonging to the network of German
speaking social scientists focused on the research on Eastern Europe.
The main regional areas for social science research on Eastern Europe in
Germany are predominantly Berlin (15%) and then Munich (10%), followed - at a
considerable distance - by Bonn and Kiel (between 3 and 5%). Between 2 and 3
percent are allotted to Frankfurt/M., Giessen, Hamburg, Leipzig, Mannheim, and
Marburg. Those recorded projects that are in the 1 to 1,9% range are from
Bochum, Duesseldorf, Hannover, Cologne, Mainz, Muenster, Nuernberg, and
Tuebingen. From the cities of Bielefeld, Bremen, Frankfurt/O., Goettingen,
Halle, and Heidelberg the percentage of recorded projects is below 1% but the
total amount of projects for each city still numbers above five. Another 45% of
the social science projects on Eastern Europe are distributed across the
remaining German research centres and university cities.
It should be mentioned that so far no research centres with an emphasis on
Eastern Europe have yet been established in the new Federal states, with the
exception of Leipzig and, of course, East-Berlin. This actually could have
been expected due to the greater historical and spatial proximity of the new
Federal States to Eastern Europe. Evidently, the language and cultural know-how
as well as the established research connections to countries of Eastern Europe
have not yet come to fruition. Determining the reasons for this requires a more
detailed investigation and cannot be accomplished by database-searches. It
should be considered, however, that during the time period we are looking at,
due to the re-structuring and re-organization of social science research in the
new Federal states, it is extremely difficult to come up with representative
evidence of the emergence of research. The overall spreading of social science
research on Eastern Europe country wide in Germany is, nevertheless,
noticeable.
Figure 5: Institutional Origin of the 1021 Research Projects Focused on
Eastern Europe (Institutions listed by discipline; multiple classification
possible)
The distribution by discipline of those institutions involved in the research
on Eastern Europe does not quite correlate with the total distribution of the
discipline-related origin of institutions in the SOFIS-data base as of 1991.
While as of 1991 the economic institutions in the entire database number the
most with approximately 25% of the recorded projects, followed by sociological
(18%) and pedagogical (12%) research institutions, the economic institutions
are also leading with respect to the projects on Eastern Europe as of 1991
(26%), followed, however, by political science institutions (ca. 24%) that take
up 10% of the total represented in the entire database. Sociological
institutions rank third (ca. 16%). Unlike the distribution over the entire
database the extreme downshifting in the ranking of pedagogic institutions as
well as the high share of political science institutions with respect to
projects on Eastern Europe is conspicuous. So is the proportionately high share
of project reports by historical and geographical institutes. Additionally, a
relatively high deviation can be seen with regard to psychological institutions
that comprise about 7% of all project reports out of the entire database, but
represent less than 1% of the projects on Eastern Europe.
Subject areas of German research on Eastern Europe
The distribution of research projects classified by social science
discipline was established through social science classifications attributed to
each project through individual intellectual work.
Figure 6: Research Projects on Eastern Europe and their Distribution by
Discipline
SOFIS-database 1991-1996
(multiple classification
possible)
The fact that political science and economic science (in this order) are
ranked highest is not at all surprising when looking at the above described
origin of the projects. The conspicuous placement in third place of those
projects classified as "social historical" can be interpreted in the fashion
that the retrograde orientation of the research may represent an important
research approach for the understanding of present transformation phenomena
(only a detailed, deeper investigation of these projects would produce evidence
on whether or not the social history approach in projects on Eastern Europe
tends to exercise moderation with respect to contemporary problems or whether
it could - as an approach of contemporary history research - contribute to the
clarification of these problems). The fact that studies in the field of social
policy or legal and administrative science, in which "applied research" has
been assigned as a method very frequently, play a fairly insignificant role,
suggests that German social scientists, from a distance, do not risk focusing
predominantly on practice-oriented research with respect to Eastern European
countries. A detailed examination of the top-ranked group "political science"
within those main disciplines in the social sciences (397 projects) illustrates
that the questions dealt with by the traditional research on Eastern Europe
before 1989 still appear to be dominating the field, as has always been the
case. (This theory should also be challenged with respect to the previously
mentioned problem of the possibility that not all of the research on Eastern
Europe is covered by SOFIS). Questions of political history, of international
relationships as well as questions of security policy constitute the highest
percentage of the political science research in SOFIS, both with respect to the
entire database and the section concerned with research on Eastern Europe. They
are followed by topics of economic, agricultural and fiscal policy ahead of
studies on European policy, studies on the formulation of political objectives
and studies on systems of government. The economic science projects ranking
second among those listed by main social science disciplines (303 projects)
concentrate mainly on questions of the economic system and its organization and
structure. Additional main areas worth mentioning are business administration
studies and topics of foreign trade. Among the total 209 sociological projects,
questions of demographic sociology, social problems/conflicts, social change as
well as political sociology are dominant. A closer look at how the 1,021
projects on Eastern Europe are classified in terms of methodology reveals,
based on the SOFIS methodical classifications, that 44% of all projects are
classified as empirical (451 projects) and among those document analysis is in
the top position. It is worth noting that one quarter of the projects are
marked as "historical" (the methodical classification allows multiple listings;
they are also common). The fact that the orientation towards the method of
applied research (19%) is leading to the relatively frequent designation of
this method, on the one hand contradicts the previously stated assumption about
the caution exercised by researchers with respect to more practice oriented
issues, but possibly indicates, on the other hand, the self-conception of
social science research on Eastern Europe as of one being practice-oriented.
The methodical classification "documentation" plays a greater part in the
research on Eastern Europe, which fits in with the image of the present
transformation research: fundamental gathering of material about various social
scientific issues could only begin as of 1990 with empirical access to the
Eastern European countries. Therefore, research projects using the method
"documentation" presently take up a large portion of all research activities.
Particularly remarkable is the fact that overall some 208 projects claim to
apply the method of comparison (international/intercultural comparison). On the
other hand, only 8 research projects mention that they have some kind of a
co-operating relationship with an institution in Eastern Europe. If one follows
the theory that, with regard to Eastern Europe, comparative research without
the background and interpretative knowledge of fellow researchers from the
respective countries themselves may frequently result in wrong conclusions, the
general conception of research approaches within the social science research on
Eastern Europe becomes highly questionable in light of the infinitesimal number
of projects involving joint research activities by German researchers and their
fellow researchers from institutions in Eastern Europe. The initiation of
research contacts tending towards the direction of Eastern Europe does not
appear to be a natural process. Instead, it requires support and promotion
through special mediation which is committed to both sides. The GESIS-branch
Berlin is offering this kind of support to anybody who is interested.
(Bu)
|
 |
|
Issue