Barbara Hönig

Europeanization of Sociology

A Comparative Perspective on Slovenia and Austria

Nomos

BUT_Hoenig_7547-0.indd 3 15.05.12 09:55

1. Auflage 2012© Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 2012. Printed in Germany. Alle Rechte, auch die des Nachdrucks von Auszügen, der photomechanischen Wiedergabe und der Übersetzung, vorbehalten. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machine or similar means, and storage in data banks. Under § 54 of the German Copyright Law where copies are made for other than private use a fee is payable to »Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort«, Munich.

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Zugl.: Graz, Univ., Diss., 2009

Urspr. Titel: „Two Neighbours, One Vision? The Impact of the European Union’s Accession on the Development of Sociology in the Common Border Region Slovenia – Southern Austria“.

ISBN 978-3-8329-7547-0

BUT_Hoenig_7547-0.indd 4 15.05.12 09:55

Acknowledgements

This book is an abridged version of a PhD thesis that has been approved at theFaculty of Social Sciences and Economics, University of Graz, Austria, in June2009. A number of people have encouraged, supported and helped me while writingit and I want to thank them. First I thank MinRat Mag. Rainer Klien, AustrianMinistry of Labour, Dept. II Labour Market Policy, who has raised my interest inthe practice of trans-national co-operation during several cross-border conferencesin the early 2000 s. Many sociologists and European Union's experts have givenme their time and experience so that I gained valuable insights and could learn fromthem. More particularly, I thank Professor Frane Adam, Ljubljana, Professor MaxHaller, Graz, Professor Maca Jogan, Ljubljana, Professor Anton Kramberger,Ljubljana, Doc. Dr. Igor Kramberger, Maribor, Professor Franc Mali, Ljubljana,Dr. Bogomir Mihevc, Ljubljana, Associate Professor Harald Rohracher, Graz,Professor Niko Toš, Ljubljana, and Professor Stephen Webb, Newcastle, for sup-porting me with valuable literature recommendations. Furthermore, I thank Pro-fessor Milica Antič Gaber and Dr. Damjan Mandelc, both Ljubljana, for importantinformation on studying sociology there. I thank my colleague Mag. Gregor Chu-doba for his eloquent help in translating Bosnian, Croatian, and Serb pieces ofliterature. I owe much to Professor Paul Kellermann, Klagenfurt, for offering methe opportunity to take part in a focus group of sociologists on the Bologna ReformProcess in Trieste, Italy, in July 2006. I also thank Professor Hans-Uwe Otto,Bielefeld, for discussing some early ideas of the thesis at the TiSSA conference"Civil Society" in Kaunas, Lithuania, in August 2006. I thank Professor JosefLanger, Klagenfurt, for the opportunity to present a first draft of the research resultsat the Alps-Adriatic symposium "Knowledge Region" in Klagenfurt in September2007. Moreover, I thank Professor Rudi Rizman, Ljubljana, for his intellectualhospitality during the Summer School "Managing Diversity" in Ljubljana in July2008.

I am grateful to Professor Bringfriede Scheu, Dean of the School of Social Workat Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, for the opportunity to write parts ofthis book while working there as a research assistant. Foremost, I am indebted tomy first supervisor Professor Gerald Angermann-Mozetič for his encouraging sup-port and critical comments, for many enlightening discussions and necessary spe-cifications. I am grateful to my second supervisor Professor Christian Fleck for theopportunity to present an early version of this thesis in his seminar and for valuableinformation regarding social conditions of scientific reasoning. I am grateful to my

5

third supervisor in the dissertation committee Professor Helmut Kuzmics for in-tellectual advice during the study curriculum and for discussing in detail severalquestions especially related to Chapter 3.

I thank Professor Georg Vobruba and Professor Sylke Nissen, Leipzig, for theopportunity to present research results at the First Leipzig European Winter Schoolin March 2010 and in particular for the heartiness and warmth with which theywelcomed me as guest in their house. I thank Professor Stephan Sting and Dr. UlrikeLoch, both Klagenfurt, and Professor Arno Heimgartner, Graz, for offering me theopportunity to present findings at the ÖFEB Conference in Klagenfurt in October2010. I am grateful to the Department of Sociology at Graz University for the“SOWI im Dialog Award” in 2009, to the Rector of Innsbruck University, ProfessorTilmann Märk, for the “Dr. Otto Seiberth Award” in 2011, and I am also gratefulto the Head of the Department of Sociology at Innsbruck University, ProfessorHelmut Staubmann, for financially sponsoring the publication of the manuscript.

Milla Gröllmann, my deceased grandmother, has always supported my intel-lectual activities and her early confidence in the book has been essential. WolfgangKurz, compatriot from student's days onwards, has been permanently fortifying meat all stages of the working process to move on. My parents Traude and HelmutHönig have fostered me in the life of the mind, and particularly my father hasprevented me from many mistakes in English language use. Thanks to them. Fi-nally, I thank Maurizio Bach for his advice in condensing the manuscript and forbeing a constant source of support and encouragement.

Earlier portions related to the topic of the book have been submitted to publi-cation in somewhat different form in "Social Work and Society" Online Magazine(Hönig 2008), in several conference proceedings (Hönig 2009 b, 2012 a, 2012 b),and in “European Perspectives” (Hönig 2010).

6

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 5

Index of Tables 9

Acronyms 11

Introduction 13

Conceptual and Methodological Preliminaries1 19

Theoretical Orientations and Key Concepts1.1 19What Counts As Knowledge?1.1.1 19Towards a Sociology of Sociology1.1.2 29

Methodological Approach and Research Methods1.2 42Perspectives of Comparative Sociology1.2.1 42Research Design1.2.2 47

The Impact of the EU Accessions: The Diagnosis of Sociologists2 55

A Concise Historical Overview of Sociology’s Formation in theTwo States

2.155

Intellectual Centres of Sociology: The Sample of Departments2.2 61

Characterizing Sociology in the Neighbour Countries2.3 72Over the Fence Talks: Contexualizing Knowledge Culturesin European Neighbourhoods

2.3.172

“Fractal Distinctions”: Empirical Research and TheoryFormation

2.3.289

Struggling with Hybrid Institutions: The Rise ofEntrepreneurial Science in the Institutional Landscape

2.3.3105

Articulating A Particularly Strong Voice: Sociology Withinthe Concert of the Disciplines

2.3.4114

A Paradox of Weakness: Internal Cohesion VersusInternationalization of Small Scientific Communities

2.3.5117

7

Science, Civil Society, and Politics: Sociologists’Contribution to Social Change

2.3.6120

Intervening Conditions of Sociology’s Europeanization2.4 126Collective Biographies of Transformation2.4.1 126The Project Organization of EU Funded Research2.4.2 134Departments and Universities on Reform2.4.3 142Bologna and European Mobilities2.4.4 148

Strategies Towards Europeanization of Sociology2.5 156Repertoires of Evaluation: Assessing European SciencePolicy

2.5.1158

Institutions, Practices, Narratives: In Which Way Can WeSpeak of An Europeanization of Sociology?

2.5.2164

The Challenge of Trans-national Co-operation2.6 172Getting a Sense for Co-operating Trans-nationally2.6.1 172Four Examples of Collaborative Research2.6.2 175Criteria and a Trajectory Model of Successful Co-operation2.6.3 186

Europeanization of Sociology: Synthesis of Results3 195

Theory Generation: The Legacy of Grounded Theory3.1 195

Theoretical Insights in the Europeanization of Sociology3.2 202Conditions and Contexts of Europeanization3.2.1 204Positions and Strategies to Deal With Europeanization3.2.2 205Some Consequences of Europeanization3.2.3 216

Conclusions3.3. 222

References 233

Index 255

8

Index of Tables

Table 1: Interviews with sociologists, per department and institute 62Table 2: Scientific staff per department and institute, in absolute

numbers and per cent. 70Table 3: Main research fields per department or institute. 72Table 4: Examples of sociologists’ trans-national co-operation in

research projects 176Table 5: Factors for successful trans-national co-operation

mentioned by sociologists 187Table 6: Social conditions of sociological knowledge production and

its impact on actors’ cognitive strategies to deal withEuropeanization, per type of institution 208

Table 7: Repertoires of evaluation in assigning criteria of“irrationality” versus “rationality” of Europeanization ofscience 212

9

Acronyms

AGSÖ Archive for the History of Sociology in Austria, locatedin Graz

ALLBUS Centre for General Social Survey of Social Sciences inMannheim, Germany

ANOVASOFIE Analyzing and Overcoming the Sociological Fragmen-tation in Europe, EU project, co-ordinated by Graz Uni-versity, Department of Sociology

BP Bologna ProcessCEE Central and Eastern EuropeCJMMK Centre for Public Opinion and Communication Re-

search, LjubljanaDG European Commission’s Directorate GeneralDR Slovene Journal for Social StudiesEC European CommissionECTS European Credit Transfer SystemERA European Research AreaERASMUS European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of

University StudentsERC European Research CouncilESA European Sociological AssociationESS European Social SurveyEU European UnionEUROSTAT Statistical Office of the European CommissionFDV Ljubljana University, Faculty of Social SciencesFF Ljubljana University, Faculty of ArtsFORIS Research Information System on the Social SciencesFORM FORM trans-national project on higher education in Eu-

rope, co-ordinated by Vienna CentreFPÖ/BZÖ Austrian right-wing populist Freedom Party, then re-

named and split (2005) as Future PartyFWF Austrian Science FundGESIS German Social Science Infrastructure ServicesIAS-STS Graz Institute for Advanced Studies in Science, Tech-

nology and SocietyICT Information and Communication TechnologiesIFF Klagenfurt University, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Re-

search and EducationIFZ Graz Inter-University Research Centre for Technology,

Work and CultureIHS Vienna Institute for Advanced Studies and Scientific

ResearchINTERREG Community-Initiative of the European Fund for Re-

gional DevelopmentISA International Sociological AssociationISI Institute for Scientific InformationISSP International Social Survey ProgrammeJSA Yugoslav Sociological Association

11

MI Ljubljana Peace InstituteMOEL Central and Eastern European Scholarships programme

of the Austrian Research AssociationNORC National Opinion Research Centre in Chicago, USANSNSDAPÖGS

National SocialismNational Socialist German Worker’s PartyAustrian Sociological Association

ÖZS Austrian Journal for SociologyRFP Research Framework Programmes of the European

UnionSCPR Social and Community Planning Research in London,

Great BritainSOLIS Social Science Literature Information SystemSPO Slovene Public Opinion Poll projectSSCI Social Science Citation IndexSSD Slovene Sociological AssociationSSH Social Sciences and HumanitiesSTS Science and Technology StudiesTSER Targeted Socio-Economic Research of the EU’s 4th

Framework ProgrammeUK United KingdomUNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Or-

ganizationUSA United States of AmericaUSSR Union of Socialist Soviet RepublicsWISDOM Vienna Institute for Social Scientific Documentation

and MethodsZUMA Centre for Surveys, Methods, and Analyses in

Mannheim, Germany

12

Introduction

Since the very beginnings of the discipline, sociology has mostly been dealing withdeep societal changes, transitions and transformations in those societies, for whichsociology was also held to be its science. Current political and economic integra-tion, legal and cultural processes within the European Union provide sociologywith enough impulses to reconsider its knowledge claims. However, it is not quiteclear whether a common vision of sociology already is a matter of fact or a kind offuture prospect for efforts in the neighbouring countries Slovenia and Austria, ge-ographically located in the heart of the European Union.

Research Question

For our purposes, let us first assume that there are some effects of becoming partof the European Union: for societies as well as for its science, sociology. The un-controversial fact of knowledge institutions’ successful trans-national co-opera-tions since decades does not automatically lead to the recognition of systematicresearch on sociology as an European endeavour. Here we develop the perspectiveof a sociology of knowledge, in order to examine changing institutional environ-ments for sociology in an European context and to ask, additionally, whether thesesocial conditions do have any impact on the content of the knowledge so produced.Enforced strategies of promoting research within the so-called European ResearchArea might enable comparative sociologies all across Europe, increase respectiveexpectations and upgrade possible results. However, we restrict ourselves to a re-gionally limited and more detailed investigation of historical, institutional, andcognitive conditions of sociology in the neighbour countries Slovenia and Austria.This will lead us to pay attention to the backgrounds in the discipline’s establish-ment in Slovenia and Austria and ask whether and to which extend possible diver-gences in experiences and interest are integrated by the EU accessions of bothcountries. It also enables us to reconstruct the knowledge resources of actors rele-vant for successful co-operation in general, as visible in already realized examplesof trans-national co-operation in sociology. We hope to contribute to a commonlearning context in the border region, where social scientists begin to act togetherand work on a joint analysis of social problems under current European conditions.Throughout this book, we will deal with the following questions of interest: Is therea causal relationship between the accessions of the neighbour countries Slovenia

13

and Austria to the European Union and the formation and development of sociologyas a scientific discipline? If yes, which parameters or factors do we identify for anassumed impact of the EU accessions on the discipline? In comparing an Euro-peanization of sociology in two states, do we identify any similarities, divergencesand possible complementarities regarding the institutional situation and dynamicsof the scientific discipline? In which way do sociologists themselves in their ac-counts recognize an anticipated process of Europeanization of sociology, in itsinstitutional, cognitive, and historical dimensions?

Slovenia and Austria are regarded as extremely fruitful cases for comparativesociology in several aspects. We then compare rather “old” and “new” nation statesand members of the European Union as well: Austria has been founded in 1945and half a century later has become a member of the European Union, while theyoung Republic of Slovenia has been founded in 1991 and its EU accession tookplace in 2004. Both are neighbour countries of close spatial proximity, with similarsocio-cultural backgrounds and socio-economic standards of living, albeit withdifferent vernacular languages. For centuries both were part of the Habsburgmonarchy, while the common history has also been a conflict-riddled and traumaticone, particularly during the NS-regime. After World War II and during the ColdWar, Austria as neutral country, however, oriented towards the West, fostered nu-merous lively relations with former countries of the so-called Eastern Bloc, in thesocial sciences too. In reverse, Slovenia, a former supra-national republic of Yu-goslavia then gaining independence, has always been rather open to the West. Afterthe revolutions of 1989, both states experienced an enforced orientation towardsthe European Union and their common EU membership encourages citizens as wellas social scientists to engage in trans-national co-operations. However, historicallygrown social, political, and economic differences might still be relevant in Euro-peanization processes of today. A careful comparative investigation of these con-trasts might also contribute to a deeper theoretical understanding of the dynamicsof Europeanization of national societies and of sociology as well.

State of Research

Our research question can be located at an intersection of several streams of sci-entific research that will subsequently be sketched step by step: the sociology ofEuropean integration, sociological analyses of European science policy, and thesociology of knowledge and of science. Sociology has, until recently at least, takenaccount of the revolutions of 1989 (Dahrendorf 1990), followed by a deep processof “Europeanization” (Bach 2000 a; Delanty/Rumford 2005) of many national so-cieties. Beside the task of comparative sociology sociological thinking within the

14

enlarging framework of the European Union has been inspired by particular imag-inations of a “new” (Bauman 2004), a “post-national” and “constitutive” (Haber-mas 1998 a, 1998 b,2008, 2011), a “cosmopolitan” (Beck 1998; Beck/Grande2004; Delanty 2006) or a “social” (Bailey 1998; Vaughan-Whitehead 2003) Eu-rope. It has been expected that Europe might overcome those tensions and divisonswhich often have evolved as troublesome conflicts and wars in its history by inte-gration and enlargement. Moreover, sociologists suggested that by paying attentionto a possible European dimension of sociology itself, it might become an innovativegenerator of new knowledge, relevant to the enlightenment, as an European her-itage, of its societies and of itself. Regarding sociology as a science of these societalchanges, there have been discussions about the possibilities of a sociology in anenlarging Europe (Nedelmann/Sztompka 1993; Keen/Mucha 1994, 2003; Kaase/Sparschuh/Wenninger 2002; Roche 2010), of an „European sociolo-gy“ (Muskens 1993; Nowotny 1993; Pohoryles 1994 a) or a “multinational”(Gareau 1985) or “global sociology” (Urry 2000; Cohen/Kennedy 2001 ; Smith2003), where, encountering processes of globalization and Europeanization, a“globalization” (Albrow/King 1990; Beck 1998) and “internationalization” (Gen-ov 1991, 2004 a; Tiryakian 1990; Archer 1991; Langer 1992) of sociology itselfhas been proposed.

While European integration initially has found resonance mostly in politicalscience, particularly in a German-speaking context pioneering sociological analy-ses have been formulated as part of a political sociology in the tradition of MaxWeber (Lepsius 1991; Bach 1992). Methodologically seen, European integrationhas not only required to transcend so-called methodological nationalism of soci-ology (Beck/Sznaider 2006), but has also been interpreted as a challenge for com-parative sociology (Haller 1990). Since the 2000 s this sociological discourse onEurope has remarkably increased (Immerfall 2000; Bach 1999, 2000 b, 2001, 2003,2008 a; Haller 2000 a, 2008; Bach/Lahusen/Vobruba 2006; Bach/Sterbling 2008 b;Heidenreich 2003, 2006; Vobruba 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010; Beck 2004, 2006; Ver-wiebe 2004; Gerhards 2005; Eigmüller/Mau 2010; Eigmüller/Vobruba 2006 ; Het-tlage/Müller 2006; Habermas 1998 a, 1998 b, 2008, 2011; Münch 2008; Mau/Ver-wiebe 2008). As Bach once has shown (Bach 2001), a rough distinction of thesemacro-sociological approaches, within itself multi-fold and differentiated, can bedrawn, on the one hand, between the notion of an European society. This is visible,for instance, in asking about the social construction of a cultural identity, socialintegration, and processes of inclusion and exclusion (Therborn 1995; Crouch1999; Hettlage/Müller 2006; Fligstein 2008; Münch 2008; Outhwaite 2008). Onthe other hand, we find the analytical interest in political dynamics of state-forma-tion, institutional power relations, and supranational European institutions (Lep-sius 1990, 1991; Nedelmann 1995; Bach 2008; Stone Sweet/Sandholtz/Fligstein

15

2001; Bartolini 2005; Majone 2005). Within the Scandinavian and English-speak-ing context, studies in the political sociology of European integration seem to bemore frequently structured along concepts of Habermasian “public sphere”, Bour-dieusian “political field”, or Foucauldian “governmentality” (Delanty/Rumford2005; Favell 2006; Manners 2006; Zimmermann 2011).

Recently, the complexities of the emanating field of sociological research andanalysis have led particularly young scholars to ask if we are witnessing the gen-eration of a new, specific hyphen sociology called “European sociology” yet, interms of a peculiar cognitive discourse, institutional network, and enfolding pro-fessional opportunities as by-products of increasing differentiation and enhancedprofessionalism of the discipline (Delhey 2005; Roose 2009; Bernhard 2011; Keu-tel 2011). In the context of this book, we will treat this question as an interesting,but still open one. From our point of view, in most sociological analyses of Euro-pean integration, research on science and science policy under European conditionsup till now seems to be surprisingly rare or even nearly absent.

Concerning social scientific accounts of European research policy, there are onlyfew examples of empirical research available, as about European institutionalframeworks on information technologies (Grande 1996, 2001 a, 2001 b), innova-tion policies (Süß/Becher 1993; Haller 2000 b; Biegelbauer/Borras 2003; Biegel-bauer 2010 ; Schuch 2005; Schefold/Lenz 2008), heterogeneous research cultures(Felt 2009), and relatively seldom on the social sciences themselves (Dierkes/Biervert 1992; Lamnek 1993; Hochgerner/Höglinger 2000). Regarding Europeanhigher education policy, particularly the Bologna Reform Process (Aigner 2002;Kellermann 2006; Kellermann/Boni/Meyer-Renschhausen 2009; Amaral et al.2009; Preglau 2009), European mobility of students (Teichler 2007) and the chang-ing role of universities (Dill/Sporn 1995; Harding et al. 2007; Maassen 2007; Dar-raz et al. 2010) have been under scrutiny. When we consider sociological accountsof science and technology in the two nation states of interest here, the situation inAustria (Felderer/Campbell 1994; Buchinger/Felt 2006; Fochler/Müller 2006;Rohracher 2009; Biegelbauer 2010; Herlitschka 2010) and in Slovenia (Slovenia1992, 1996; Mali 1994, 1999, 2000, 2003 a, 2003 b; Programme 1995; Witschel1995; Bucar/Stanovnik 1999;) is rather well-documented. As we subsequently willsee in Chapter 2, this is also valid for the specification of different sociologieswithin their historical and institutional contexts, peculiar sociological “schools”and “classical” theorists in Slovenia and Austria. Nevertheless, in regard to theirchanging European environment, particularly as members of the European Union,any descriptive and analytical approaches to examine the current situation andpossible transformations of sociology as a scientific discipline are rather rare. Whatis still lacking among most of these studies, is a systematic comparative method-ological approach of country-specific scientific communities and a conceptually

16

coherent, empirically sound investigation of the possible impact of European sci-ence policies on them. Moreover, the actual practice of sociological co-operationcreates needs for relevant information and innovative forms of social organizationin shifting institutional frameworks of EU’s research and higher education. In ad-dition, while using concepts of innovation and governance might be plausible inthe context of political science, from a sociological perspective its heuristics forexplicating, systematizing and critically assessing dynamics of European sciencepolicy seems to be limited. Instead of this, throughout this book we will emphasizethe sociology of knowledge and of science, in which our empirical study is stronglyrooted.

Within the conceptual framework of the sociology of knowledge the issue israised, in which way institutional and social conditions of the institutions producingscientific knowledge do have an impact on the content of knowledge so produced(Merton 1996; Meja/Stehr 1982; Zuckerman 1988; Wagner et al. 1991; Heintz1993; Stehr 2004, 2005; Stehr/Meja 2005 a). This issue of possible mutual impactof scientific knowledge production’s conditions and content has also been an im-portant question within the history of sociology (Lepenies 1981; Fleck 2000 a;Mozetič 2004; Genov 2004 b). After the path-breaking institutional and societaldevelopment of the social sciences since the 1960 s, current diagnoses, however,state rather a so-called crisis of (Western) sociology (Gouldner 1970; Nigsch 1994;Cole 2001; Chorvat 2004; Lemert 2004). Sociologists discuss for what and forwhom (Lee 1986; Lynd 1986) sociology might come to produce knowledge, andhow sociology can make sense at all (Berger 1994; Mayntz 1994; Boudon 1995).Seen from the viewpoints of the history of sociology and the sociology of know-ledge, scientific research on the actuality of sociology as an European project todayis only at its beginning. From a broader social and political view, the relevance oftaking the possible impact of the EU accessions into account seems to be ratherobvious, due to the EU membership of Austria as well as the recent accession ofSlovenia. In addition, we are dealing with the questions what sociology as a sci-entific discipline could contribute to reflecting and redesigning, shaping and de-veloping society and, which requirements and suppositions in themselves do shapesociology. Within an European institutional context, sociology is presumablyworking under new restrictions, but may also contribute to current social processesof its Europeanization as well.

Overview of Chapters

In Chapter 1 there is developed a sociology of knowledge and a history of sociol-ogy in order to apply this as a theoretical and methodological perspective to the

17

new constellation which we find within the neighbour countries since the EU ac-cessions of Slovenia and Austria. Therefore, we deal with some developments inthe sociology of knowledge and in the sociology of sociology and try to clarify asociological approach to knowledge and knowledge societies. Furthermore, theusage of key concepts will be explicated, as what constitutes sociology as a scien-tific discipline, and in which way the transformations of nation states in the en-largement process of the European Union might be relevant for sociology. Afterdiscussing these, there is the hope to be then better equipped to develop an adequatecomparative methodology and research design for getting a more precise pictureon sociological knowledge’s production, distribution and mediation in processesof Europeanization.

Research interest is both in cognitive aspects as well as in institutional processesof the formation of sociology as a scientific discipline and in a comparative inves-tigation of the impact of Europeanization on it. Analysing these processes takingplace in specific socio-cultural environments we empirically compare the forma-tion of sociology in Slovenia and Austria. In Chapter 2 we will turn to a qualitativeinvestigation of semi-structured interviews with sociologists in two states and ex-amine a focus group among experts regarding the effects of the Bologna ReformProcess. We will investigate how sociologists themselves perceive strengths andweaknesses of their national traditions and sub-structures within the scientificcommunity’s international division of labour, how they account for Europeanneighbourhoods and which perspectives for sociology they envisage within anEuropean context. Possible consequences of the EU accessions as reported by so-ciologists will be examined at different levels, regarding the everyday scientificlife of scholars and their academic biographies, policies and conditions at the levelof departments and at the university system as national frame of reference, theirexperiences with EU funded projects and European policies of agenda setting.Furthermore, there will be investigated sociologists’ individual and collectivestrategies of transformation and their general attitude towards the EU and a possibleEuropean dimension of sociology. By describing some examples of trans-nationalco-operations of sociologists we will also discuss which factors actually boost orhinder such forms of collaboration.

In Chapter 3, we briefly introduce the Grounded Theory approach applied, ex-plain in detail how we have come to our results, and give some insights into theprocess of theory generation itself. By then having drawn empirical evidence to-wards theoretical assumptions on the EU accessions’ impact on national specifi-cities and similar problems of actors pursuing sociology in the respective neighbourcountries, conclusions are drawn with respect to the theoretical assumptions artic-ulated above and recommendations for future research are given.

18

Conceptual and Methodological Preliminaries

Theoretical Orientations and Key Concepts

What Counts As Knowledge?

Conceptually it is assumed to be reasonable first developing a sociology of know-ledge and of science and then to apply this as a theoretical and methodologicalperspective to the new constellation which we find within the neighbour countriessince their EU accessions. Therefore, in the following we will deal with some ap-proaches in the sociology of knowledge, in particular in the sociology of science,and clarify a sociological approach to knowledge and knowledge societies.

Developments in the Sociology of Knowledge

In the traditional sense, the sociology of knowledge concerns the suggested influ-ence of institutions, circumstances of the production of knowledge on the contentof types of knowledge itself (Meja/Stehr 1982; Stehr/Meja 2005 a). The sociologyof knowledge is interested in the social foundations of knowledge and investigatesthe relationships between knowledge claims and social reality. Part of the sociologyof knowledge is the sociology of science, the sociology of scientific knowledge or,so to call, the sociology of sociology. The sociology of science does investigate thesocial character of science. Following Stehr and Meja (2005 b), here we will offera concise overview of some approaches of the sociology of knowledge in order tomake clear the analytical perspective to knowledge with which we are dealing here.

In some sense Marxism can be depicted as “the storm centre of Wissenssozi-ologie” (Merton 1996: 209, italics in original). In the theoretical framework of KarlMarx the relations of production constitute the real foundation for the superstruc-ture of ideas and the class location is interpreted as a primary determinant of ideasand as a fruitful point of departure for analysis as well (Marx 1988: 22pp.). In thefamous formulation of Marx (Marx 1988), it is the mode of production in materiallife that determines the general character of the social, political and intellectualprocesses of life; it is human being’s social existence and their “real life” that de-termines their consciousness (Marx 1988: 23).

Karl Mannheim (Mannheim 1929/1985) has extended Marx’ conception of ex-istential bases: Since every person is a member of different social groups and there

1

1.1

1.1.1

19

is the given fact of multiple group affiliation, the question arises which of them aredecisive in fixing models of thought. Therefore, with Mannheim one might examinethe variety of group formations (generations, status groups, sects, occupationalgroups, etc.) and their characteristic modes of thinking that make up the existentialbasis which corresponds to the broad variety of models of thought.

Robert K. Merton underlines the “Copernican revolution” in the sociology ofknowledge in that “not only illusion or unauthenticated belief but also the discoveryof truth is socially (historically) conditioned” (Merton 1996: 207). Merton has for-mulated a paradigm for the sociology of knowledge focusing on the followingquestions (Merton 1977, 1968, 1996):1. “Where is the existential basis of mental productions located?”2. “What mental productions are being sociologically analyzed?”3. “How are mental productions related to the existential basis?”4. “Why related? Manifest and latent functions imputed to these existentially con-

ditioned mental productions”5. “When do the imputed relations of the existential base and knowledge obtain?”

(Merton 1996: 208 p.)Existential bases are extra-cognitive factors which in some aspects determine therealm of ideas and thought. In this sense Merton asks which are the social conditionsfor producing scientific knowledge as universal, valid and general knowledge(Merton 1942/1973, 1996). He identifies the normative ethos of scientific activitiesas a set of imperatives ‑ universalism, organized scepticism, disinterestedness and“communism” ‑, which do orient scientists in their activities and are analyticallyparticular for guiding scientific knowledge production instead of everyday know-ledge (Merton 1996: 268pp.). Furthermore, Merton (Merton 1996) investigates theorganizational structure which is specific for scientific activities and detects theparticular system of distributed reward, reputation and credit as constitutive forcommunication among scientists: The “Matthew effect” (Merton 1996: 318pp.)active within the scientific community indicates that scholars with a rather highreputation or working at departments and universities of high reputation are subjectto much more attention and acceptance than others, a fact that becomes rather in-dependent from their actual scientific achievements.

Since the 1960 s there has emerged another tradition partly inspired by devel-opments within the history of science and the philosophy of science. Thomas S.Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (Kuhn 1962, 1993) had a strongimpact in turning the structural sociology of knowledge into a cognitive and con-structionist approach. His hypothesis is that the development of the sciences doesnot follow a cumulative progressive way but is a sequence of “revolutions” fol-lowed up by periods of “normal science” (Kuhn 1993: 123pp.). Instead of scientificnorms he emphasises “paradigms” (1993: 57pp.) which are action orienting

20

norms for communicating within a specific scientific community, for the sorts ofcognitive problems that arise and solutions that are possible.

This development engendered by Kuhn’s thesis culminated in various approach-es of the sociology of science which investigate science as a social activity betweenpersons interacting with one another within processes of “manufacturing know-ledge” (Knorr-Cetina 1981) and “constructing facts” (Latour/Woolgar 1979). Quiteat the same time the “scientific field” was examined as a conflict-riddled arena ofdiverse interests and social strategies within the competition for power and profit(Bourdieu 1975, 1984/1988, 2004). Ethnologically inspired constructionist Labo-ratory Studies then also developed representational studies and discourse analysesin the social construction of scientific knowledge (Mulkay 1991, 1992). So-calledActor-Network Theory (Latour 1987) questioned common distinctions between thesocial and technical sphere and took the reflexivity (Woolgar 1988) of scientificactivity into account. These approaches try to treat the cognitive dimension ofknowledge production not as a black box but as socially constructed in content too.In parallel the claim to the epistemological status of scientific knowledge was ratherthreatened since it was shown that knowledge generating processes are investigableas everyday interaction and negotiation processes due to the requirements of localproblem definitions and situations of action (Knorr-Cetina 1981). An overview ofthe sociology of scientific knowledge and on science and technology studies isprovided by several authors (Zuckerman 1988; Cole 1992; Heintz 1993; Jasanoffet al. 1994; Felt et al. 1995; Nowotny/Taschwer 1996; Biagioli 1999; Yearley 2005;Fuller 2006; Hackett et al. 2008).

Recent sociology of science, inspired by the constructionist paradigm and cul-tural studies, reflected an old topic of the sociology of knowledge, the relationshipof scientific disciplines, in a new way, by empirically investigating “epistemic cul-tures” as sub-disciplinary units of scientific communication and collaboration en-folding their own cultural practices, identities, traditions and norms (Becher 1989;Gieryn 1999; Knorr-Cetina 1997, 1999; Strathern 2000). Others focused on thecontexualization of knowledge producing institutions in investigating new forms(Whitley 1984; Gläser 2006; Weingart 2003; Weingart et al. 2007; Mayntz et al.2008) and modes of knowledge production (Gibbons et al. 1994; Nowotny et al.2001; Hessels/van Lente 2008) where the traditional role of universities is tran-scended in network configurations with industry and the state towards a “triple-helix” (Etzkowitz/Leydesdorff 1997; Erno-Knjolhede 2001). In challenging theclassical notion of scientific and institutional autonomy of universities, scholarsthematized forms of political governance and authority relations in science (Vanden Daele 1979; Braun/Merrien 1999; Boden et al. 2004; Jansen 2007; Whitley/Gläser 2007; Whitley et al. 2010) or identified processes of commodification, pri-vatization and capitalization of knowledge by so-called “academic capitalism” of

21

“entrepreneurial universities” (Slaughter/Leslie 1997; Etzkowitz 2002; Viale/Et-zkowitz 2010; Münch 2011).

Within the current sociology of science there is the tendency to treat Merton’sfundamental “institutionalist” approach as only a historic episode which has beenovercome by advanced developments within the constructionist paradigm1. Indeedthere seems to be manifest a remarkable difference in underlying epistemologicalassumptions between, on the one hand, the structural stream of research arguingthat the content of knowledge is mainly an issue determined by logic and evidence,and, on the other hand, the constructionist approach which underlines that the con-tent of knowledge is itself locally situated and socially constructed. However, herewe will not over-emphasize these differences but take the view that in many re-spects the topics and issues of these analytical streams are quite similar and mightbe open for convergent development: in insisting on the significance of competitionfor credit and recognition in the scientific community; on the importance of thescholar’s reputation for authority in the field of different knowledge claims; on therelevance of publications in scientific activities; and in the sometimes observed“disjunction between actual scientific action and published scientific papers”(Zuckerman 1988: 558).

A Sociological Concept of Knowledge

As Stehr and Meja point out (2005 b: 12), in Max Scheler’s early contributions tothe sociology of knowledge he makes a distinction between the following cat-egories or knowledge types: 1. knowledge of salvation; 2. cultural knowledge orknowledge of pure essences, and 3. knowledge that produces effects (Scheler1960). Usually, knowledge is mostly depicted in the form of dichotomies (Meja/Stehr 2005 b: 12): Then we can distinguish between specialized scientific and ev-eryday knowledge; between the content of knowledge and knowing as process ofparticipating in the cultural resources of society; between knowledge as a publicgood as well as the creation and application of knowledge (Meja/Stehr 2005 b:12 p.).

Nico Stehr (Stehr 1994) analyzes the social role of knowledge in societies, andhe draws a distinction between “what is known, the content of knowledge andknowing” (1994: 93) as a process of participation in the more or less objectifiedcultural resources of society constitutive for knowing: “…knowing things, rules,programs, facts is ‘appropriating’ them in some sense, including them into our field

1 For this view see, for instance, Weingart, P. (2003). Wissenschaftssoziologie. Bielefeld, Tran-script.

22

of orientation and competence“ (Stehr 1994: 93). However, this kind of participa-tion is also subject to stratification even whether we depict knowledge as a publicgood which has virtually no limits to growth (ibid.). In Stehr’s definition we mightdefine knowledge as “a capacity for social action” (Stehr 1994: 95) applied in aspecific social and intellectual context. This notion of knowledge enables us tounderline “multi-faceted consequences of knowledge for action” (Stehr 1994: 96).“The term capacity for action signals that knowledge may be left unused or maybe employed for irrational ends and that the material realization and implementationof knowledge is dependent on, or embedded within, the context of specific socialand intellectual conditions” (Stehr/Meja 2005 b: 13, italics in original). This per-spective underlines that with new scientific insights there are also possibilities foraction growing, in the sense of “an incremental capacity for social action” relevantwithin the contingency and fragility of social action in modern societies (Stehr1994: 97). That means also recognizing knowledge as an element of power rela-tions which define what is accepted as knowledge: Stehr underlines what has beenelaborated since Michel Foucault, namely that power relations can be conceptu-alised as generating repressive, constraining but also enabling and productive con-sequences or features, with the possibility for “individuals and groups to organizeresistance, avoidance, and general opposition” (Stehr 1994: 96 p.).

Anthony Giddens (Giddens 1976, 1984) has characterized the notion of “knowl-edgeability” of human agents by differentiating practical and discursive conscious-ness, relating it to practical consciousness and knowledge as an ordinary and wide-ly-known component of social action. Stehr acknowledges that Giddens underlinesthereby the extent to which knowledgeability is constitutive for social action; inaddition, he emphasises, as many sociological approaches of everyday life, themutuality of knowledge (Stehr 1994: 95). However, Stehr distinguishes his ap-proach from that of Giddens in that the former is more interested in the forms ofknowledge expansion and stratification, mediation by knowledge-based occupa-tions and in which forms it represents the basis for authority in economic expansion;Stehr pursues the idea that “knowledge is a stratified phenomenon of social action”(Stehr 1994: 96 p.) and thereby subject to power relations (Stehr 1994: 95 p.).

Phenomenologists like Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann (Berger/Luck-mann 1966) have appreciated and re-valuated the everyday forms of all knowledgeand the practical competencies of agents as well. They have also inspired eth-nomethodologists to empirically investigate everyday forms of knowledge and theformal structures of “doing knowing” (Garfinkel 1967). It is the practical know-ledge of implicit social rules recognized as relevant for actors in order to orientthemselves in a meaningful world; he also transforms the perspective that onlyscientific knowledge can guarantee for the reasonable and rational character ofone’s beliefs, opinions and actions as well (ibid.).

23

Roughly we can draw a distinction between, on the one hand, the explicitlyarticulated written, formal and declaratory knowledge, and, on the other hand, arather implicit, intuitive and procedural type of knowledge. The former is formu-lated, for instance, in numerous guidelines and programmes of European Union’sscience policy, the latter comes into play in social practices of applying and usingthis kind of formal knowledge, as relevant in successfully running a researchproject. In order to draw a distinction between these types of knowledge it mightbe helpful to sketch an analogy to explicit and implicit rules of social action.

On the one hand, explicit social rules and criteria are provided in a codifiedwritten form as the rules of legislation or of economic exchange. On the other hand,these social rules are applied, used and practiced in certain social situations. It isof crucial interest that social agents “operate with background expectations andnorms or a ‘sense of social structure’ that enables them to transform an environmentof object into recognizable and intelligent displays making up everyday social or-ganization” (Cicourel 1968: 328). The main analytical focus is laid on “how mem-bers of socially organized activities, through their practical reasoning, seek orderin their perception and interpretation of an environment of objects to articulate theparticulars of an unfolding action scene with some general policy or rule” (Ci-courel 1968: 331, italics in original). Social structures are being generated by prac-tical decision-making, an implicit abstracting procedure; these background expec-tations and background knowledge provide for the initial interpretations (ibid.). Inorder to follow social rules successfully, not so much content or "know-that" thanrather "knowing-how" to apply it is relevant: This distinction originally stems fromGilbert Ryle (Ryle 1949), who wants to tell us that being able to do something isquite similar to knowing how to do it. When more people follow these socialrules, in organizing their forms of economic exchange, much of "mutual knowled-ge" about rules and their use in concrete situations is required (Giddens 1976). Mostrules only exist as so-called "tacit knowledge" (Polanyi 1966), as implicit and un-noticed routines and conventions, in science and in ordinary life as well. Even whenwe can hold the view that in general it is rational to follow widely accepted rules,it is essential to rules that they also can be broken (Garfinkel 1967).

Therefore, in quite a similar way one might talk about the explicit and implicitknowledge rules of scientific conduct. Some of the explicit social rules are thenorms of scientific activities as they are described by Merton (Merton 1996). Al-though they are situated in social practices there would be only little debate aboutany cultural-specific meaning of these social rules. Implicit knowledge, however,as Knorr-Cetina (1981) has shown, often is highly localised and socially situated,depending, for instance, on the very department or institution where one undertakesscientific research. Therefore they are much more culture-bound than explicit ones.Beside this, there are several scientific traditions and intellectual styles in different

24

nations and regions of the world identifiable, even within Europe (Galtung 1990).Although social sciences are to be regarded as an universal language, social con-ventions and cultural backgrounds, shared experiences and beliefs are highly rel-evant, also in scientific discourse. When social sciences are perceived as knowledgeproducing disciplines and institutions, then the question is crucial which kind ofknowledge is produced there, or more relevant, what counts as knowledge in rela-tionship to academic and political institutions which are vehicles for mobilizationof resources and public acceptance of the social sciences.

Michael Gibbons et al. make a distinction between the following knowledgetypes (Gibbons et al. 1994: 24 p.): implicit versus codified knowledge; migratingvs. embedded knowledge; proprietary versus public knowledge, as follows.

“Codified knowledge: Knowledge which needs not be exclusively theoreticalbut needs to be systematic enough to be written down and stored. As such, itis available to anyone who knows where to look.Embedded knowledge: Knowledge which cannot move easily across organi-zational boundaries, its movement is constrained in a given network or set ofsocial relations.Knowledge industries: Industries in which knowledge itself is the commoditytraded.Migratory knowledge: Knowledge which is mobile and can move rapidlyacross organizational boundaries.Tacit knowledge: Knowledge not available as a text and which may conve-niently be regarded as residing in the heads of those working on a particulartransformational process, or to be embodied in a particular organizational con-text.Technology transfer: The transmission of knowledge from universities to in-dustries”(Gibbons et al. 1994: 167 p.).

Furthermore, Gibbons et al. (Gibbons et al. 1994) differentiate between diverseproduction forms of knowledge due to the diversification and specialization ofknowledge production and provide for a description of change within the processof knowledge production oriented towards more contextualization, as a systematicturn off from the model of strict abstraction from “external” factors not regardedin traditional forms of generating theory. Gibbons et al. have added their prognosisin 1994 that the traditionally discipline oriented production mode of knowledgewill step by step become integrated into, or substituted by, Mode 2 of knowledgeproduction (Gibbons et al. 1994), or, as it is sometimes called, “post-academicscience” (Bammè 2004): The primary form of knowledge production (Mode 1)refers to social and cognitive norms of the production, legitimization and diffusionof knowledge, while “scientificity” is relevant; problem solving activities are fo-

25

cused in academic contexts as specific communities with particular interests, whichare organized mainly as a discipline, homogeneous and hierarchical instead of moresocially accountable and reflexive forms of knowledge production (Gibbons et al.1994). Mode 2 refers rather to the utilization context of knowledge which is char-acterized as problem-solving, trans-disciplinary, and heterogeneous: The set ofcommunity members does not only consist of academic scholars and researchersbut is much more heterogeneous, while members work together regarding specificlocalised problem definitions in a more specifically and flexible organized scien-tific project (Gibbons et al. 1994: 36pp.). The context of utilization and applicationof knowledge is considered not only in academic ways, but problem-oriented,where many scientific disciplines and agents do participate; trans-disciplinarity isthen relevant as a temporary consensus due to the context of application of know-ledge and develops a framework in order to coordinate problem-solving actionalready within a particular context of application (Gibbons et al. 1994: 12 p.). Re-sults of trans-disciplinary contributions are communicated by participants them-selves as part of the process of knowledge production and dense formal and infor-mal interactions, insofar as participants go into a new context of problem-solving,not necessarily this is done due to institutional channels or academic publications(Gibbons et al. 1994: 38pp.).

Besides, when one refers to “epistemic cultures” (Knorr-Cetina 1999) as thecultures of knowledge societies, the problem is to reconstruct the way in whichknowledge gets constitutive for social relations; this involves more into a micro-social understanding of social relations, while also considering meso- and macro-societal relations. Harry M. Collins (Collins 1974) argues that if we perceive im-plicit knowledge as highly relevant and important for scientific knowledge pro-duction within social groups or networks, that means, scientists sharing a commonconceptual map or paradigm, then it is necessary to find adequate research meth-ods to investigate this implicit knowledge: He suggests that questionnaires will notalways be the appropriate research technique to investigate social interactionsamong scientists. Rather, “…learning to become part of, or helping in the concep-tual development of, a particular paradigm group, is ‘doing’ something, in the samesense that absorbing the conceptual structure that makes, say logical inference‘natural’ is learning ‘to do’ something“ (Collins 1974: 167). But even if this kindof knowledge is often not easy to be formulated by actors involved, nevertheless itis possible to do research on it, for: “It is possible to speak about that which cannotbe spoken” (Collins 1974: 184, italics in original).

To summarize the argument so far, we have briefly sketched some developmentsin the sociology of knowledge and have described different types of knowledgerelevant. In everyday life and in scientific processes of producing, distributing andmediating knowledge, explicit and implicit knowledge types are practically inter-

26

twined and not easy to be disentangled, however, one has to consider how to in-vestigate these profound tacit forms of practical consciousness. We will turn tothese methodological issues later on, when we try to clarify an adequate researchdesign for the very analysis in order to get a more complete picture of the relevantprocesses of sociological knowledge production. In addition, we have linked theconcept of knowledge to that of power, and this relationship is also a key determi-nant of knowledge societies.

Modern Societies as Knowledge Societies

Nowadays science and technology play an indispensable part in organizing andmanaging, creating and regulating society and social processes; scientific know-ledge is not only part of public institutions and administration, but has diffused inall areas of social life (Stehr 1994: 9). It is plausible to argue that “the constitutivemechanism or the identity of modern society is increasingly driven by ‘knowled-ge’” (Stehr 1994: 6); this is exactly the main idea of speaking of modern societiesas knowledge societies: “Knowledge societies” (Stehr 1994) is a concept intendingto substitute other antecedent societal formations like industrialized modern societyor late capitalist society; rather the emergence of knowledge societies indicates aradical transformation in the structure of economy (Stehr 1994: 10). The conceptof knowledge societies is expected to provide for a more adequate understandingof transformation processes in modern societies than the concept of the informationsociety (ibid.). Within the new political economy of knowledge now not only prop-erty and labour but knowledge too can be regarded as a new principle in societies:What counts is “the increased social significance of science in modern society”(Stehr 1994: 8), the ability to interpret or use knowledge, as “authority based onknowledge” and social roles of carriers of knowledge like intellectuals, experts,and cultural elites (Stehr 1994: 160pp.). It is assumed that the appearance of know-ledge societies does not so much occur suddenly but represents rather “a gradualprocess during which the defining characteristic of society changes and a new oneemerges” (Stehr 1994: 6).

Regarding the social production and utilization of scientific knowledge in the-ories of modernity, since now only few connections between theories of modernsociety to sociology of knowledge and science do exist (Stehr 1994: 9). FollowingStehr (1994: 10), one might argue that any sociological analysis of modern societyhas to orient itself towards the peculiar nature and function of knowledge in socialrelations and on the main carriers of such knowledge. If we consider the centralfeatures or the “texture” of knowledge societies (Stehr 1994: 222pp.), these soci-eties can be characterized as due to the notions “of an indifferent concentration of

27

social activities, the threat of extremely efficacious surveillance and the wide-spread enforcement of a growing set of regulations of human conduct. Social, eco-nomic and political relations and technical means in modern society have becomemuch more organized, regulated and systematized. The imperatives of performancein production and bureaucracy require discipline and adaptability. The pursuit ofregulated integration and diminishing spheres of self-governed contexts of auton-omy has been orchestrated by state and corporate groups in order to extend andsolidify their power” (Stehr 1994: 224). Central to these fragile social relations isthe uneven promotion of the capacity to act and its consequences for society: When,by political and social groups and movements from “bottom up”, the general levelof knowledge accessible and available to larger segments of the population rises,this simultaneously contributes to “an enlargement of the fragility of modern socialstructures” (Stehr 1994: 234).

Furthermore, we can talk about “knowledge politics” (Stehr 2005) as a new fieldof political activity in knowledge societies. In contemporary society, there is agrowing class of “knowledge workers” and experts, counsellors and advisers,teachers and researchers, which, as knowledge-based occupations, is being claimedto be “the fastest growing segment of the labour force” (Stehr 1994: 160). Thisincreasing theoretical significance and practical importance of “experts” has to beseen as a constitutive part of knowledge societies. Irrespective of the fact whetherwe normatively interpret these developments as negative feature of modern society,or as a positive one, because of “greater access to counselling, advice and expertise”(Stehr 1994: 161), one might follow the assumption that these “knowledge work-ers” or knowledge based occupations are of growing importance as mediating andrepresenting, producing and distributing knowledge in contemporary societies(Stehr 1994: 161 p.). Due to knowledge production Mode 2 (Gibbons et al. 1994:36pp.) the arenas of “knowledge workers” have become more and more heteroge-neous and consist no longer only of scientific scholars and academics but actorsactive in various forms of socially distributed, socially accountable and reflexiveforms of knowledge production. In addition, with the new member states’ acces-sion, new groups of social actors have risen and came up to the agenda, adminis-trative and managerial personnel active at regional, national and supra-nationallevel of knowledge policies. Their task is to give advice and support, informationand expertise to the practical activities necessary for institutions and persons in-tending to apply for a specific research project funded by the European Union.

In the context of this study we will mainly deal with the knowledge politics ofthe European Union on the development of sociology. We will try to clarify whicheffects do knowledge policies undertaken by the European Union, its regulativesand its promotion programmes, have on the actual practice of these regional actors,in particular on sociologists active in universities as well as in research institutes

28

in the respective border region Slovenia and Austria. We will further on deal withthe impact of these knowledge policies on the development of sociology as a sci-entific discipline and investigate which kind of sociology, in its institutional di-mensions as well as in its subject and content, is actually being promoted. Keyconcepts will be discussed regarding their meaning and use within the EU policiesin a specific context as a practical illustration of knowledge policies and knowledgeactors in this field of activities relevant to the scientific community and the devel-opment of sociology. We will empirically investigate sociologists as intellectualsand knowledge experts. Of interest will also be their strategies of dealing with theknowledge policies of the EU and their effect on day-to-day knowledge producingactivities, their actual co-operations and networking practices which often are rel-evant for pursuing a specific trans-national cooperation, research project or otherscientific endeavour. That means, we will deal with an action-oriented approach,by qualitative interviews with sociological experts and administrative personnelanalysing the moods and attitudes regarding the status-quo of societal and socio-logical transformations within the EU, as well as their outlooks, future hopes, andtheir action strategies in coping with these deep transformations. To keep in mindwhich kind of “knowledge about knowledge” we are looking for, and before furtherclarifying the research design planned, we will now turn to the question of how toconceptualize a sociological perspective on the relevant scientific discipline itself.

Towards a Sociology of Sociology

How to imagine and theorize the development process of sociology as a scientificdiscipline? What do we mean by sociology as a scientific discipline and endeavourat all? How to empirically investigate it? On which internal as well as externalinfluences or factors does the formation of sociology depend? First, we can assumethat the discipline’s formation inevitably is bound to the developments of the so-ciety to which sociology belongs; furthermore, it is assumed, when this society orsocieties are undergoing deep transformative processes, then sociology does so too.As having outlined before in discussing briefly some approaches to a sociology ofknowledge, when we talk about the formation of sociology then we investigate thisprocess in its cognitive as well as institutional, socio-cultural and historical di-mensions, because all of them make up the specific identity of a discipline (Lepe-nies 1981). Sometimes these varying levels which do have an impact on its devel-opment have been addressed as so-called internal and external influences on soci-ology (Smelser 1989). In other words, when we focus on the social actors doingsociology, we also might observe a specific division of labour among them, de-pending on sociology in its competition and co-operation with neighbouring dis-

1.1.2

29

ciplines. According to Andrew Abbott, this is always at stake between differentprofessions and disciplines within the field of the social sciences (Abbott 1988,1999, 2001). As particular for its historical formation, it has been indicated that inits early days sociology has been emerging in a strong relation, on the one hand, tothe natural sciences, and on the other hand, to literary knowledge production: Inthis sense sociology is regarded as a “third culture” among the already existingstreams of intellectual activities and scientific knowledge production (Lepenies1985). In taking these historical developments into account, it might also be usefulto investigate the internal differentiation process and to consider how the emer-gence of divergent schools or theoretical paradigms within the discipline comesabout. In the following we will shortly address all these different approaches in amulti-perspectively manner, in order to get a broader understanding of the devel-opmental process of sociology.

Sociology as Perspective: External and Internal Differentiations

To approach a short operational definition of a scientific discipline, one might speakof it, when a number of persons identifies themselves with the same scientific en-deavour and most of the problems studied are subject of a tradition, that means ofthe sum of written and oral interpretation of those regarding themselves as theexperts of the discipline (Shils 1970, 1975). According to Edward Shils (1975: 72),a discipline is an academic one, if a) it is taught in academic institutions, which arecalled due to the discipline; if b) members of those institutions publish their con-tributions in publication organs and journals known as those of the discipline, andc) public financial resources for funding these activities are available (ibid.). Ed-ward Shils defines “the institutionalization process of a mental activity” as “therelatively close interaction of persons busy with this activity” (Shils 1975: 72,transl. added). Furthermore, Shils clarifies that a divergent institutional support hasled to differences in the acceptance and influence of individual sociologists. There-fore, as Shils (1975: 84pp.) has shown, Karl Mannheim had, related to his rathersmall institutional influence, less impact on the development of sociology than hiscolleague Max Horkheimer who was able to get the patronage of important insti-tutions first in Germany and then in New York. Regarding the question of a soci-ological “tradition”, Shils makes a distinction between dominant and subsidiarytraditions, endogenous (cognitively inspired) traditions of thinking within theframework of sociological scholarship as well as exogenous traditions having beendeveloped outside sociology and exogenous non-scientific processes (Shils 1975:123pp.).

30

As one of the first scholars interested in the societal foundations of knowledgeproduction, Karl Mannheim has got insights in the importance of competitive forcesfor the development of a scientific discipline (Mannheim 1928/1982). His specificinterest was in the role of competition for the process of knowledge and for devel-oping epistemological insights as such, and he related intellectual productivitywithin the social sciences particularly to the phenomenon of social stratificationinsofar these are related to the various forms of “existentially connected” thinking(seinsverbundenes Denken) (Mannheim 1928/1982: 325). Besides, forMannheim the sociology of knowledge plays a significant role in examining soci-ologically the very conditions giving rise to competing ideals, ideologies, politicalphilosophies and cultural products (ibid.). Mannheim’s thinking (Kettler 1989;Kettler et al. 1984) aims at “accumulating knowledge about political thinking andcentral political subjects, which orient themselves towards political knowledge ofthe human being in practical life, but also contains social and philosophical prob-lems not considered as part of this knowledge type before” (Kettler 1989: 16, transl.added).

To understand the formation of sociology as a scientific discipline as such, it isnecessary to underline the division of labour between sociologists and other neigh-bouring disciplines as an important factor of this process. The system of profes-sions, where professions and scientific disciplines are come to be embedded, hasbeen highlighted as a central determinant of knowledge claims of competing andco-operating professions, where enhanced professionalism is regarded as a nego-tiation process among them (Abbott 1988, 1999, 2001). However, these negotia-tions happen within institutional constraints and jurisdictions as part of historicaltransformations and social change. A profession might then be characterized dueto its peculiar education and training; code of conduct for practice, ethical normsand social rules; its jurisdictions within a specific system of professions (competingas well as co-operative ones); professional associations; and conflicting roles andidentities of professionals (Abbott 1988). Due to Andrew Abbott (1988) there areno linear and homogeneous formation processes of professional developments.Abbott regards professions as elements of an interdependent system, being in inter-professional competition regarding the “jurisdiction”, which links work to thestructural aspect of organization of a profession (Abbott 1988: 59pp.). These as-pects are reflected in cultural forms of control by academic knowledge which le-gitimizes the profession and by applying “abstract” knowledge to “specific” casesand social forms of control by stressing jurisdictions and knowledge claims inpublic and legal systems and in the working place (Abbott 1988: 33pp.). Abbottemphasises that the cultural and historical legitimization of a profession is depen-dent upon its academic knowledge, its power and social prestige, while conflictsand competitions regarding their jurisdiction take place mainly concerning this

31

dimension: The actual application of this kind of knowledge has often a highlysymbolic character (Abbott 1988: 98). Cultural legitimization of a profession isdependent upon professional work and its connection with cultural values like log-ic, rationality, efficiency, harmony, beauty, etc. (Abbott 1988: 52pp.).

According to Abbott, at individual level being trained in a profession also meansto learn about understanding oneself due to a social hierarchy of professions, beingembedded in a broader hierarchy of professions: Competition addresses the diag-nosis, treatment and inference of social problems (Abbott 1988: 40pp.). Whiletreatment is often delegated to subordinated professions, there are also specificmethods available for a profession in settling its knowledge claims (Abbott 1988:69pp). Jurisdiction and knowledge claims of professions operate within a legalsystem, at a specific work place, and within public discourse and the state: Espe-cially in Europe the alliance of welfare states and legal systems is important for aprofession to empower itself in inter-professional competition (Abbott 1988: 164).So, in which way might, within a given system of professions, sociology orientitself towards distinct professional aims, knowledge claims and jurisdictions? So-ciological enhanced professionalism might mean to depend on cultural legitimiza-tion by social sciences and ”abstract” academic knowledge, but institutionally alsobeing evaluated and regulated against a background of growing scientifically le-gitimized evaluations and assessments. Sociologists, in reverse, might find them-selves on a growing labour market of advisory work, consultant companies, as-sessment institutes, competing with various social professionals and institutions inproviding knowledge for diagnosis, treatment and inference of social phenomena(Abbott 1988: 40pp.). However, enlightening sociological knowledge might alsoprovide for critical, reflexive knowledge relevant for professionals active in sys-tems of stabilisation and regulation, integration and control. Confronting the actualwork experience of professionals with social scientific literature and theories mightbe part of this effort. What is at stake here too is the question which models orapproaches of sociology we might perceive as appropriate ones for providing rel-evant knowledge within current transformations of society at large.

When we now come to sociology as a specific discipline, it has to be mentionedthat in its early days the borders to other social sciences like economics and law aswell as to philosophy and epistemology were not as strict as nowadays. Wolf Lep-enies (Lepenies 1981) takes account of cognitive, social and historical perspectivesof the discipline of sociology. Referring to C. P. Snow’s thesis of the “two cultures”,literature and natural sciences, Lepenies has also shown that in sociology’s en-hanced process of professionalism it has established itself as a “third culture” bet-ween literature and the (natural) sciences, and that this formation process has un-dergone different developments in European nation states like France, Great Britainand Germany (Lepenies 1985). This might be an inspiring perspective for those

32

interested in the relationship of literature and sociology (Kuzmics/Mozetič 2003),in which way the outcomes of fictional knowledge production put a peculiar topicon the agenda, which becomes more and more an interesting theme in sociologyitself. We then can regard the respective region of interest here as a reference sys-tem, where intellectuals as artists, writers in residence, sociologists and otherscholars, are knowledge producers regarding the topic of Europe and interculturalaffairs of neighbourhood.

What can be observed due to the normalization thesis of sociology is that soci-ology as a scientific discipline could develop itself successfully by getting rid ofthe “ballast of fundamental philosophical questions“ (Mozetič 2001: 218, transl.added). Within the history of sociology there is postulated a process of enhancedprofessionalism of sociology, where the increased autonomy of the discipline hasstrenghtened an improved capability and productive efficiency. The other side ofthe coin might be an advanced de-historization and economization within socio-logical thought (Mozetič 2001): “From its very beginning sociology was connectedwith totality models of the philosophy of history as well as with socio-technologicalpromises. Knowledge and insights were thought as directly bound to feasibility,control and new order of society. If euphoria of scientism, of positivism and Marx-ism do not meet much appreciation today, because they rely on a drug which haslost its efficacy more and more, we should, however, remain sensitive for the deepirony incorporated in the vision that the passage of teleological models of historyand the loss of the idea to be able to eliminate un-intended action consequences,sociology at last had reached its scientific stage” (Mozetič 2001: 213, transl. added).

Additional to external differentiation processes of sociology within the field ofthe social sciences, it is also important to understand internal ones within the dis-cipline itself, as it is indicated, for instance, in talking about distinctive “schools”of sociology. With Jerzy Szacki (Szacki 1981) one might speak of “schools”, ifthere is given an institutional, a psychological and a topological meaning of theconcept; all of these dimensions are relevant, too, if we think of the problem of“national schools” in sociology. The institutional criterion is applied, if interests,and assumptions shared by a group of scientists, are developed and manifestedwithin an institutional framework: Szacki reminds us of the fact that within thehistory of sociology one does not know a lot about this institutional dimension, andtherefore one might think of socio-graphic studies where sociological “schools”are being investigated due to an institutional point of view (Szacki 1981: 18 p.).Regarding the psychological dimension of the concept, one might address “a ref-erence group” (Szacki 1981: 20, transl. added), where a specific sociologist can beregarded as a member thereof, if in his works he “follows more the requirementsascribed to its system than the opinions of specialists of his research area or of hiscolleagues” (Szacki 1981: 20, transl. added): In this respect Szacki relates to com-

33

parative studies of sociology in different countries “in order to enrich our know-ledge about the old problem of ‘national schools’” (Szacki 1981: 21). Referring tothe typological meaning of the concept, sociologists are classified due to similari-ties or ideal types in their points of views which distinguish themselves from otherscholars, irrespective of the institutional contacts or whether they regard themselvesas a member of a particular reference group (Szacki 1981: 21 p.). In this sense onemight interpret the topological aspect as “an instrument to work on theoretical andmethodological problems regarded by a specific author as the important ones”(Szacki 1981: 22); this shall unearth “the stability of theoretical alternatives aslogical possibilities”, which the sociologist faces (Szacki 1981: 22, transl. added).

With Michael Mullins (Mullins 1981) one might empirically investigate thesescientific communities in different dynamic stages of development. Regarding thedynamic aspect, and beginning with Kuhn (Kuhn 1962) and what he coins a“paradigm” or a “disciplinary matrix” of a scientific community, or what Derek deSolla Price (Price 1963) calls “invisible colleges”, one might investigate in partic-ular the communicative structure of those groups of scientists based on a group oftrusted assessors of work. Mullins differentiates this changing communicativestructure in the development of a “school” or a “sociological theory” due to itssocial and intellectual characteristics and maps out the following dynamic modelof theory building: a paradigm group, a network, a cluster, and a discipline orspecific area of work (Mullins 1981: 70). “These phases of theory formation arealways embedded in the general scientific communication structure” (Mullins1981: 71, transl. added); Mullins (1981) describes the patterns of communicationas rough hints for the stage of development of a particular intellectual group.

Recognizing early contributions of Mannheim and applying the model of Sza-cki and of Mullins, it might be also interesting to undertake a cohort analysis of thedevelopment of sociology in specific countries. The population of active sociolo-gists changes and therefore we deal with different persons and groups of persons,sharing unambiguous characteristics as members of particular “generations”. Forinstance, we will see in Chapter 2 that as part of the history of sociology in therespective neighbour countries, there can be observed processes of changing gen-erations or cohorts of sociologists active at universities as one result both of thephase of expansion of higher education systems in the 1960 s and 1970 s and ofspecific changes indicated by EU research policies till the 1990 s and onwards aswell.

In raising the question, which kind of sociology we will investigate here, fol-lowing Peter L. Berger (Berger 1994) we then deal with a definition of sociology“not so much a field as a perspective” (Berger 1994: 11): Furthermore, if we con-sider more than one possible sociology and are interested in a comparison of variousones within a specific context of neighbour countries, then we have to deal with

34

shifting perspectives or maybe a kind of sociology as a generator of a “translationfunction”, as Gerald Mozetič once has called it. This translation function of soci-ology can be imagined due to a dramaturgical metaphor explored by Erving Goff-man (Goffman 1959) as between different stages of sociological activities imagin-able as a back stage and a front stage within a given field of intellectual knowledgeproduction: “Sociology in translation function legitimizes itself due to a specificunknown or implicit knowledge that is characteristic for our society. Its increasingdifferentiation and segmentation results in the fact that on many different areas oflife we generate knowledge if and only if they are of functional meaning, that is ifthey turn their ‘market side’ upon us – and what goes on at back stage usuallyremains invisible. If sociology is capable to examine this very back stage, it mightmeet at least some of the knowledge deficits. … If sociology can reclaim exclu-siveness at all, this results not so much from that what it describes but from the wayhow it does so – that is from the sociological perspective, which also mediates newinsights resulting from taking a look on an already known phenomenon”(Mozetič 2001: 229, transl. added). In our point of view, the notion of sociology’s“translation function” could be successfully applied to the deep transformations ofEuropean societies nowadays. On the one hand, this enables sociology to criticallyreflect its interest into societal chance and social movements in a new way. On theother hand, sociology’s formation process depends on these historical transitionsas indispensable preconditions of its intellectual activities itself.

Sociology and the Transformations of the EU Enlargements

In many European countries the social sciences have developed enormously, notonly in institutional terms but also in regard to the public recognition of sociologicalintellectuality. However, when current diagnoses rather claim a so-called crisis of(Western) sociology (Gouldner 1970; Cole 2001; Lemert 2004), one should beaware that the term of “crisis” has been very much different regarding the situationof Western sociology and the status of sociology as a “crisology” (Flere 1994: 116)of a state in transition where the use of the term “crisis” was, by virtue of thecommunist ideology, officially forbidden for decades (ibid.). In trying to answerthe question about “Europe at the crossroads: transition and/or crisis?” (Poho-ryles 1994 b), one has to recognize not only different economic, social and culturalcauses of the systemic transformations in East and West, but also quite strikingsimilarities of the symptoms of crisis prevalent in both geo-political areas: This isdue to the “emergence of neo-populist movements, the (hopefully ephemeral) suc-cess of which drives from the paradoxical – at first sight – combination of thegeneral discontent with what is perceived as a decline of the moral standards of the

35

political class in democracies with open chauvinism and xenophobia. The paradoxof this situation lies in the parallelism of integration and disintegration processes”(Pohoryles 1994 b: 1). Here we recognize that one of the key motivations of Euro-pean integration processes is to overcome, as by trans-national regionalization, thedangers of nationalism.

Historically, the formation of sociology is inevitably bound to the evolving na-tion state and the process of nation building (Wagner et al. 1991; Wagner 1985,1996; Wagner/Wittrock 1991; Wittrock et al. 1998), closely linked to processesrestructuring relations between university and the nation state. First, academics anduniversity reformers struggled for a clearer separation of scientific institutions fromwider society; second, education and training tasks of the academic institutionswere widened (Wagner/Wittrock 1991: 331pp.). We will take into account that thestructure of the intellectual field of sociology varies across nations due to its specifichistorical and intellectual, institutional and political circumstances under whichsociologists have tried to develop a scientific understanding of their societies.

Up till now there exist several approaches to sociology in the East Europeanstudies, offering a remarkably varying spectrum, depending on different points ofview stemming from divergent historical experiences and ideological affiliations,both from the former East and from the former West. Besides, since the 1990 s,there can be observed a steadily growing literature which deals with globaliza-tion in society and at the same time opts for new forms of internationalization insociology: One of the first key meetings in this respect was the World Congress ofSociology 1990 dealing with globalization as a topic and resulting in several im-portant publications which emphasise the shift to the global dimension of the sub-ject of sociology (Albrow 2004; Albrow/King 1990). In a similar way, one mightfollow attempts to re-conceptualize the social sciences by asking for a “cosmopoli-tan turn” (Beck/Sznaider 2006; Delanty 2006), as a trans-disciplinary, method-ological effort in order “to open up new horizons by demonstrating how we canmake the empirical investigation of border crossings and other trans-national phe-nomena” (Beck/Sznaider 2006: 1). This methodological perspective seems mainlyto consist of the shared critique of methodological nationalism as a taken-for-granted, rather implicit attitude of social scientists (Beck/Sznaider 2006: 2) in doingresearch or theorizing that society is equated with national society, since “nationalorganization as a structuring principle of societal and political action can no longerserve as the orienting reference point for the social scientific observer” (Beck/Sznaider 2006: 4): Besides an intended normative-philosophical cosmopolitan at-titude of social agents, too often interpreted as the choice of an elite, by the authorscosmopolitanism is regarded as a side-effect of unconscious decisions (Beck/Sz-naider 2006: 7). As one possible response to this cosmopolitan turn and as a di-alectical phenomenon as well, there are also tendencies to talk of an “indigeniza-

36

tion” of social science (Gareau 1985, 1988; Loubser 1988; Muyiwa Sanda 1988;Park 1988), stemming primarily from parts of the globe from where rarely anysociologists are being heard in the former West.

A historical coincidence with these globalization discourses is the rising interestin conceptualizing the deep changes in Eastern European societies during the1990 s, which, for some observers, turned the processes in this part of the worldinto “some kind of laboratory for social sciences” (Genov 2004 b: 25). In the1990 s and afterwards there have been published several important compendia ofarticles putting the development of sociology in different East European coun-tries on the agenda (Genov/Becker 2001; Genov 1989 a, 2004 a; Keen/Mucha 1994,2001, 2003, 2006; Kaase et al. 2002). Where some of them tried to strengthen theidea of specific national traditions of sociology in the differing eastern countries(Genov as well as Keen and Mucha), others have focused more on comparing de-velopments among sociology, political science and economics (Kaase et al.). Niko-lai Genov (1989 a) underlines the history of sociology due to the changing societiesin a phase before and after 1989: Before 1989, the idea of two types of modernindustrial societies, a Western capitalist and an Eastern socialist one, was common-sense among sociologists. After 1989, it has to be recognized that there are a broadlyrelevant shifting processes of globalization of differing societies and an increasinginternationalization of sociology as its science as well (ibid.). The breakthrough of1989 in Eastern European countries brought several issues on the agenda like theemergence of new social actors, the topic of civil society, and the concept of tran-sition, where “the implications of these new conceptualizations focusing on re-gional processes in the broad global context are still to be analysed and properlyplaced in the development of world sociology” (Genov 2004 b: 25).

Reconsidering the multi-fold condition of sociology in post-communist soci-eties, Piotr Sztompka (Sztompka 2002) asks, as the pressing issue of nowadays is,“whether we are doomed to remain the poor cousins of Western colleagues – mererecipients, trend followers, and imitators. Or perhaps we can offer something orig-inal and innovative, an authentic contribution to world sociology” (Sztompka 2002:551). In this sense, he identifies three directions for change (Sztompka 2002: 551):First, post-communist societies are presenting “a stimulating ‘strategic researchsite’” (ibid.) for the study of social change and social movements, the possibilityof observing the emergence of new institutions of capitalism and democracy, andthe study of the consequences of rapid and unexpected social change. Second,Eastern European sociologies might contribute to the domain of fruitful sociolog-ical concepts, apart from civil society, regarding the processes of self-limiting rev-olution, the conversion of social capital, civilizing incompetence, political capital-ism or post-communist trauma (ibid.). Third, the challenge especially for sociolo-gists from former communist societies, where they seem to be best equipped, is in

37

articulating “a historically and empirically grounded theory of social change”(ibid.), departing from utopism and developmentalism towards an image of con-tingent history-making by human actors (ibid.).

European social sciences show at least two dimensions of interest, on the onehand an institutional dimension, available in training and research possibilities, andthe content or subject of knowledge itself on the other. When we turn closer to thetopic of the European studies and the so-called transition studies, Eastern Europehas figured primarily as a subject of study, and even the transformations since theearly days of the Perestroika have not automatically led to a new quality of co-operation regarding the emergence of a new European social scientific researchcommunity (Becker/Sparschuh 2003: 193). Ulrike Becker and Vera Sparschuh(Becker/Sparschuh 2003) have investigated “how the process of integration is ad-vancing in the social sciences” (Becker/Sparschuh 2003: 194) and have undertakenresearch on the current state of research in Germany in order to attempt to drawconclusions on research cooperation at a European level. Relying on SOLIS (SocialScience Literature Information System) and FORIS (Research Information Systemon the Social Sciences) as databases of social science research in Germany con-taining literature since 1980, they have investigated whether these databases wouldreveal changes in national orientation and research co-operation especially towardsEastern Europe (Becker/Sparschuh 2003: 193pp.). The authors find evidence of anincreasing foreign research of about four per cent between 1990 and 1999, the mostof which came from studies on the European Union and Eastern Europe; besidethis, foreign research accounts for about a quarter of all German research (Beck-er/Sparschuh 2003: 197). Becker and Sparschuh reveal a strong orientation towardspolitical science and a high proportion of historical research (Becker/Sparschuh2003: 198), and also show that hardly any institutional research partners were ex-plicitly mentioned in the project database, although East European scientists doincreasingly work as staff on German projects; they also indicate that the demandfor and interest in research cooperation is bigger than what is in fact available inthe form of collaboration projects (Becker/Sparschuh 2003: 199pp.). The meth-ods of financing German research generally reflect the national orientation of thesocial sciences, even regarding foreign research: Research on Eastern Europe isrelatively often financed by international sources (over eight per cent), as well asinstitutional self-financing is also strikingly high here, while contract research onthis topic is rather insignificant (Becker/Sparschuh 2003: 206).

Let us now consider some relevant concepts to understand countries’ transfor-mative processes as from transition to EU accessions, in order to be able to speakof any effects of these processes upon the very object of interest here. In respect tothese deep transformations which European societies undergo today and which dohave a strong impact on the respective neighbour countries too, the adequate con-

38

ceptual devices seem, at least at first glance, not very clear. It rather appears as thatconcepts like transformation and transition, integration and enlargement are moreor less interchangeably used in public discourse.

The fact that the recent accessions of so-called rather “old” and “new” EUmembers have happened on rather divergent historical backgrounds stemming evenfrom the time of the Cold War, might let us to briefly take account of the impliedWest-East relation of those transformations. If we look at the topic and the logicof modern “European integration”, as seen with Western eyes, there are some rea-sons for considering self-reflexivity on the existing discourse on integrating theformer communist countries into the “West” (Wagner 2001). It cannot be deniedthat in the reflection of the West-East relation, the East itself has often remainedsilent, mainly because the structuration of the discourse on “Europe” was intellec-tually and spatially based on European centres in West European countries: “Thepower of definition and the corresponding silence of the defined are part of thatstory” (Wagner 2001: 255). In addition, both conceptually as well as imaginolog-ically Eastern Europe was depicted to be Western Europe’s “peripheries”, havingimportant consequences to the self-understanding of both parts (Wagner 2001:256). By way of the ideological structuration of politics and policies this imagi-nology certainly influenced both the West and the East; indeed, even commu-nism can be seen as “a revolt of the periphery; an attempt not only to join the‘developed’ world, but even to surpass its most cheerished achievements and cir-cumvent its most dreaded problems. Thus, when the Bolshevik Revolution oc-curred in Russia, it shook-up the entire framework in which European politics hadbeen cast including its accepted ‘West’/ ‘East’ divide – and as such radiated out-ward into the rest of the world” (Wagner 2001: 258). After the fall of the communistsystem Europe’s internal borders and the global divide between two competingsystems of societal organization had to be defined in a new way (Wagner 2001:261), while the historical answer to this new uncertainty was formulated as a “returnto Europe” (ibid.). Western scholarship is predominated by a rather clear-cut per-spective or paradigm of integration (Wagner 2001: 264): Within this perspective,the societies of Eastern Europe simply did “have no choice but to integrate them-selves into Western ‑ European and global ‑ structures of norms and action” (Wag-ner 2001: 264). Because of this integration the transformation process that ensueshas come to be viewed as a “double transformation”: politically, as a turn from thecommunist-party lead state bureaucracies into a pluralist representative democra-cy with a clear separation of powers and governed by the rule of law; economically,as a shift from the Soviet-type command economies into a market economy basedon private property and managerial prerogative (Wagner 2001: 265). What is ac-tually missing in this variant of integration perspective is rather an appreciation ofthe specificities of the societies themselves, their own history, traditions and cul-

39

tures (Wagner 2001: 265). Apparently, it is the former “West” which sets theparadigm of integration and therefore leaves the former “East” European countriesno choice but to plead their case from the position of Europe’s periphery (ibid.). Itmight be the case that, as F. Peter Wagner suggests, the clear-cut integrationparadigm goes only half way, since the historical and structural closure postulatedby it rather needs to be broken-up: Instead, it is necessary to integrate the Easterntransformation into an European and global process of transformation (Wagner2001: 267). Or, in other words: “An integration is taking place, but it concerns bothsides of the process; the countries of the former East have to integrate themselvesinto a formally Western context which is undergoing a fundamental transformationitself; the necessary transformation of the former in order to integrate into the latterthus resembles a high-wire act without securing strings and security net. In thissense, we can speak of the combined process of integration/transformation as acrisis of identity as its arena of conflict” (Wagner 2001: 270). Furthermore, in thisintegral dynamics of post-communism it is the very process of societal identity-formation that will gain some explanatory power, because questions of borders arealways sources of identity-formation (Wagner 2001: 267 p.). In discussing Easternand Western perspectives we should not blind ourselves to the fact that both per-spectives share a common space and problem of transformation, in European andin global terms as well: What the “West” can learn from the “East” in this processmight be a discourse on European integration and transformation that points beyondthe categories of “East” and “West“ (Wagner 2001: 273) and offers the “West” todiscover itself through the “East’s” discursive evocation. Then, the very meaningof “Europe” and its border regions itself as well as its position in a globalized worldwill be at issue for discovery (Wagner 2001: 273).

The “revolution of recuperation” as Jürgen Habermas calls it (Habermas 1990),“in so far as it is meant to make possible a return to constitutional democracy anda connection with developed capitalism” (Habermas 1990: 27), is guided by dif-ferent models or interpretations which consider the revolution of 1917 to haveredundantly endorsing and criticizing the idea of socialism. In regard to the enor-mous changes which have been taken place in Europe in 1989, here we follow RalfDahrendorf (Dahrendorf 1990) in distinguishing three forms of transformation:political, economic, and social transformation. Moreover, the revolutionsaround 1989 sensitize us for the differences among the former communist states ofCentral and Eastern Europe too. For instance, Claire Wallace and ChristianHaerpfner (Wallace/Haerpfner 1998) have examined ten different countries of theformer communist Eastern bloc and made a distinction between three paths oftransformation: of Central Europe, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe. Of specialimportance here is the case of Slovenia, which has some similarities to develop-ments in Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia after 1989. Very roughly

40

spoken, Wallace and Haerpfner describe those country’s political, social and eco-nomic transformations due to the following (Wallace/Haerpfner 1998: 11 p.): Re-garding political transformations in Slovenia, there has been the consolidation ofa multi-party system with increasing political stability and arising new democraticleaders. Amongst the political elite there is a consensus for the market system andfor democracy, and the population can generally be depicted as very pro-demo-cratic; this is also indicated by a rather peaceful resolution of minority problemsand question of borders (Wallace/Haerpfner 1998:12 p.). Regarding economictransformation, there has been much foreign investment and European as well asinternational aid programmes available which have resulted into rising incomesand an economic growth after the initial fall; privatization is rather extensive witha clear separation of state and other expenditure, inflation is high, but under control,the tax system has been reformed and a social security system has been introduced:The population can be regarded mostly pro the economic reform, although theunemployment is rather high and the informal economy is important but decliningbecause more formal ways of making a living are available (Wallace/Haerpfner1998: 13 p.). Regarding social transformations, there can be observed the rising ofa new market oriented middle class and a distinction between the private and thepublic sector; the ownership of consumer good is rather high and is growing rapidly;old industries exist alongside new market sectors, corruption is rather low and civilsociety is developing (Wallace/Haerpfner 1998: 15).

Furthermore, Wallace and Haerpfner (1998: 2) prefer the concept of transfor-mations instead of the concept of transition because of the latter’s implied lineardevelopment in any particular direction and the idea of a clear goal. After the fallof the communist political and economic system in November 1989, citizens inCentral and Eastern Europe were subject to transition, which, as a transition towardsintegration into the European Union, have had at least three explicit objectives:higher living standards comparable to those of Western Europe, greater individualfreedom, and, as already mentioned, a “return to Europe” (Barr 2005 b: 3). Whilein this transition process there are remarkable differences among “old” and among“new” EU member states up till now, in case of Slovenia we are dealing with thetransition from a communist economic and political system characterized by centralplanning and totalitarian government to a capitalist economy and democratic plur-alism. In Austria’s process of coming closer to the European Union, which thenresulted into the accession as one of its member states in January 1995, certainlythere were major changes regarding political, social and economic conditions inmany spheres of public life, although these have not been that deep compared tothe transformations in Slovenia. But for both countries the perspective is valid thatthe process from transition to accession as becoming a member of the EuropeanUnion had a remarkable strong impact on all areas of public life. Instead of the

41

rather complicated or diffuse concept of transition, where there are raging intel-lectual debates about how to define transition and by which criteria we can definewhen transition ends (Barr 2005), we will here, for the purposes of this study, talkmainly about “EU accession as a good working definition of successful transition”(Barr 2005: 21): As members of the European Union, the respective countries werejudged to be in compliance with the Copenhagen Criteria and at least with a criticalmass of the Acquis Communautaire (Barr 2005: 21). Both Austria and Sloveniahad been subject to it, but this should not lead us to neglect different historicalmoments, social, political and economic backgrounds as well as the later accessionof Slovenia when compared to Austria.

The Copenhagen Criteria, which were specific for the enlargement process andwere enunciated in 1993 (Council 1993), require aspiring member states to ensureat least three different criteria: political criteria as the “stability of institutionsguaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protec-tion of minorities”, economic criteria as “the existence of a functioning marketeconomy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and marketforces within the Union”, and a reference to the implementation of the AcquisCommunautaire as the “ability to take on the obligations of membership, includingadherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union” (Council 1993).Further important criteria or sets of conditions that apply to all member states ofthe European Union and thus had to be adopted by the applicant countries were: 1.the Acquis Communautaire, which discusses the micro-economic structure of eco-nomic organization and regulation; 2. the Stability and Growth Pact and the Con-vergence Criteria for monetary union as mainly macroeconomic; and 3. the LisbonStrategy, which brings social policy into the European mainstream (Barr 2005: 14).We are dealing with discussions which describe the constraints the accession pro-cess imposes on countries’ freedom of action, but also as enabling conditions help-ful to economic, political, and social reform, specifically regarding the role of thescientific discipline of sociology. Concerning historical aspects of transition, wherewe will concentrate on particular aspects of the accession process in regard to thearea of sociology, we will be dealing with the effects of the transition or specifically,the EU accession process on the development of sociology.

Methodological Approach and Research Methods

Perspectives of Comparative Sociology

As Neil Smelser once has outlined (Smelser 1976), founding fathers of sociologylike Alexis de Toqueville, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber have frequently anal-

1.2

1.2.1

42

ysed modern societies in a comparative perspective. In general, a comparative ana-lysis allows two directions of research (Sztompka 1990, 2002): Following JohnStuart Mill’s classical formulation of comparative sociology (Mill 1843), it is firstpossible “to seek uniformities and similarities in the sea of diversities and differ-ences and then to account for the reasons why such uniformities emerge. The sec-ond, opposite in intention, unravels specificity and uniqueness in the sea of seeminghomogeneity and then explains why such diversity emerges and persists” (Sz-tompka 2002: 548).

In a similar way, the broad spectrum of methodological perspectives in com-parative sociology usually is differentiated in a rather variable-oriented and a morecase-oriented approach. Roughly spoken, this distinction between two poles ofcomparative research can be characterized as follows (Goldthorpe 1997; DellaPorta 2008): The first one, often oriented towards large-n-comparisons of quanti-tative survey data or secondary statistical analysis, tends to select cases randomly,treats them as anonymous on the basis of predetermined and operationalizedconcepts, transforms them into few variables assumed to be independent from eachother, searches for generalization through parametrization and depicts the use oftime by ways of periodization (Della Porta 2008: 208). In contrast to this, the secondone tends to select paradigmatic cases and constructs concepts during the researchprocess in a systematic process analysis, keeps the number of cases low, tries toincrease the thickness of the description (Geertz 1973) by identifying many “vari-ables” of comparison, explores diversity by understanding differences, and inter-prets the use of time as the reconstruction of processes and temporal sequences(ibid.). Some early examples of the variable-oriented approach are cross-nationalstudies of large-scale data published already in the 1960 s by Stein Rokkan, MelvinL. Kohn and others (Merritt/Rokkan 1966; Rokkan 1968, 1972; Kohn 1989 a;Scheuch 1989). Rather recently, the case-oriented approach has not only providedcontributions to historical analysis but also reflected the role of theory generationin the social sciences (Ragin/Becker 1992; Mahoney/Rueschemeyer 2003;George/Bennett 2005). Moreover, within the last decades there have been de-veloped methods of comparative research with the intention to transcend the quan-titative-qualitative divide, as the so-called Qualitative Comparative Analysis de-veloped by Charles C. Ragin (Ragin 1987, 1994, 2000, 2008) or the methodolo-gy of Mixed Methods (Tashakkori/Teddlie 1990; Creswell/Piano Clark 2006). Anoverview on the related debate in comparative methods of social sciences is pro-vided by several authors (Oyen 1990; King et al. 1994; Gauthier 2002; Brady/Collier 2004; Goertz 2006; Pickel et al. 2009).

The scheme of Piotr Sztompka cited above is a highly elaborated one, and hemakes a strong argument for the historization of the discipline in re-evaluating thesearch for uniqueness and specificities. If we, in this sense, might imagine a broad

43

continuum of comparative sociology, it is possible to identify as its poles on theone hand, a strong orientation towards the unifying forces of the compared entities,and on the other some reasons for seeking for cultural diversity. Here we will restrictourselves to look only at two examples of these imagined poles of comparativesociology insofar these are important for our field of interest, namely the develop-ment of sociology within the institutional framework of the European Union.

On the one side of the continuum, where similarities between different countriesare emphasised, Max Haller (Haller 1990) has argued that the rise of Europe is aspecial challenge for comparative sociology, and it can be considered as a mean-ingful sociological unit, particularly because of its common historical and culturalheritage. In variable-oriented examinations one shall make a distinction betweenthe level of socio-economic development, linguistic-cultural traditions and the typeof political systems (Haller 1990: 195). Following Haller’s typology, one will findsimilar intercultural areas due to the Roman Catholic tradition both in Slovenia andin Austria, but a differentiation due to the socio-economic level of a highly de-veloped capitalist society and a former socialist country.

On the other side of the continuum, it is possible to seek for specificity anduniqueness within a cultural comparison. As an example, Charles Crothers’(Crothers 2000) interest in sociology in Austria as a case study in the social pro-duction of social knowledge provides a framework with the following idea em-phasizing methodological considerations resulting from the fact that a broader re-gion or a country will provide particular opportunities and constraints for the pursuitof sociology within it: “To the extent that a country’s natural, cultural and socialfeatures are unique, any ‘field science’ or humanities subject will have a naturalresearch site to document and investigate which accords it an absolute or relativecomparative advantage in terms of the international division-of-labour. It may bethat particular locales provide subject-matter which international attention canmine as strategic research sites. There is an important methodological corollary tothis point: in examining national differences it is important not to fall too easilyinto the post-hoc trap of finding differences and then ‘reading these differencesback’ into the environing context: it is better to be able to predict possible effectson knowledge production which are likely to flow from the characteristics of acountry, and then to investigate whether or not there is empirical evidence for these”(Crothers 2000: 269).

In a third approach to the subject at issue, it might be possible to transcend thementioned dualism or poles of comparative sociology in favour of an assumedcommonality of the cross-border region under investigation. It might also be pro-ductive, regarding the assumed unity and integration of the region, to overcome theconcept of cross-national comparisons at all, if we regard the region and the trans-national co-operations and conflicts as an integrated subject itself. Then we inves-

44

tigate the nature of those collaborations, irrespective of the existence of some cri-teria or principles of these co-operations of neighbours or partners: as meeting withone another, that means concrete interactions and practice; learning to talk withone another, which addresses the heritage of multilingualism; learning to worktogether, that concerns also to try to identify already existing working communitiesas well as specifying whether there are common aims, interests, and whether wecome to a common analysis of problems. “Territories” might then not only be re-garded as geographical entities of spatial proximity, but also of fields of intellectualknowledge production where trans-national co-operations as well as cultural ob-jects are on the agenda. These might then have boundaries and similarities to otherfields of knowledge production like literature, cultural studies, philosophy, and soon, which could also be inspiring for sociology.

What can we learn from these different approaches to comparative or cross-national research? Here we will look for diversity in examining the different his-torical contexts of sociology’s formation in Slovenia and Austria, as it is outlinedin Chapter 2. However, there are also good reasons for searching for uniformitiesand similarities in the research policies and strategies of the European Union to-wards integration, a stronger harmonization and standardization in the conditionfor scientific knowledge production and in the over-all living conditions of thepopulation of its member states as well.

In order to illustrate the possible different approaches, it might also be useful tothink of the legacy of theoretical pluralism in comparative sociology, as it has beenemphasised by Johan Galtung (Galtung 1981). He once has made distinctions bet-ween varying scientific styles of intellectual activity due to differences in socio-historically grown cultures among scholars of distinct language communities: Inthis way, he differentiates the Teutonic style of rigid, logically enforced pyramidaltheory building from the Saxon inductively data collecting and fact finding mis-sions, the Gallic style of elegant, eloquent and dynamic theory-building from theNippon dialectical thinking which overcomes Western dualisms in a truly holisticapproach (ibid.). Although Galtung does not interpret the style eminent in the EastEuropean countries of former communism, he makes a slight notion that thesecountries are influenced by the Teutonic style of theory generation, being due tothe dominance of a general cultural influence during centuries as well as due tohistorical materialism in the social sciences and in society at large (Galtung 1981:306). Does this automatically mean that we do not encounter any differences inintellectual style within the neighbour countries of Slovenia and Austria at all? Thiswould rather be a severe reductive misinterpretation since the social sciences areof course a very rich and multi-fold endeavour in both of the neighbouring coun-tries. Rather we might gain a slightly different but profound insight, starting fromthese findings in diverse intellectual styles in science. Galtung furthermore insists

45

on the necessity of theoretical pluralism in comparative sociology, which makes itrather useful to combine both the rich skills for empirical descriptions of the Saxonstory-teller with the rather sharp and rigid pointed theoretical meditations of theTeutonic pyramid builders: “If we can learn foreign languages and translate fromone into the other so can we do with social science meta-languages, and with in-tellectual styles. … There is a principle of variety at work here. Only by cultivatingvariety not only among social scientists but also within us can we be mentallyprepared to reflect and construct variety around us” (Galtung 1990: 111).

It might be possible to raise an objection against the notion of investigatingdifferent sociologies due to divergent national traditions, national sub-structuresand historical contexts of the scientific community, since sociology as a science istruly an universal endeavour. Therefore, generating a “sociology of sociology”seems to counter-act our intuitions of scientific statements’ objectivity and uni-versal validity. However, the fact of the historical formation of national traditionsof sociology (Genov 1989 a, 1989 b) or, let’s say national sub-structures of theinternational scientific community that differ from each other in terms of institu-tional frameworks, research topics preferred, and intellectual paradigms as well israther uncontroversial. This concerns cross-national differences in the expansionof the sciences (Schofer 2004), but can also be shown in the development of a singlescientific discipline, as Wolf Lepenies once has shown in the reconstruction ofsociology’s formation in England, France, and Germany (Lepenies 1985). It shouldbe taken into account that there are different epistemological levels or dimensionsof sociology’s attempts to universal and objective knowledge claims on the onehand, and, on the other, what we might rather call the internationalization or Eu-ropeanization of sociology as an empirical scientific development (Nowotny 1983).Nowotny reminds us not to enforce a “pseudo-universalism” which only “masksthe hegemony of a particular national tradition or particular group, even if it isspread internationally” (Nowotny 1983: 190). She opts for a “true universalism”that can be obtained when we acknowledge national and cultural diversities withinthe scientific community: “While any local or national scientific culture is alwaysin danger of falling into sheer provincialism or obscurantism when it missed tocheck itself against international academic standards, the conditions of universal-ism are much more difficult to meet. They presuppose that cultural diversity is bothcreative from its local origins and open to be integrated into a global developmentwhich does not negate diversity” (Nowotny 1983: 190).

What about methodological self-reflexivity in this process of comparing differ-ent countries? What about one’s own position as it is necessarily bound to thesocialization in a specific nationally organized scientific community, with a par-ticular socio-cultural background, and as member of a distinct socio-historical so-ciety? How to apply a self-critical attitude, as it is outlined by the sociology of

46

knowledge, to the own research orientation, but without necessarily falling intopure relativism of the descriptions given? Critically reflecting the shortcomings,blind spots and dark continents of the own Western perspective, or better, ways ofrepresentations of “the East in the West” (Goody 1997), it is worth mentioning thatWestern explanations of modernization and development tend “to primitivise theEast on a permanent basis” (Goody 1997: 173), which has influenced not only ourreduced understanding of the East, but also our understanding of ourselves(Goody 1997: 173). In reflecting the West-East relation in Europe, moreover,among Western social scientists there can be observed the habit of describing re-forms and transformations in East European countries by comparison with the po-litical and economic system of their own country, as well as the availability ofconsumer and luxury goods (Pohoryles 1994 c): This behaviour rather indicates agood deal of ignorance than being able to find adequate models in, let’s say politicalparticipation within East European countries (Pohoryles 1994 c: 19). And again, atissue is who is in the position to define the situation, has the power of definition,who remains silent in this process or has the opportunity to “talk back”.

Research Design

Concerning the cross-national comparison intended here, several methodologicalquestions arise. How do we define the unit of comparative analysis: Do we talkabout a world system or individual countries, nation states or regions, or rather ofindividual persons or institutions? How do we deal with problems and questionsof case selection? Which research design and methods from empirical social re-search do we apply in comparing cases?

Regarding the first question on the unit of analysis, Melvin Kohn (Kohn 1989)once has raised the question whether we, due to different intentions and styles ofcross-national research, depict “nation” as an object or as a context, as unit ofanalysis or as a framework of a larger trans-national comparisons and analyses(Kohn 1989: 20). Although we are dealing here with shadings rather than sharpdifferences, analytically it is useful to keep those strategies of cross-national re-search conceptually distinct and, as Kohn does, to differentiate their distinguishablepurposes and theoretical implications. If we interpret nation states or countries asobjects of the study, Kohn argues, our interest is primarily in the particular countriesstudied for their own sakes (Kohn 1989: 21). By contrast, when we address one orseveral nations as context of research, then we are primarily “testing the generalityof findings and interpretations about how certain social institutions operate or abouthow certain aspects of social structure impinge on personality” (Kohn 1989: 21).Two other types of research relate to nation as an unit of analysis, where researchers

1.2.2

47

“seek to establish relationships among characteristics of nations qua nations”(Kohn 1989: 22), that means, countries are classified along one or more dimensionslike the level of educational attainment or position along scales of income inequality(ibid.). By contrast, again, nations can be treated as components of larger interna-tional systems, in the sense of trans-national research in the capitalist world-systemor globalization (Kohn 1989: 23 p.). It might be useful, so the hypothesis here, toadapt the typology of Kohn to the issue of a small-n-comparison of only two nationstates in our investigation and specify if we, in this comparison, depict “nation” asan object or a context of analysis, an unit or as a framework of larger units ofanalysis. Relating to the typology of Kohn, we think of our study as an investigationof those two nations not so much as an object but rather as a context for the studyin the development of a specific science, sociology. Furthermore, we treat nationnot so much as a unit of analysis in itself, but rather as part of a larger, supra-nationalframework of the European Union.

Concerning the selection of cases, we decided on developing a comparativeanalysis of only two countries’ cases, namely the two nation states of Slovenia andAustria. To be more specific, a sample of in sum eight different departments ofsociology located in the common border region has been chosen, while five of themhave been university departments and three of them non-academic research insti-tutes outside university, all of them located in the cities of Ljubljana and Maribor(in Slovenia) and Graz and Klagenfurt (in Austria). The sample is described indetail in Chapter 2.2.

The initial research design of the PhD thesis has been guided by a Mixed Meth-ods approach combining techniques both from qualitative and from quantitativesocial research. Concerning quantitative methods, we have undertaken a compar-ative bibliometric analysis (Hjerppe 1980; Potter 1981; Leydesdorff 1995;Cronin/Atkins 2000) of articles published in journals of sociology. This has beendone in order to investigate the characteristics of sociological stocks of knowledgeas having been produced by sociologists, in particular the country-specific differ-ences and time-specific effects of two chosen sociological journals within a dura-tion of more than two decades. Concerning qualitative methods, the semi-structuredinterviews with sociologists have been complemented with documentary analysisand discourse analysis of declarations and strategies from European Union’s sci-ence policy (EU Research Framework Programmes from the Fourth one onwards)and EU higher education policy (the Sorbonne Declaration, the Bologna Declara-tion and the Lisbon Strategy). Moreover, it has been of concern in which way thestudy curricula at the university departments in the region reflect the Europeandevelopment towards a common Bologna Reform Process. Provisional results fromthese empirical analyses can be obtained from the PhD thesis (Hönig 2009 a) andsome articles (Hönig 2008, 2009 b, 2010, 2012 a, 2012 b). In the following, we

48

focus ourselves solely on a specific part of the initial research design, mainly be-cause of limited space. Against the background of comparative sociology, we locateour study rather close to the case-oriented pole of the spectrum as outlined above.This is indicated not only by the small-n-comparison of two states and case studiesof in sum eight departments of sociology, but also by the qualitative researchmethods applied in collecting and analysing data.

Within the standardized repertoire of empirical social research (Becker 1998;Babbie 2005), methodical choices will mainly orient themselves towards qualita-tive research techniques (Merton et al. 1956; Glaser/Strauss 1998; Strauss 1987;Lamnek 1995; Flick ; Charmaz 2006; Denzin/Lincoln 2003; Ryen 2003). Generallyspoken, the advantages of qualitative procedures of collecting, analyzing and in-terpreting data are those of rather close, explicative investigations of specific data,taking the meanings and reasons of the social actors into account, exploring thehistorical dynamics of the research subject in a flexible and detailed way and gen-erating theory in an ongoing process. The following research techniques will beused: a) semi-structured interviews with sociologists in two nation states; b) a trans-national focus group with sociologists on the implementation of the Bologna Re-form Process; and c) ethnographic participatory observation of some examples oftrans-national co-operations of sociologists in EU funded research projects.

Subsequently we are dealing with the individual perceptions and beliefs of so-ciologists, their interpretations of situations as an indispensable part of the devel-opment of sociology too, their own theoretical frameworks in making sense ofexperiences and in displaying their motivations of action as well. Although thereare individuals as the central unit of a qualitative account, the analytical interest isnot in persons per se, but rather about their patterns of understanding, similaritiesand differences of accounts as displayed in interviews. What sociologists formulatein their interviews clearly goes beyond merely subjective impressions, as knowl-edgeable actors they are used to view and explain social phenomena in sociologicalterms, moreover, they have published about it.

On the one hand, sociology is rooted in the ordinary language of everyday life;on the other, sociology has developed its own professional vocabulary and proce-dures of classification in order to undertake measurements within the social world.Aaron V. Cicourel argues (Cicourel 1964) that out of these interwoven “two lan-guages” there arise important methodological questions. He criticises that proce-dures based on mathematical principles are imposed upon the life world of thosesubject of investigation before it is even clear whether these methods are adequateto the peculiarities of social life; quantifying ways of measurement, due to Ci-courel, presuppose stabile, homogeneous and invariant meanings of investigatedsocial phenomena as “pure facts” that shall simply be represented by seeminglytheory-neutral techniques of social research (ibid.). This inevitably leads to the

49

reification of the social process involved in generating new data. Quantifying pro-cedures, Cicourel argues, are not adequate to the temporary character, contingencyand complexity of social situations, in which actors in the first place generate thevery social phenomena under sociological investigation (ibid.).

Against the long-lasting dominance of quantitative social research, AnthonyGiddens (Giddens 1976) outlines several characteristics of interpretive sociolo-gies which he considers to be of profound importance to the assessment of thenature of sociological method: First, Verstehen should be treated as generic to allsocial interactions as such; second, the social researcher draws upon the same sortsof resources as laymen do in making sense of their world, for instance in theirpractical reasoning (Giddens 1976: 52 p.). Third, stocks of knowledge routinelyused by members of a society to interpret their situation depend on implicit andpragmatically oriented knowledge; fourth, the concepts of social scientists dependon a prior understanding of those used by laymen in sustaining a meaningful world(ibid.).

Since we are in particular interested in the implicit knowledge constitutive ofsocial processes of meaning in general, here we will also draw on resources ofethnomethodology. Harold Garfinkel discusses (Garfinkel 1967) first the fact thatboth laymen as well as social scientists draw upon the same resources in makingsense of their world within their daily routines. This is valid for forms of practicalreasoning and actors’ implicit knowledge brought to their perception of a situationand constitutive for processes of social interaction and negotiation of meaning aswell (ibid.). Furthermore, in applying qualitative methods of social research, thereis a particular model of social actors involved: We depict them as knowledgeable,competent individuals capable of formulating own accounts of attitudes, arguingagainst an over-socialized conception of man prevalent in sociology (Wrong1961).

We decided to conduct qualitative semi-structured interviews with a sample ofin sum 21 sociologists appointed to five university departments and three researchinstitutes from two nation states. In the methodological context of this study, quali-tative semi-structured interviews are used and interpreted as a research techniqueuseful for a cross-national comparative sociology (Pickel/Pickel 2009). Susanneand Gert Pickel (2009: 462pp.) have underlined the utility of qualitative inter-views for comparative analysis in emphasizing the following points: Firstly, quali-tative interviews sometimes are the only way to gain particular information whichwould be otherwise unavailable or even impossible to observe. Secondly, stan-dardised procedures of collecting, analysing and interpreting qualitative data aspart of the methodical repertoire of empirical social research, provided by interviewguidelines and particular methods of coding, at least partially support the compa-rability of results from different social groups, institutional frameworks, countries

50

or nation states. Thirdly, the validity and reliability of our findings from interviewscould be checked against or combined with other results stemming from other pro-cedures of quantitative and qualitative research.

In particular, we have been interested in the empirical practical reasoning andjudgments of sociologists as experts of sociology in the two neighbour countriesunder investigation, while their “expert judgments” (Huber/Inglehart 1995;Benoit/Wiesehomeier 2009) are assumed to provide valuable information on therespective research question. Moreover, it can be assumed that these judgments ofsociologists, concerning their own peer group, the discipline of sociology, and theimpact of the European Union on its development in the respective country, aresubject to “repertoires of evaluation” (Lamont/Thévenot 2000) that differ from eachother due to diverse national cultural or historical backgrounds of knowledge. Wemight compare sociologists’ practical reasoning and judgments in the sense, asMichèle Lamont and Laurent Thévenot once have put it, “that members of differentnational communities are not equally likely to draw on the same cultural tools toconstruct and assess the world that surrounds them” (Lamont/Thévenot 2000: 9).

Additionally, it is intended to reconstruct the implicit knowledge (Polanyi 1996;Stehr 2004), which characterizes the scientific everyday life of sociologists. Theregionally limited investigation aims at a “thick description” (Geertz 1973) of thesocial conditions of sociology in the respective framework. Concerning the trans-national character of the research question, methodological and methodical alert-ness will be oriented towards a dialogical method (Kofler 2002) with integratingshifting perspectives, qualifying the own “na(t)ive” cultural construction of theresearch object, and using approaches of criticism of ideology as well (Kofler 2002:11).

Here we will also examine the impact of the EU accessions on the moods andattitudes as well as action strategies of coping with these transformations enactedby sociologists as knowledge experts. In this respect we follow Peter Weingart(Weingart 1998), who has analyzed these attitudes towards and strategies of copingwith societal transformations among mostly natural scientists in three post-com-munist countries (Russia, Belarus, Czech Republic) due to a secondary literatureanalysis. He was interested in “the obvious difference in moods in which thechanges are interpreted and which evidently determine the ways in which they arebeing dealt with” (Weingart 1998: 141), and he refers to the finding that “mostlikely the reactions of the experts and researchers polled mirror more the mood andoutlook of those interviewed rather than necessarily the actual situation” (Wein-gart 1998: 141). We will adapt his questions somewhat to a guideline for semi-structured interviews specifically among sociologists within the two neighbourstates. In addition, particularly we will undertake the endeavour of identifying someinformal experiences and more institutionalized examples of sociologists’ trans-

51

national co-operation within the neighbouring countries and with discussing crite-ria or factors of co-operating successfully actually addressed by the sociologistsinvolved.

Concerning the focus group as a method of data collection, one of its most im-portant advantages lies in the diversity of definitions of situation by a numerousbody of individuals (Merton et al. 1956). We have taken part in a focus group onthe implementation of the Bologna Reform Process with members of universitiesin three nation states. All were involved in implementing the Bologna Reform Pro-cess at the respective university departments, however, within differing nationaland historical contexts. Furthermore, it was of interest in which way the membersof the focus group localized themselves within the discussion process evolvingfrom the very topic of debate. This was especially visible in a wide range of pos-itions regarding the common task, and its implications and in strategies to handlethis new situation for academic departments as a profound impact of the EU ac-cessions of the respective countries. One of the inhibiting effects of the groupmentioned by Merton (1956: 151pp.), in the sense of stimulating some of its mem-bers to open discussion and inhibiting others, has been overcome because severalpersons of the group were interviewed individually as part of the interview sam-ple after they had participated in the focus group.

The transcripts of the semi-structured face-to-face interviews and of the focusgroup were then coded, analyzed and evaluated due to the methodology of Ground-ed Theory of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Glaser/Strauss 1967). Reasonsfor choosing Grounded Theory mainly were based in the interest in how theory canbe generated by data resulting from systematic procedures of empirical social re-search. Since the main research question of this book relates to relatively new his-torical processes of the EU accessions’ impact on the development of sociology,apparently there is a deficit of theoretical analysis in how to identify the EU ac-cessions’ impact on the development of sociology as a scientific discipline. Thegenerated theory is based on concepts, categories and hypotheses actually gener-ated by sociological actors involved in this process as well as those used by our-selves. This also implies bringing a sociological perspective to the piles of dataotherwise only gathered but not interpreted. Grounded Theory seems to be an ad-equate methodological device particularly when we are interested in covering theimplicit background knowledge and background assumptions of social actors, un-derlying the openness and reconstructive work of an interpretation. BarneyGlaser and Anselm Strauss furthermore underline the centrality of comparativeanalysis as a procedure of Grounded Theory by a systematic theoretical samplingand investigation of comparative groups. For our purposes, a comparative analy-sis of a variety of scientific institutions and social groups is on the agenda in variousrespect: First, on macro-sociological level taking nation as a context of analysis for

52

identifying a possible EU impact on sociology, this concerns different nationaltraditions of sociology in Slovenia and Austria, but also different institutionalframeworks of reference as manifest in a national science policy, funding systemof research or preferred research topics of national relevance, university reform orlegal framework for scientific careers and scientific activities, etc. of country-widescope. On a meso-level, we address university departments and research insti-tutes of sociology in the regional context: here we undertake a comparison of sci-entific institutions in and outside university, comparing different regional locationsof these institutions as well. Third, on a micro-sociological level it refers to indi-vidual and collective actors and their activities in the developmental process of adiscipline, manifest, for instance, in our comparison of three cohorts or generationsof sociologists, in their strategies of action and interaction, for instance, in inter-preting institutional change within their discipline or in coping with institutionalconstraints.

Considering these methodological issues, the analysis of qualitative data on theEU accessions’ impact on sociology in the neighbour countries enfolds in Chapter2 as follows. Sociologist’s own perceptions and diagnosis on effects of the EUaccessions at different levels of social structure and action are, on the one hand,confronted with the conceptual framework from the sociology of knowledge andsociology of science as outlined above. In this repect it is of analytical interestwhether the accounts of sociologists do converge with and confirm, or divergefrom, or rather complement the results drawn from the theoretical analysis sketchedabove. On the other hand, the accounts of sociologists are explicated, systematizedand critically assessed according to the coding procedures of Grounded Theory.After introducing the sample of sociologists appointed to different university de-partments and research institutes in two states, we will analyse assumed historicaland structural contexts of sociology. When sociologists give their accounts of pos-sible national traditions or sub-structures of sociology as an international scientificcommunity, this does refer to the notion of “knowledge cultures” constitutedagainst the background of sociologists’ mutual perceptions as European neigh-bours. Moreover, their recognition of intellectual developments of sociology dueto the well-known divide of theoretical versus empirical sociology has been ofinterest, as regional connotations in a variety of “fractal distinctions” (Abbott 2001)relevant in the formation of the discipline. Complementary to this rather cognitivelyoriented account, the enforced competition of knowledge institutions within chang-ing institutional landscapes is subject to investigation, as this concerns, on the onehand, the often ambivalent relationship of academic universities and research in-stitutes outside universities, and, on the other hand, that of public and private uni-versities as well. Furthermore, within the framework of European research policies,sociology increasingly has to compete with other disciplines as cultural studies,

53

political science, economics, and others. Concerning the scientific community ofsociologists embedded within a nation state or beyond at an European or interna-tional scale, there has often been addressed the dialectal relationship of internalcohesion versus internationalization of sociology; these dynamics seem to be no-tably significant for small scientific communities. Moreover, the question of soci-ologists’ contribution to social and political change will be discussed, which is ofparticular relevance in the context of a rather young nation state like Slovenia ex-isting since 1991.

In addition, we will analyse some intervening conditions of sociology’s Euro-peanization at a more and more increasing analytical level of abstraction as this isproposed by Grounded Theory’s conditional matrix (for the concept of the coundi-tional matrix see Chapter 3). First we are interested in how sociologists’ biographiesand cohort membership might influence their accounts on sociology’s Euro-peanization, then we turn to a specific feature of EU funded research, namely thesocial organization of research projects and sociologists experiences with it. Therecognition of different institutional frameworks of research at local, regional andnational level of an entire university system is relevant for understanding systematicdifferences in Europeanization’s effects on sociology in different countries, influ-encing also the implementation of European higher education’s strategies as indi-cated in the Bologna Reform Process.

There will be identifed and analyzed individual and collective strategies of so-ciologists to deal with anticipated processes of Europeanization. These are not onlyinfluenced by their general perception of the European Union and a possible EUimpact on their daily life as a researchers. Strategies of sociologists and their reper-toires of judgments in assessing their discipline’s Europeanization also depend onwhat they perceive as relevant cognitive tasks and institutional quality criteria ingoing on in a scientific career, as visible in institutional demands towards interna-tionally relevant scientific publications and research projects. As we will see, so-ciologists’ institutional embeddedness in or outside university is at least partiallyconditioning their accounts of EU research policy and how they talk about an as-sumed Europeanization of sociology.

The focus of research is oriented towards documenting and analysing someconsequences of Europeanization, in particular forms, processes and criteria oftrans-national scientific collaboration in the context of EU funded research projects.While the first two sections are dedicated to the documentation of more or lessinstitutionalized examples of trans-national collaboration of sociologists, thenquality criteria or factors are discussed that might hinder or boost successful col-laboration in European research and a provisional trajectory model of transnationalco-operation is outlined.

54

The Impact of the EU Accessions: The Diagnosis of Sociologists

A Concise Historical Overview of Sociology’s Formation in theTwo States

The research interest focuses both on cognitive aspects as well as on the institutionalformation of sociology as a scientific discipline. These take place in specific socio-cultural environments, under normative and reflexive premises, and are subject tohistorical change. At first glance this might be at odds with a historical perspectiveon sociology, insofar there is a tendency towards recognizing great scholars ofsociology as pioneering forefathers; however, in the last two decades of the historyof sociology one can observe a tendency towards the “historization” and “sociol-ogization” of sociological knowledge and methods (Mozetič 2002: 103; Mozetič2004: 13). Beside this, in reconstructing the scientific life of scholars as well asinstitutional conditions of sociological knowledge it is possible to get a deeperunderstanding of the knowledge so produced.

In order to bring to light these sublime processes of how sociology as scholarlyendeavour could establish itself as a scientific discipline and specific type or fieldof knowledge production one has to go back to the roots and historical materialstelling us the various forms of “scientific networks and institutional arrangements”,“strategies of publication and efforts to institutionalize curricula” as well as “po-litical backgrounds … and academic habits” (Mozetič 2004: 13, transl. added). Inthis way Gerald Mozetič has suggested "a possible process model of the history ofsociology" (Mozetič 2004, transl.added). It is important to note that despite ofKuhn’s scepticism regarding the academic standards of rationality and scientificreasoning, social sciences here are interpreted due to a cumulative model wherethe efforts of history and the attempts of today also have some consequences forfuture thinking (Mozetič 2004: 11). In the early days of scientific success one mightnot expect a high interest in a historically detailed investigation of the institutionalcareers and organizational structures (Mozetič 2004: 12). Therefore, most of theexisting knowledge about these processes remains informal, bound to personal ex-periences and part of a rather local corpus of knowledge (Mozetič 2004: 12 p.). Thepossible erroneous findings and therefore methodological disadvantages from theserather local stories of different groups or cohorts of sociologists are not only ten-dencies towards mythologizing individualistic anecdotes or rather producing one-dimensional versions of that "what really happened" in the history of sociologicalthough (Mozetič 2004: 13): Instead of this, Mozetič emphasises the necessarily

2

2.1

55

implicit, informal and local character of the type of knowledge under scrutiny(ibid.). However, this causes severe difficulties for empirical research to reconstructthese corpuses of knowledge, since these sources are sometimes unavailable or onlypartially accessible for scientific investigation (Mozetič 2004: 13). Nevertheless,though these blind spots and dark continents might not fully be turned into en-lightenment of scholarly examinations it seems rather plausible that a search foradequate documents as well as the application of empirical methods of social re-search will inevitably improve the sources available (Mozetič 2004: 13). But whatare the theoretical background assumptions which provide for the interpretativeframework of all these detailed empirical findings? In this regard it is also importantto mention “the moral dimension” of sociological efforts to reconstruct its ownhistory in a plausible and cogent way (Mozetič 2004: 14, transl. added). It is in-herent in the sociological discourse as such and definitely influences the prioritiesof which kind of knowledge, which topics and styles of scientific reasoning shallbe depicted as important (ibid.). It is “the emancipatory-humanistic character ofsociology” (Mozetič 2004: 14, transl. added) as a discipline as well as the historicallegacy of sociology as a project of (European) enlightenment what is, then underscrutiny and debate.

The history of sociology in Slovenia and Austria is strongly linked to the emer-gence of the nation states, as the development of sociology at large is intensivelyinterconnected with the rise of the modern nation state (Wagner et al. 1991). Thatimplies, in seeking for those formal as well as informal types of sociological know-ledge, in documents and archives as well as by quantitative research and qualitativeexpert interviews, we are first bound to each of the national traditions and nationalsub-structures of sociology in Slovenia and Austria. What these accounts aim at isto, first, get a more adequate comparative understanding of the historical precon-ditions under which sociology as a scientific discipline has been established in thetwo neighbour countries, and, second, then also which different historical condi-tions have been decisive for the possible European impact on the discipline lateron.

In drawing a provisional picture of the two national traditions of sociology, wewill orient ourselves towards some criteria for the assessment of the degree ofinstitutionalization of sociology (Shils 1975: 72): university training opportunitiesin the discipline of sociology, the availability of specialized publication organs,public demand for research projects, financial, administrative and logistic subsidiesfor sociological research in institutions, and established and honoured opportunitiesfor practicing sociology in teaching and research (Shils 1970). Edward Shils alsoshows that by processes of institutionalizing sociology, when people who do so-ciology are “interacting relatively close with one another” (Shils 1975: 72, transl.added), there also arises a particular selectivity in mediating and institutionalizing

56

knowledge. It is also due to a distinct social structure of an academic system, whichenables or restricts the development of the discipline (Shils 1975: 90). We then arepossibly better equipped to understand because of which missing institutional pos-sibilities phases of sociological knowledge production remained rather isolated.This is characteristic, for instance, for Austrian sociology in the inter-war periodor for the restricting ideological pressure in Slovenia in the 1970 s.

Of course sociologists with whom we have talked in the context of the inter-views, have published about the history of their discipline since decades, as a lotof notable accounts suggests. In this respect, here can only be given some hints tothe relevant literature because of limited space. However, we keep in mind thatsubsequently it will be of interest whether the accounts sociologists have given inthe qualitative interviews do contradict, confirm or complement these scientificaccounts of assumed national traditions of sociology in the respective nationstates.

Although the nation state of Slovenia has a very young history, sociologists havenumerously reflected the recent changing circumstances so that the formation ofsociology in Slovenia is well documented up till now. The establishment of soci-ology during Yugoslav times has been described in detail (Gestrin/Melik 1966;Popovic et al. 1977; Jogan 1982, 1994, 1995; Mitrovic 1989; Flere 1994). Attentionhas also been drawn to specific issues and currents like a Catholic tradition inSlovene sociology, which was historically dominant in the inter-war period (Jo-gan 1988) or stratification studies in Post-World War II Yugoslav sociology(Popovic 1971; Flere 2001). Regarding a rather general view on the situation of thesciences, the current developments in science and technology politics of Sloveniahave been described (Witschel 1995; Mali 1999, 2000, 2003 a, 2003 b) as well asattention has been drawn to specific issues of sociological practice like bibliometricdata, statistics (Rubin et al. 1995; Ferligoi/Mrvar 2000), or qualitative research(Adam/Podmenik 2005; Adam et al. 1999). Overviews of transition processes inSlovene sociology today are offered by several authors (Vicic 1989; Jogan 1995;Kerševan 1995; Cas 1996; Bucar/Stanovnik 1999; Fink-Hafner 2000; Adam/Makarovič 2001, 2002; Mali 1994). Furthermore, Maca Jogan (Jogan 2006) pro-vides for an experience-oriented outlook of an autobiographical approach to themembership in the scientific community in Slovenia.

Since about decades, one can recognize a raising interest in the history of soci-ological ideas in Austria, specifically with the perspective of the sociology ofknowledge2: The general climate of bringing up issues of sociology as a scientificdiscipline to the debate was, first, positively affected by the international environ-ment of Austrian sociology, as indicated by some publications from the United

2 A detailed discussion of most of the following studies is given by Langer (1988 b).

57

States (Westphalen 1953; Torrance 1976; Wieser 1983) and from Germany (Lep-enies 1981, 1985; Lepsius 1981 a, 1981 b). Furthermore, there was a beginninginternational interest for Vienna, specifically for a research on sociology and sci-ences in general (Johnston 1972; Schorske 1982; Balog/Mozetič 2004). Since the1960 s the discipline of sociology was established at universities, and a new gen-eration of sociologists had the chance to develop an interest into the history of theirscientific discipline (Rosenmayr 1966 a, 1966 b, 1988, 2001; Rosenmayr/Höllinger1969; Rosenmayr/Köckeis 1966; Heyt/Vaskovics 1967). In the 1970 s the raisingsceptical view upon science and its social advantages was not only of growinggeneral societal concern but also a heritage from the sociology of science: It wasquite plausible then to look back and search again for the societal conditions ofdeveloping sociological knowledge (Fabris 1973; Fischer-Kowalski/Strasser 1973,1974, 1995; Fiala 1974; Holl 1974; Studienrichtungsvertreter 1974; Schneeberg-er 1980; Haller et al. 1981; Thum 1984; Wagner 1985) and for the history of sci-entific methods and theories themselves (Knoll et al. 1981; Knoll 1985; Mozetič1983, 1985, 1987, 1988; Nowotny 1983, 1988; Fleck 1987, 1988, 1990; Stadler1987/88). More recent interpretations of the history of sociology in Austria havebeen formulated within the past decades (Mozetič 1992, 2002; Langer 1984,1988 a; Fleck/Nowotny 1993; Fleck 1996, 2011; Zilian 1992, 2000; Schülein2000). From this literature of sociologists themselves, we subsequently formulatea few theses or assumptions concerning national traditions and sub-structures ofsociology in the respective national contexts.

From the very beginning of sociological thinking in the two neighbour countriesaround 1900, both in Slovenia and in Austria there have emerged Catholic soci-ologies (Jogan 1988; Langer 1988 b) in supporting and legitimizing social harmo-nization, but also approaches like that of Ludwig Gumplowicz influenced by themulti-ethnic situation of the Habsburg monarchy (Mozetič 1985), the rationalist“school” of Austro-Marxism ( Mozetič 1983, 1987, 1988) and various Marxistcircles in Slovenia too (Jogan 1982: 94). Although there has been a lively sociologyin Austria in the inter-war period, it has emerged rather in distance to universityinstitutionalization (Torrance 1976; Fleck/Nowotny 1993: 103): Many intellectualswere forced to emigrate during the NS-regime in Austria (Stadler 1987/88). As arather self-ironic labelling of Austrian sociology’s restoration after 1945 as an“alpine provincialism” (Fleck/Nowotny 1993) indicates it can be assumed that thisintellectual loss has consequences for the country till nowadays.

Both in Slovenia and in Austria sociology has mainly been institutionalized atuniversities during the 1960 s. Regarding this, both countries have experienced thetension or conflict between a more universal scholarship in sociology, open tophilosophical, epistemological, and historical points of views, and a highly spe-cialized and socio-technological orientation of sociology, which is keen to free

58

itself of “all that metaphysical stuff” (Jogan 1982). In Yugoslav times, sociologyhas been mainly dominated by Marxist Theory, resulting in stimulating intellectualdebates and innovative forms of thinking as represented by the Praxis Group(Flere 1994). In Slovenia, in the 1960 s sociology has been introduced as a teachingsubject in public high schools which can also be interpreted as reflecting a highpublic acceptance of the discipline in the educational system at large. While in the1970 s in Austria not only the entire system of higher education has rapidly ex-panded, but also the establishment of many small research institutes outside uni-versity contributed to the growing heterogeneity of the discipline, which has alsobeen positively influenced by the reform intentions of the social democratic gov-ernment. In Slovenia, however, the 1970 s were characterized by a political andideological control of sociology, resulting even in the public suspension of fouracademic sociologists from teaching positions (Adam/Makarovič 2002: 537).

Regarding the degree of institutionalization, both countries do have an institu-tionalized discipline available in several universities and independent institutes ofsocial research. In Austria the service orientation of much of sociological researchis rather manifest, the institutionalization at universities, however, is not as strongas in Slovenia. Austria has been in its history specifically inventive and innovativeregarding institution building (Nowotny 1988). It also has built up a strong traditionin social partnership, which has left its mark on doing social scientific researchwithin policy oriented fields (Fleck/Nowotny 1993: 110). In quantitative terms,sociology in Slovenia is rather well-equipped with university positions (Adam/Makarovič 2002: 543), also when compared to Austria. Although policy orientedresearch is not very well developed (Mali 2003 a: 212), since the 1990 transitionthere is an increasing amount of independent research institutes emerging outsideuniversity. Within the universities in both countries, the cohort effect becomesvirulent: the pioneer generation of sociologists, who studied sociology in the1960 s and later on became part of the teaching and research staff at university ata time of expansion of the higher education system, are now getting retired, bothin Austria as well as in Slovenia. The younger ones might possibly develop newspecific “strategies of transformation” (Weingart 1998) regarding the new local-ization of sociology within the EU.

A comparative bibliometric analysis of two sociological journals over more thantwo decades has confirmed (Hönig 2008) that while Austrian sociologists still ori-ent themselves rather close towards other German-speaking countries where theyalso find publication possibilities, in Slovenia English-speaking papers are morefrequently written and published. It is assumed that because of the relatively smalllanguage community they have to cope with it in innovative and outward orientedways. As far as language as a central determinant of scientific communication isconcerned, since the scientific community in Slovenia is rather small, and since

59

there is only one publication organ (Javnost) with an international impact factor inSlovenia, scholars are much more open to the international dimension of the socialscientific discourse. They are less oriented towards German-speaking countries andmore oriented towards international English-speaking communities and publica-tion organs in order to make up a scientific career. This is also in accordance withthe relatively small book market in Slovenia, textbooks are available in Englishmore frequently than in Austria. As reflected in the referred literature, however,sociologists seem to be highly aware of the needs and possibilities of internation-alization, taking part in trans-national intellectual networks and contributing to agrowing stock of knowledge that may be called an European sociology.

Concerning perceptions of Slovenian sociology, it can be stated that the societyis in transition, and therefore the science of this society is, too; this refers both toits institutional dimension when there are changes in the institutional frameworksby university reforms, and to its cognitive content, as in European and transitionstudies, which focus on various dimensions of societal change. In this respect Aus-trian sociology might learn from its southern neighbour. In Slovenia, regardingtopics of sociological research and theoretical orientations, the subject of societaltransition is quite visible in publications which deal with political democratiza-tion and economic commercialization, globalization and European integration(Adam 2001; Adam/Makarovič 2002) much more often than in Austria. This is dueto the relatively young history of the Republic of Slovenia as a politically inde-pendent and economically capitalist autonomous state. Although there has been araging debate among sociologists and in the general public about political and eco-nomic elites in Slovenia (Makarovič 1994; Kramberger 2000), there is only littleresearch on new players of the political-administrative and the economic sectoravailable, which has been growing with the European integration process in Slove-nia. In Slovenia, since the 1980 s there has been a remarkable interest in the “civilsociety”-concept (Bernik 1994), in Luhmann’s System Theory (Bernik/Rončević2001; Makarovič 2001), but also in other –isms like feminism, postmodernism, andculturalism (Adam/Makarovič 2002: 537). This is partly explainable due to a “mul-ti-paradigmatic situation” (Adam/Makarovič 2002: 537) after the collapse of thecommunist regime and the abolished dominance of the historical materialistparadigm in sociological thought. In Austrian sociology, one might observe a hugeamount of eclecticism in theory (Fleck 1994: 13), and in quantitative terms thehistory of sociology is remarkably important (Crothers 2000: 276).

In Austria, since the 1970 s some important institutional innovations around theIHS in Vienna can be observed (Nowotny 1983: 179). This might have been alsopromoted by social partnership and a strong corporatism as a political specificityin the country, so issues of doing research in a balancing situation of political in-terests were discussed in social scientific discourse (Nowotny 1983: 189). In gen-

60

eral, a good “pragmatic mixture of more quantitative and qualitiative approaches”(Fleck/Nowotny 1993: 112) might be stated as well as an outcome of the compe-tition among many small research institutes. However, one can recognize, due to“the relatively strong ‘service orientation’” (Fleck/Nowotny 1993: 112) of Austriansocial research, a lot of rather short-term applied research of no long-term signif-icance (Fleck 1994: 12). In Slovenia, while from the late 1960 s on there is a richand stimulating heritage of quantitative data and methodology stemming from theSlovene Public Opinion Poll project led by Niko Toš (Toš 1968 to present), the useof qualitative research methods is rather in the beginning (Adam 2005).

Both Slovenia and Austria are small or medium-sized countries and share ageopolitically privileged location in the heart of the European Union. It can beassumed that sociology in both countries might highly benefit from trans-nationalco-operations. With the EU accessions, the promotion possibilities of research arechanging, nowadays EU research project opportunities are no longer rare. But it isassumed that in Slovenia, like in Austria immediately after the EU accessions, theinstitutionalized supporting structures and possibly also the universities are not wellprepared for this kind of third-party-funded research. It might be the case that re-search institutions outside universities are, because of their higher dependence onthis kind of research funding, better equipped for pursuing this type of research.On the other side, certain funding possibilities are available only for the establishedinstitutions and their personnel. As both of the neighbours are small or medium-sized countries, they might have the advantage of defining specific research areasand problems as subject to a much more focused science policy, although this issueis not really clear until yet. Both national communities of sociology have beenactive in international research co-operations and have the opportunities to enrichtheir sociological traditions with more international orientation in research.

Intellectual Centres of Sociology: The Sample of Departments

In the following, we will offer an empirical investigation of the impact of the EUaccessions on the development of sociology in Slovenia and Austria, as drawn fromqualitative interviews and a focus group with sociologists active in the two states.As research techniques first, focused interviews (Merton et al. 1956) with sociol-ogists were applied, and second, a protocol of a meeting of sociologists in the Alps-Adriatic region in Trieste in July 2006 was written and integrated too. This can betaken as a kind of open focus group, where we had the opportunity to participatein. Moreover, we were involved in participatory observation of a good-practicemodel of trans-national co-operation for two weeks in Ljubljana in July 2008.

2.2

61

In February, March and May 2008 there were conducted 21 semi-structuredface-to-face interviews with sociologists working at university departments and atresearch institutes in the two states. Due to theoretical sampling as known fromGrounded Theory, the interview sample has been chosen in a multi-level procedureguided by the following considerations or criteria: In a first step we took a broadscope of sociologists working at different departments in and outside academia intoaccount, that is, we aimed at a diversity of institutional backgrounds of our inter-view partners. Secondly, we were in particular interested in interviews with soci-ologists rather well-experienced in trans-national co-operations with the respectiveneighbouring country. Thirdly, interview partners were chosen on the backgroundof antecedent interviews, as being mentioned by former or current research partnersfrom the respective neighbour country. In sum there were conducted 21 interviews,while two interview partners were administrative personnel from Ljubljana Uni-versity which provided for perspectives of “outsiders” of sociology and on theuniversity system in Slovenia as well. Sociologists were contacted first per emailand then in a face-to-face interview. Interviews were conducted either in German(n=11) or in English (n=10) and took on average 80 minutes, some interviews lastedmore than two hours. With three sociologists from Slovenia the interview wasconducted in German, otherwise in English. With one Austrian sociologist therewas conducted a telephone interview recorded in writing, and one Slovene sociol-ogist who was contacted in a face-to-face-interview, sent written answers to theinterview guideline as an authorized reply. The interviews were recorded and tran-scribed. Results from the interviews as interpretations or direct quotations will begiven in noting the respective number of the interview in brackets (I 1, I 2, etc.).

University department / research institute Number ofinterviews

Graz University, Austria 4IFZ Graz / IFF Klagenfurt, Austria 2Klagenfurt University, Austria 2Ljubljana University FDV, Slovenia 5Ljubljana University FF, Slovenia 2Ljubljana University, two offices, Slovenia 2Maribor University, Slovenia 3MI Ljubljana, Slovenia 1∑ 21

Table 1: Interviews with sociologists, per department and institute

In July 2006 we had the opportunity to participate in a meeting of members of intotal five universities within the Alps-Adriatic region taking place in Trieste (uni-

62

versities of Klagenfurt, Ljubljana, Maribor, Trieste, and Udine, located in the nationstates of Italy, Slovenia, and Austria). All of the nine participants were regular staffmembers of the respective universities, working as professors or research assis-tants, all were trained in the social sciences and most of them in sociology. Themeeting lasted about six hours and was structured around the idea of a commondiscussion and possibly joint study programme in implementing the Bologna Re-form Process. The main intention of taking part in this discussion has been keepingand reporting explorative data resulting from the focus group. Our role has beenthat of a kind of distant observer to the enfolding scene. The meeting has not beenrecorded but was recorded in writing at length.

In focusing on the question which institutionalized intellectual centres of soci-ology can be identified for a description of the status quo, we have chosen depart-ments of sociology in the border region as a sufficiently pragmatic unit of analy-sis. Included into the sample were five university departments (one each in Graz,Klagenfurt, Maribor, two in Ljubljana) and three research institutes outside uni-versity (one each in Graz, Klagenfurt, and Ljubljana), which will be described inmore detail in the following.

Graz University

The Department of Sociology at Graz University has been founded relatively earlyin 1965, while in these times it was only possible to study sociology as an irregularstudy curriculum. Since the beginnings of the 1970 s sociology was more system-atically introduced as an academic study, while the Austrian Sociological Associ-ation has played a crucial role in this process (Pohoryles/Kellermann 1988). In 1985this was introduced with a specialization in humanities and social philosophy (Graz1990). Furthermore, there has been enacted an enlargement of chaired professor-ships (Ordinariate) from one to three, namely in the field of “General Sociologyand Social Research”, “Sociological Theory, History of Ideas, and Philosophy ofScience”, and “Societal Analyses and Methods of Empirical Social Research”. Inaddition, in 1976 the Association of Sociology at Graz University has been foundedwith the aim of promoting sociology and related social sciences in scientific andpractical concerns. Since the 1980 s there also exists the Archive for the History ofSociology in Austria (AGSÖ) located in Graz. At the Department which is part ofthe Faculty for Social and Economic Sciences in February 2012 there have beenemployed 20 full-time faculty members; main fields of research are, as compiledby four research groups: Theory and History of Sociology, Internationally Com-parative and Historical Analysis of Society, Applied Sociology, and Sociology of

63

Gender3. Since 2007/08 there are offered Bachelor as well as Master programmesin sociology due to the Bologna Reform, and PhD studies as well. In winter 2010there were 805 Bachelor students, 162 Master students and 79 PhD students en-rolled at the Department4.

Klagenfurt University

The Department of Sociology at the Alps-Adriatic-University Klagenfurt “in re-search, teaching and participation in academic self-administration is dedicated tothe tasks of a region university.“5 It was founded in 1973 as the Institute for Edu-cational Economy and Sociology of Education of the former University for Edu-cational Studies in a time of relatively low institutionalization of sociology withinAustria. In 1994 it has been integrated into the Faculty for Economics and Infor-matics. In February 2012 there have been employed six full-time members inteaching and research. In teaching it offers several courses for interdisciplinarystudies: Till 2004 it was possible to study sociology of education as part of aninterdisciplinary study programme. At first educational level, it offers sociologicalsubjects for students in pedagogy, economics, and informatics, and for studentsinterested in interdisciplinary perspectives of work and administration, educationand culture, and global society as well. Furthermore, students have the possibilityto enrol individual courses. A Master programme is planned by a working groupat the faculty, and it is possible to enrol courses for PhD students of sociology. In2004/05 there were about ten PhD students enrolled at the Department (Fleck 2007).In research it localizes itself within the tradition of Critical Theory. Since the1970 s its main areas of sociological theory and research are sociology of (higher)education, sociology of work, industrial and economic sociology, regional andcomparative developmental research, and sociology of culture. Furthermore, theDepartment since decades is very active in trans-national cooperations with re-searchers in Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, and other European countries.

Ljubljana University, Faculty of Social Sciences (FDV)

The Faculty of Social Sciences (Fakulteta za družbene vede, FDV) was foundedin 1991 by a merger of the Ljubljana Institute of Sociology, actually the first in-stitutionalization of sociology in Slovenia, however, located outside university, and

3 www.uni-graz.at/sozwww/ (Feb 25, 2012)4 www.uni-graz.at/ains2www_studienstatistik2006_2010.pdf (Feb 25, 2012)5 www.uni-klu.ac.at/sozio/inhalt/383.htm (Feb 25, 2012, transl. added)

64

the Research Institute of the Faculty of Sociology, Political Sciences and Journal-ism founded in 1976 (Slovenia 1992, 1996). Till nowadays it is possible to study,apart from sociology, political sciences, journalism, and defence studies at the fac-ulty. There are many research institutes closely affiliated to the department, likethe Centre for Theoretical Sociology, the Centre for Methodology and Informatics,the Centre for Organizational and Human Resources Research, the Public Opinionand Mass Communication Centre, the Centre for Social Studies of Science, and theCentre for Spatial Sociology. The Department of Sociology includes three spe-cialized academic units, whose chairs are members of the Faculty Senate, the per-manent governing board of the faculty: in Theoretical Sociology, in Human Re-sources and Social Management, as well as in Informatics and Methodology. Thesethree academic units in total employ 50 full-time faculty members (status February2012). In 2005/2006 the Faculty started Bologna programmes with a four-yearBachelor and one-year Master curriculum6 in one of three streams: Analytical So-ciology, Human Resources Management, and Social Informatics7, while also spe-cializations in European Social Policy Analysis, Gender Studies, Human ResourcesManagement and Work Relations, and Non-Profit Organisations Management arepossible. In the academic year 2010/11 there were enrolled in sum 671 regularstudents at the Department of Sociology (ibid.).

Ljubljana University, Faculty of Arts (FF)

The Department of Sociology at the Faculty of Arts (Filozofska Fakulteta, FF)includes in sum 15 full-time faculty members (status February 2012). The Depart-ment offers two four-year-undergraduate diploma programmes: one in the Sociol-ogy of Culture, with an emphasis on research, and one in Sociology, with an em-phasis on teaching for becoming high school teachers of sociology and humani-ties. Since 2008 there are Bachelor and Master curricula offered within a 3+2 sys-tem; in the same year there were about 600 students at undergraduate level and intotal 40 Master and PhD students enrolled in Sociology (I 16). Undergraduate stu-dents at the Department get knowledge in socio-cultural theory, an expertise inspecific cultural fields preparing them for work in expert cultural management andthe administrative sphere, in the organization of culture and various cultural and

6 www.fdv.uni-lj.si/dodiplomski_studij/Vpisni_podatki.asp (Febr 25, 2012)7 Due to the description of the social informatics study programme, the latter aims at ”studying

the reciprocity of influence between contemporary society and new information and commu-nication technologies”, enforcing “critical empirical research of social phenomena and regu-larities, related to new technologies”, qualifying for the “planning of information systems incontemporary social environment” (www.fdv.uni-lj.si, Feb 25, 2012)

65

political activities8. In addition, it is possible to enrol in a Master programme insociology of culture and social anthropology and a PhD programme in sociologyas well.

In contrast to the FDV, the Department of Sociology at FF is the more theoret-ically and humanities’ oriented one, with main research areas in the sociology ofculture and sociology of religion, sociology of arts and discourse, and the sociologyof gender (I 16). After independence of Slovenia, young left sociologists developedtheir orientation in the sociology of culture, Feminist Theory, cultural practices,the analysis of ideology, on state-formation and contemporary ethno-nationalism;moreover, they cultivated a sociology strongly influenced by French social sciencesand philosophy as well as by the psychoanalysis of Jaques Lacan (I 10 a). One ofthe most prominent scholars having been educated there is the philosopher Slavoj Žižek giving lectures at the faculty.

Maribor University

The beginnings of the Maribor University go back to 1959 where a need of anuniversity centre in the North-East of Slovenia part arose; the University evolvedfrom the Association of School Institutions and was founded in 1975 (Slovenia1992; Slovenia 1996). Since some years, Maribor University has gained a full statusof an university with offering study programmes at several faculties. The Depart-ment has in former times been a college educating high school teachers for social-moral education (družbene moralna), which was then renamed as Department forSocial Studies and then as Department for Philosophy and Sociology. Currently itis possible to study programmes in sociology as well as in interdisciplinary socialsciences for people becoming high school teachers. In former years the Departmenthas been part of the Faculty of Education; since 2006 it is part of the Faculty ofArts. At the Department of Sociology in February 2012 there have been employedten full-time faculty members working in the field of teaching and research. InMarch 2008, there have been about 300 full-time and about 80 part-time studentsstudying at the department (I 8).

There actually were conducted two interviews with sociologists who had in for-mer times teaching obligations at Primorska University, while at the same timeemployed at Ljubljana University, FDV faculty. However, the two younger uni-versities in Koper and in Nova Gorica were excluded from the sample because theyoffer no main study programme in sociology, neither at Bachelor nor at Masterlevel, but only in related fields like social anthropology or cultural studies. Both

8 www.sociologija.si (Feb 25, 2012)

66

are relatively young public universities, where students have to pay for their study(about 2.000.- Euro per academic year); it seems adequate to interpret them as atleast partially “entrepreneurial universities” (Etzkowitz 2002). At the older publicuniversities in Ljubljana and Maribor students do not have to pay, but there isenacted a numerus clausus system. However, it is important to understand that theseyounger small institutions in the perception of some Slovenian sociologists alreadyhave begun to build up a new centre of sociology too: Apart from the Ljubljanaempirical and the Ljubljana theoretical school represented at the FDV and the FF,they are said to establish a “third centre” within the institutional landscape of uni-versities at national level (I 10 a). The fact that the Faculty of Social SciencesFDV initially developed from a former party’s school of party officials, then de-veloped quickly as normal faculty of an university, is said to provide a youngergeneration of sociologists material enough for criticism against this image; how-ever, there are younger people employed who differ from the older generation ofsociologists, now retired, also in their ideological orientations and political affili-ations (I 10 a). In the perception of the FDV staff, the up-swing of some newer smallinstitutions in the developing academic institutional landscape is, at least partially,also initiated by the former conservative government (2004 ‑ 2008) which in reverselabelled the FDV in part of the Slovene public as “the red one” (I 18).

However, three research institutes outside university were included into thesample, in order to get a sense for sociological research and its specific conditionsbeing undertaken outside university. Especially since the institutionalization of so-ciology at universities is, at least in Austria, said to be “in a phase of stagnationsince decades” (I 9), non-academic research institutes offer some possibilities foryoung researchers to gather more professional experience within social research.Moreover, these research institutions reflect subject specializations in particularfields of sociology and are particularly active within the landscape of Europeanresearch, as manifest in strong participation in various EU programmes.

Graz Inter-University Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture (IFZ)

The Inter-University Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture (In-teruniversitäres Forschungszentrum, IFZ), which was founded in 1988, is an in-terdisciplinary research institute active in research and university education withinthe field of social and environmental technology design9. Its main areas of researchare in the field of ecological product policy, energy and climate, modern biotech-nology, women, technology and environment, and information and communication

9 www.ifz.tugraz.at (Feb 25, 2012)

67

technologies. The research centre is the Graz unit of the Department of Science andTechnology Studies located in Carinthia at Klagenfurt University; it has a ratherstrong co-operation in teaching and research with Graz University and Graz Uni-versity of Technology, where several interdisciplinary courses focusing on differ-ent aspects of environmentally and socially sound technology are held (ibid.). Theresearch centre is, above all, financed by research project contracts, its clients aremainly public institutions but also national and international institutions and com-panies. In February 2012 there have been 28 scientific employees at the institute,most of them are educated in various fields of social sciences like sociology, ped-agogy, philosophy, and some in technology.

Klagenfurt Faculty for Interdisciplinary Research and Education (IFF)

The Klagenfurt location of the institute, the Faculty for Inter-disciplinary Researchand Education (Fakultät für Interdisziplinäre Forschung und Fortbildung, IFF),since 2004 is located at Klagenfurt University. Its main topics of research are rathermulti-fold, dealing with public goods like health, environment, space, technology,education, science, or politics and culture in general10. The IFF locates itself as a“founding centre” for applied academic activities and aims at the enfolding of sci-ence within society at large; research on and development of organizations is animportant part of the activities too (ibid.). At the IFF it is possible to study inter-disciplinary curricula at Master and PhD level, which complement the regionaluniversity studies in this respect; furthermore, it offers several programmes in thefield of vocational training and adult education. There are five departments locatedat the IFF, while at the Department for Technology and Science Studies in February2012 there have been employed in sum 7 full-time faculty members.

Ljubljana Peace Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies (MI)

The former Open Society Institute Slovenia, then renamed the Peace Institute forContemporary Social and Political Studies (Mirovni Institut, MI), located in Ljubl-jana is a civil society non-governmental organisation founded in 1991 by a groupof independent intellectuals having been involved as activists in the post-socialistprocesses in Slovenia and Yugoslavia11. Currently it develops interdisciplinary re-search activities in different social and human sciences like sociology, social an-thropology, political science, philosophy, and economics. Its main foci of research

10 www.uni-klu.ac.at/iff/inhalt (Feb 25, 2012)11 www.mirovni-institut.si (Feb 25, 2012)

68

are Human Rights, Cultural Policy, Media, and Gender and Politics. It enacts var-ious co-operations, networks and partnerships specifically in the European,Balkan and Mediterranean area, as visible in numerous research projects within thesubject fields of its interest. The bodies of the institute are a board, a scientificcouncil and the director; in February 2012 there have been 23 researchers fromvarious social and political sciences employed at the Institute.

In the following there are given some numbers about the actual representationof scientific personnel due to an internet search from the web pages of the respectivedepartments and institutes (status February 2012). They indicate the more or lessstrong institutionalization of sociology, in terms of academic positions and scien-tific personnel, at various intellectual centres of sociology. Furthermore, there havegiven the proportion of female scientific employees and the proportion with whichthe respective department or institute is contributing to the overall number of sci-entific employees in the region. At the departments in Austria, 56 scientific mem-bers are employed, while 21 of them are female; at the departments in Slovenia, 98scientific members are employed, 48 of them are female. This indicates that abouttwo third of our sample’s faculty members are located at a Slovenian university ornon-academic research institute, and only one third in Austria. The sample’s mostimportant department of sociology, measured in terms of university positions, isthe Faculty of Social Sciences at Ljubljana University (FDV), followed by twoquantitatively comparable non-academic research institutes (Ljubljana MI andGraz IFZ) and then by the departments at Graz University and Ljubljana UniversityFF. All other departments or research institutes, located in Maribor and Klagenfurt,are rather small-sized with about 10 or less regular faculty members per depart-ment.

Although we are well aware that small numbers do not bear too much analyticalweight, we would like to add some notes regarding gender representation at de-partments and institutes. Results from an internet search in February 2012 suggestthat the share of female scientific employees is on average about 45 per cent, inSlovenia this representation is more equal (49.6%) than in Austria (36.8%). Whilethe proportion of female scientific staff at university departments in Austria is aquarter or a third of all scientific employees, their proportion at research insti-tutes in Austria might be slightly, but not necessarily higher (50% at IFZ, 28.5%at IFF). The proportion of females at universities in Slovenia is definitely higherthan in Austria (about a half at FDV, a third at FF and in Maribor) and particularlyhigh among employees working outside university at MI (about 70%), indicatinga slight horizontal segregation by gender among sociologists working in and outsideuniversity. Considering a possible vertical gender segregation in the hierarchy ofthe discipline, measured against the highest level of qualification and current in-stitutional position, 38.4% of all full professors, 28.6 % of all associate professors

69

and 35.2% of all assistant professors are female, while these proportions are par-ticularly high at Ljubljana FDV and rather low at all other university departmentsof the sample. At lower level of professional qualification, the share of femalesamong employees seems to be higher, as 61.2% of all Post-docs and 64.3% of allMAs are female. This results mostly from non-academic research institutes like theIFZ and the MI, where not only much more females are employed, but mostlypersonnel with lower level of qualification when compared to university staff.

Department/institute

Staff members*, per qualification, in n(females in brackets)

Female,in %

Share ofsample,

in %

FullProf.

Assoc.Prof.

Assist.Prof. Dr. MA ∑

GrazUniv. 4 (1) 8 (1) 3 (1) 2 (1) 3 (1) 20 (5) 25.0 13.0

GrazIFZ 2 (1) 1 (-) 2 (-) 9 (6) 10 (5) 24 (12) 50.0 15.6

KlagenfurtUniv. 2 (-) 1 (-) 2 (1) - 1 (1) 6 (2) 33.3 3.9

KlagenfurtIFF 1 (-) 1 (-) 2 (1) 2 (1) - 6 (2) 33.3 3.9

LjubljanaUniv. FDV 10 (6) 12 (5) 19 (7) 9 (4) - 50 (22) 44.0 32.5

LjubljanaUniv. FF 5 (1) 5 (2) 5 (2) - - 15 (5) 33.3 9.7

LjubljanaMI - 1 (-) - 9 (7) 13 (10) 23 (17) 73.9 14.9

MariborUniv. 2 (1) 6 (2) 1 (-) - 1 (1) 10 (4) 40.0 6.5

∑ 26 (10) 35 (10) 34 (12) 31 (19) 28 (18) 154 (69) 44.8 100.0

Table 2: Scientific staff per department and institute, in absolute numbers and percent.Source: Internet search on departments’ websites, status February 2012*Scientific full-time faculty members, without non-scientific staff and associated members suchas guest professors, part-time assistant lecturers, research associates, student assistants.

For a first overview in thematic aspects, the departments’ main areas of research,as indicated by the institute’s web pages in the form of research units, researchprojects, research working groups or research centres, are given in Table 3. Thisdoes not exclude the fact that individual researchers might have published in otherfields too; here only claims regarding the department’s main research areas, due toeach self-description available in the internet, are made.

70

Recognize that in the following sections we also reflect some important contextsand intervening conditions of sociology’s Europeanization at different analyticlevel. Then we not only deal with sociology’s institutional context of local, regional,national, and European respectively international scope. We also consider lan-guage, history, and politics as important contextual factors for social relationswithin the sociological community. Moreover, we investigate possible conse-quences of sociology’s Europeanization, as present in the interviews, at the levelof intervening cognitive developments and institutional conditions of sociologywithin the institutional and intellectual landscape. To give a brief overview, soci-ologists first were asked to characterize the specificities of sociology in the neigh-bour countries and the relationship towards different European neighbourhoods.Furthermore, there are outlined some “intervening conditions” (Strauss/Corbin1990) regarding the impact of the EU accessions at different levels of analysis.These address sociologists’ biographies of transformation, experience with re-search projects funded by the European Union and European policies of agendasettings, departmental policies and university reforms, experience with the imple-mentation of the Bologna Reform Process, and their account of a possible Europeandimension of sociology. We then turn to reactions and strategies to deal with struc-tural change by sociologists themselves. One of the most visible effects of the EUaccessions is the promotion of various possibilities for trans-national research andcollaboration. Finally, we ask for knowledge and experience in trans-national co-operation, sketch some examples in this regard, and try to identify some factorsthat hinder or boost trans-national co-operations among sociologists.

71

Field of researchGrazUniv.

Kla-genfurtUniv.

Ljubl-janaUniv.FDV

Ljubl-janaUniv.FF

Mari-borUniv.

Kla-genfurtIFF

GrazIFZ

Ljubl-janaMI

Applied sociology X X X X

History of sociology X X International comparativeanalysis X X X Industrial and economicsociology X X

Methodology and socialinformatics X X Organizational and Hu-man Resources research X X Public opinion and masscommunication X Political sociology X X X

Regional developmentalresearch X X X X Social anthropology X X

Social studies of scienceand technology X X X X Sociological theory X X X X X Sociology of culture X X X X X X

Sociology of education X X X X Sociology of gender X X X X X X

Sociology of religion X X X Sociology of work X X Sociology of the media andarts X X X X

Spatial sociology X

Table 3: Main research fields per department or institute.Source: Internet search on departments’ webpages, status February 2012.

Characterizing Sociology in the Neighbour Countries

Over the Fence Talks: Contexualizing Knowledge Cultures in EuropeanNeighbourhoods

In the following chapter we will more systematically and comparatively look forsome differences and similarities between the formation of sociology in the re-

2.3

2.3.1

72

spective neighbour countries, as drawn from the point of view of sociologists. Inthe context of the interviews, sociologists were asked about their diagnosis of so-ciology, which did not only include a self-definition of Austrian or Slovenian na-tional traditions but also contained mutual perceptions of sociologists of the neigh-bouring countries too, imaginable by the metaphor of “over the fence talks” (Hor-vath/Müllner 1992). They gave their accounts of time-bound experiences and de-velopments of sociology, which also enriched, and in some cases corrected, thehistorical analysis of sociology’s formation in the respective two nation states asavailable from research literature in the history of sociology. From their own pointof view they enfolded the historical experiences of actors in the developments ofsociology within the last decades. Furthermore, sociologists were confronted withsome results of a comparative bibliometric analysis of two leading sociologicaljournals (Hönig 2008) that has shown significant differences in topics and fieldsof sociological research in the two countries. They were asked to provide expla-nations for these differences in order to deepen the analytical picture from thejournals’ investigation. Moreover it was of interest, how sociologists view the en-hanced professionalism of their discipline taking place within the last decades,which is sometimes interpreted due to the key concepts of de-historicizing andeconomization of sociology (Mozetič 2001). What in their self-conception do so-ciologists think about having to offer, in a time of increasing Europeanization andinternationalization of sociology, within the division of labour among the scientificcommunity?

Two National Traditions of Sociology

Our first hypothesis is that it is possible to identify particular national traditions ofsociology and national sub-structures of the scientific community and link thesespecifics in sociology to the historical development of national societies at large.These might reflect, at local level of single departments, different knowledge cul-tures or epistemic cultures of knowledge and knowing (Knorr-Cetina 1999) and,at macro-level, intellectual styles (Galtung 1988) of the two scientific communitiesin Slovenia and Austria.

The notion of knowledge cultures has a rather diffuse, but long history in thehistory and sociology of science and seems to have found resonance in the socialsciences particularly within the last decades. Initially it has referred to the distinc-tion of the natural and the literary sciences, as in C. P. Snow’s idea of contrasting“two cultures”, which has inspired Wolf Lepenies’ (1985) investigation of the his-torical formation of sociology as “third culture” in three divergent national con-textes, namely France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. While Snow has un-

73

derlined the similarities in the natural and the literary sciences, irrespective of dis-ciplinary contexts, Lepenies in a historically comparative approach has emphasizedtheir specific historical and social contextes as enabling conditions for sociologicalknowledge production in general which is capable of explaining peculiarities innational traditions of sociology as well. It is mainly this usage of the term that isintended here when we talk about “knowledge cultures” of sociology. Recall, how-ever, that in the constructionist paradigm of the sociology of science, the conceptof “knowledge cultures”, as counter-concept to the notion of scientific disciplines,addresses structural similarities of everday and scientific knowledge production insituations where knowledge agents interact with each other. This second meaningof the term refers to everyday processes of negotiating and institutionalizing know-ledge as “scientific” knowledge, investigating “how we know what we know... asthe meaning of the empirical, the enactment of object relations, the constructionand fashioning of social arrangements within science” (Knorr-Cetina 1999: 1, ital-ics in original). Subsequently we also discuss in which way sociologists in twostates perceive and recognize, attribute and interact with each other, when we ex-plicate their cultural images of each other and their discursive resources of vali-dating and legitimating “how they know what they know”. We do appreciate theconstitutive role of these fundamental practices of knowing for producing whatcounts as “knowledge” in an explicitly comparative disciplinary context.

Indeed, sociology’s development is linked to the rise of modern nation state andtherefore seems to be highly influenced by its institutional context, its knowledgeproducing institutions, and national societies as well. Although sociology as dis-cipline usually can be regarded as an universalistic and international one, there areseveral reasons to take the embedding of this scientific community within nationalframeworks of reference into account. Irrespective of whether we follow a moreinstitutionalist approach or a more constructionist paradigm, from the viewpoint ofa sociology of knowledge interested in the social conditions of scientific reason-ing, scientific communities are depicted to be embedded or “situated” (Haraway1988) within particular institutions that produce the very scientific knowledge ofinterest. In this way it is possible to talk about differences in the historical formationof sociology as discipline in different nation states with peculiar national traditionsof sociology, as the history of sociology continuously does. It seems rather plausibleto assume that historical opportunities then also influence the way sociology ispracticed nowadays. Moreover, we can assume a “national community” or “na-tional sub-structure” (Gläser 2006) of the scientific community, as Jochen Gläseronce has called it, when we address institutions within the framework of a nationstate relevant for scientific knowledge production. This concerns, for example, anational research funding structure or a particular university system, divergent legalrules for acceptance of research practices, specific patterns of scientific careers,

74

national professional associations, a preference for particular research topics, pos-sibly normative orientations of researchers, the more or less frequent use of dif-ferent languages in scientific publications, or the density of international co-oper-ations within a scientific community of a particular size.

As the interviewed sociologists from time to time noticed, there might also besome counter-arguments in pursuing such an interest in national traditions of so-ciology: On the one hand, in its epistemological dimension, sociology clearly is anuniversal science (I 5). On the other hand, in its historical development it is part ofan accelerating process of globalization which might also eliminate differencesbetween the national societies subject to it. However, as an ambivalent or dialec-tical process globalization also creates more possibilities to express one’s own dif-ferences and concerns as a member of a state and to stress what is perceived to bespecific for oneself. In this sense, globalization also leads to more differentiation.

In general, for characterizing national traditions and sub-structures of the inter-national scientific community in sociology there are several options: 1) comparingthe national community with other communities, 2) reflecting how a national com-munity is perceived by others, and 3) underlining internal differentiations within anational community or sub-structure. In the following these various influences willbe explored step by step, when we explicate the accounts that sociologists fromtwo nation states gave regarding the formation of sociology in their respectivecountries.

Sociologists in both countries frequently addressed the primary relevance of thenational and historical context of an anticipated process of Europeanization in orderto understand what is going on in the neighbouring country. This is especially truewhen researchers do not share the same socio-cultural background, come fromoutside and intend to do comparative studies. Grasping this contextual meaning ofspecific terms is also necessary to gain an insight into current conflicts amongsociologists of the same national community, which also might have historicalbackgrounds. We could observe that sociologists themselves made a distinctionbetween different structural contexts, keeping the regional, intra-national, national,European and global context conceptually distinct. “Social context as it is the case:so there is something very Slovenian, there is something deeply European, andsomething that is rather global” (I 17). The context of national societies can bedepicted as a kind of mediating space where some of the processes of Europeaniza-tion and encompassing regionalization of national societies become visible.

As manifest in the accounts of Austrian sociologists, Austria orients itself ratherstrongly towards the German-speaking scientific discourse. In the professionaliza-tion of sociology as a scientific discipline within German-speaking countries, therelationship of domination by the “big brother”, as Germany sometimes is per-ceived (I 7), has a central role till nowadays. This is also indicated by those who

75

describe that familiarity among siblings not so much as an asymmetrical one butrather stress a continuity also after the EU accession of Austria, which is, as argued,supported by the fact that the Austrian sociological journal ÖZS is published by aGerman publisher (I 9). In reverse, Austrian sociologists in history might have alsoidentified with the German Association of Sociologists, as part of a dual member-ship in both professional associations (ibid.). Furthermore, mutual teaching ex-changes are mentioned as well as the common practice of German sociologistscompeting for academic positions in Austria, because there are more German so-ciologists with postdoctoral lecturing qualification and the salaries for sociologistsare said to be in some way better in Austria (ibid.). As some sociologists fromdifferent countries observe, there is a strong competition among German and Aus-trian sociologists for academic positions, or let’s put it like this, for some positionsat universities in Austria there are only German candidates applying at all. Others,however, when comparing themselves to the German neighbour, define themselvesself-confidently as a smaller scientific community being more internationally ori-ented (I 1, 7). The reason for this is seen in the bigger size of the research communityin Germany, where sociologists more easily find research partners within the samenational community and are also equipped with enough publication organs (I 1).In this perception the smaller size of the Austrian research community clearly pro-motes for its internationalization and even emancipation: The change Austria wassubjected to since the EU accession is sometimes perceived as a kind of emanci-pation process from Germany, where international contacts to other Europeancountries are supported and enrich the landscape of sociological research (I 7).

A sociologist initially coming from Germany to Austria furthermore mentionedthat in his point of view there are specific forms of social exchange and habitstypically for Austrians: “What I had to learn is that here conflicts are worked outand differences are exchanged much more smoothly, you only seldom get clearYes- or No-answers. Those people who have grown up with these forms of socialexchange can differentiate that, of course, but we, coming from outside can dealwith that only poorly. This regards the fact that conflicts are worked out never tillthe end, because in Austria you always meet those people again. In spite of that,when you exchange differences in Hamburg with a researcher from Munich, usu-ally you never meet him again” (I 19). He pointed out that this specificity in Aus-trian social habit might also have historical reasons: In times of the Habsburgmonarchy as a state of many peoples, conflicts among them should not becomemanifest, rather it was important to keep them latent (I 19). If this historical ex-planation is coherent, then, however, this also might be applicable to the Slovenepopulation, which has not only be part of the Habsburg monarchy but also of Yu-goslavia as an example for a modern multi-ethnic state until recently, as MilanJazbec has outlined (Jazbec 2008). Here we only will keep in mind that inevitably

76

there are some linkages and analogies between historically grown social structuresat the level of nation states, and their expression at the level of personality, emotionsand forms of social exchange. Indeed, many sociologists, think of, for instance,Norbert Elias’ famous work on the civilization process (Elias 2007), have steadilytaken these historically grown emotional structures into account (Kuzmics 1983;Kuzmics/Axtmann 2007). There are good reasons to assume that these do havesome impact on the forms of co-operation and conflict within the scientific com-munities too.

In addition, sociologists mention an Anglo-Saxon orientation of Austrian soci-ologists, underlining the importance of the 1968 students’ movement for develop-ing a “particular kind of intellectuality” (I 14) among leftist oriented people inter-ested in sociology. Being strongly influenced by Anglo-Saxon thinking, contribut-ed to a “re-education and re-orientation, …sophisticated and dialectical in the senseof contradictions and antagonisms” (I 14). This might also support an emancipationprocess in fruitful confrontations with Austrians’ own past, overcoming specificcharacteristics of Austrian “alpine provincialism” (Fleck/Nowotny 1993) as an un-fortunate enduring result of the forced emigration of many intellectuals during theNS-regime: It can be assumed that this loss damaged the intellectual climate inAustria with consequences till nowadays.

In subsequent chapters we will recognize that for Austrians an orientation to-wards an Anglo-Saxon context sometimes might function as a way to distanceoneself from what sometimes is perceived as a Teutonic intellectual style of“thinkers and writers” eminent in sociology (for this see also Galtung 1981). Asecond historical reason is seen in the global dominance of United States’ sociologywithin the last decades, aside from the fragmentation of European sociologists,where Austrian sociologist mostly get to know their colleagues in Europe onlywhen they have published in US journals, and also do not know much about otherEuropean, for instance Spanish or Swedish sociology (I 4). This everyday experi-ence of a clear dominance of US sociology at large scale might also limit our generalhypothesis of an Europeanization of sociology. We will discuss this possiblecounter-argument for several times in the course of the book.

One Austrian sociologist presented a rather elaborated theoretical framework ofdifferences between Austrians and Slovenes as European neighbours while linkingcountry specifics to socio-cultural and historical backgrounds of being part of anaristocratic society like the Habsburg monarchy (I 14). Aristocratic societies, itwas suggested, develop much more self-confidence regarding knowledge and arenot so much innovative, but rather sceptical against new trends. If politics becomestatic, this might be true for knowledge too. As the interview partner argued, thesame could be said about the Second Republic of Austria, while parallel innovativeforms of social thinking are often generated in huge cities like Paris, London, and

77

Berkeley, where more things are “on the move” in society at large (I 14). Further-more, the assumption is that people without aristocracy are more interested in newtrends and fashions, they look upon the centres of intellectual thought. In negative,they give up their own thinking, because intense intellectual reception from thecentre costs much time, energy and possibilities. Due to the sociologist, this trendof a rather intense theoretical reception within sociology could be also identifiedin Slovenia, in regard to a rather strong Slovene resonance of Niklas Luhmann andPierre Bourdieu as key theorists of today (I 14). It was indicated that this mightalso be linked to more Catholic societies, as religious and value-based ones, anddistinguish these societies against secular, individualized societies (I 14). The in-terview partner argued that Slovenia in this respect has some striking similaritieswith Finland, since none of these countries has developed aristocracy, but are ratherinterpreted as egalitarian farmers’ people. This distinguishes it to epistemic cul-tures like that in Austria (I 14). In a similar manner, it was also recognized thatSlovene intellectuals more and more orient themselves towards “consensus soci-eties, where different groups are able to find agreements without severe conflicts”,also in interpreting consensus society as the best precondition for the developmentof an interactive “knowledge society” (I 14). However, this might qualify for asocietal tradition in the Austrian political landscape too, where since 1945 socialpartnership as part of a corporatist system have a high influence in socio-politicaldecision-making till today (Traxler 1998), a fact with implications on science pol-icy (Nowotny 1983) too.

From the viewpoint of a Slovene researcher, Austria has put a lot of researchfunds in the last fifteen years into social science research: “If there are resourcesavailable to transform this political will into mechanisms for facilitating co-oper-ation, you then have a kind of higher level of co-operation” (I 11). It is argued thatthis political will exists in Austria, but this seems to be comparably low in Slove-nia. “So what Slovenia in the sense of understanding the wider context of Europedoes not still use, is its own resources. It is not inner ability to discover what isgoing on around. They are using European resources, Austrian resources, or jour-nalism, but not our cumulation (of knowledge, note) and our curiosity to facilitatethis research. So for Slovenia we are just adjusting to new resources to discoverwider context. This is, structural opportunities are not equal for both parts of” (I11). Here we can recognize that the different time-span and divergent national-historical contexts of Europeanization processes also contribute to current inequal-ities in structural opportunities for both partners. These power relations which par-tially persist in a current common European framework, might then be conditionsfor mutual perceptions of different cognitive styles. Maybe these statements frominterview partners at least to some extent support a distinction between “the self-

78

confidents, using their own resources” and “the recipients and innovators” as dif-ferent cognitive strategies to deal with the Europeanization of science.

The rather young nation state of Slovenia is mainly defining itself as one of thesuccessor states of post-Yugoslav territories, comparing only few years since theEU accession with about five decades being a supranational republic of the formerYugoslav state before reaching independence in 1991 (I 10 a). In this sense, withinshifting European neighbourhoods, for Slovene sociology the post-Yugoslav con-text still is a relevant one. One should also keep in mind that Slovenes had theexperience of being part of a larger stately unit – as the European Union in someperspective might be perceived – even before its accession, which was not the casefor Austrians in their younger history. However, persisting perceptions from afar,mainly from the West, holding Slovenia as simply a country of the former EasternBloc, or even of “the Balkans” (I 11), are perceived as prejudices stemming fromthe Cold War or before and causing difficulties in developing adequate mutualperceptions. In the self-perception of current Slovenian sociology, the shifting re-lationship to the former Yugoslav territories seems to play a central role, as his-torical experience carrying the weight of current perceptions of one’s own nationalcharacteristics. Slovenia was a non-typical, rather open community even at Yu-goslav times, in comparison with other supranational republics and countries of theEastern Bloc. As having never been isolated from international contacts and all thetime open to the West (I 12), it clearly was included into European space also beforethe accession (I 3, 18).

From the 1950 s till 1990 Slovenia had a self-governmental socialist systemwhich initiated various important differences in social life, when compared to othersocialist countries. These were addressed, for instance, as “explicit egalitarian dir-ection regarding gender and gradual construction of institutional support for fam-ilies ‑ kinder-gardens, elderly homes, etc. ‑ by ‘democracy from bottom’ ‑ politicaldecisions at the local level organized by the Socialist Alliance of Working Peo-ple” (I 12). From the 1960 s onwards there has been a stimulating intellectual debateamong sociologists and a lot of international contacts too; oppositional intellectu-als developed ideas about society around the journal Perspektive which, however,closed in the mid-1960 s because of conflicts with the political establishment (I10 a). In the 1980 s there began a nationalistic criticism of systems in Poland, CzechRepublic and Hungary, “in Yugoslavia that was not so clear”, while there wereconflicts among leftists too (I 10 a).

Yugoslav society was a relatively open one, however, borders were said to havebeen valid for researchers too (I 5). In these times, the FDV in Ljubljana alreadyhad a high international reputation as being a well developed one; although mostof the courses were Marxist, there was also literature on Western theories available,and there were coming dissidents from the faculty. However, in the 1970 s four

79

professors from the FDV were drawn from teaching positions, among them TineHribar, a well-known philosopher and sociologist; those former students whoworked as researchers at that time had contact to them (I 5). For researchers, thisform of open society often meant a much better access to scientific literature, totheoretical ideas from the West, and more possibilities for empirical research:“Maybe it was easier for us twenty years ago to get the literature from Germany orthe USA, than for other countries in Eastern Europe or in the Eastern Bloc” (I 13).Several sociologists (I 15, 18, 3) emphasised the strong internal cohesion of thesociological community at Yugoslav times: There has been “a relatively good rep-utation of the Ljubljanska School” (I 18) within Yugoslavia, and there were lots ofcontacts to colleagues in Zagreb, Belgrade, and Sarajevo. When the beginning ofthe collapse of the state became visible in the 1980 s, this enabled sociologists toopenly discuss sensitive topics of research like political elites and social stratifi-cation within their annual meetings of the Yugoslav Sociological Association(JSA). Furthermore, “problems of crises of former social structures and politicalinstitutions”, which in reverse contributed to an accelerated break-up of the system,were discussed at conferences mostly in Ljubljana and Portoroš, “not inevitably inthe south” (I 18) of former Yugoslavia. These JSA meetings took place with a ratherhigh popularity and big media effect and were influential in different scientificcommunities around Yugoslavia (I 18). “One cannot say that sociology was notpossible. Sociology was possible and we knew what sociology was during com-munist times as well” (I 15).

At Yugoslav times there existed several schools of sociology in parallel: onetheoretically oriented in Zagreb, one politically oriented in Belgrade, and one em-pirically oriented in Ljubljana (I 18). The school in Zagreb was equal to the PraxisGroup, which has been inclined to philosophy and System Theory. The other onewas located in Belgrade, as a kind of neo-Marxian social philosophically orientedand rather politically engaged group. After the collapse of the Yugoslav state manyformer members of that Belgrade School became influential politicians. They werein the circle of Slobodan Milosevic positioned at the academy of sciences or wentin confrontation to this group. Boris Tadič, the current President of Serbia, is aformer member of this group, and Zoran Djindjič, the Premier killed several yearsago, was a member of this group too (I 18). The third one was the LjubljanskaSchool of empirical social research, which will be introduced further in this chapter.As seen from the standpoint of an Austrian sociologist who has been involved incommon research projects for decades, Slovene sociologists in these times wererather highly professionalized in quantitative terms regarding university positionsof sociologists; they were also educated for many different positions in economy,administration, and research, “almost like in America, in these times too”, whichresulted into much more sociological professorships than in Austria (I 14).

80

Critical sociologists contributed to a new platform which in 1991 led to Slove-nia’s independence, political and economic change, they contributed with the elab-oration of new ideas. From these times of change two groups of sociologists con-tinued, one critical against the present situation, and another “rather Marxist ori-ented and not so critical” (I 10 a). However, this group “died out, so nowadays thereare no people oriented to the old and communist sociologists, this is tempi pas-sati” (I 10 a). Sociologists emphasised that being involved in globalization cameafter the separation of Slovenia from Yugoslavia. Within the process of gainingindependence, the contacts of Slovene sociologists to their colleagues in Belgradeor Zagreb were broken; in this period, some sociologists said that scholars withinSlovenia “felt rather isolated” (I 3). However, when we depict the Yugoslav suc-cessor states as a current historical context for Slovenia, co-operations with uni-versities in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and Macedonia exist and somecommon EU projects as well (I 10 a). In this sense, the EU accession might supportthe chance that Slovenia establishes itself as a platform in a bridge function between(Western) Europe and former Yugoslav territories at the West Balkan. Clearly,Slovenes bring with them several resources in building up such new relationships,since “people understand each other because of the common past, and the languagesare not so different that we could not understand each other” (I 3).

Red Spots versus Seeing Black-and-White: Mutual Perceptions from Abroad

The endeavour of characterizing sociology clearly goes beyond the recognition ofnational frameworks of reference and also covers the knowledge and perceptionsof each other as displayed within trans-national co-operations; because the way wesee ourselves is influenced by others. The second hypothesis is that sociologists’self-conceptions of particular national traditions and of themselves as neighbourswithin a given European framework of close spatial proximity, depend on percep-tions, recognitions and the mutual image of each other and are influenced by ori-entation towards other close neighbours too. To use a metaphor for neighbour’scommunication, who are at the same time professional colleagues, we might in-terpret it as sociologists’ “over the fence talks” (Horvath/Müllner 1992 ) about theirmutual perceptions of neighbourhood, containing also other aspects of sociologists’everyday social practices of doing sociology within the regional context, such aslanguage use, social mobility, and the experience of shifting borders. Furthermore,it is suggested that relationships to close neighbours work as a kind of sociologists’background knowledge and background assumption for reference of knowledgecultures in a national context, discovering the specific significance of nationaltraditions of sociology, also contrasting them against other close neighbours and

81

scientific communities such as Germany and post-Yugoslav territories that mightstill be relevant for sociologists in this respect. We can assume that these neigh-bourhoods might also be referred to as more or less implicitly shaped by powerrelations between different centres and peripheries of knowledge production at in-ternational, European, national and regional scale. That prompts the question towhom sociologists compare themselves and in which way this has been influencedby becoming a member of the European Union.

European neighbourhoods are, of course, not only relevant among sociologists,but also in society at large. There should be mentioned two general objections orlimitations in giving empirical data on the support for the enlargement of the EU.Firstly, recall that the support for the enlargement of the European Union seems tobe not equally distributed when elites and citizens in the EU are empirically com-pared, as Sylke Nissen once has shown (Nissen 2003). Secondly, the complexitiesof a nation state’s (or its neighbours’) possible accession to the European Union inpublic debates are usually reduced to particular myths and illusions, as this has alsobeen the case before Austria’s EU accession (Heschl 2002). Nevertheless, in orderto understand the attitude of the general population towards the neighbours, it mightbe worthwhile to look on some empirical data regarding the public opinion towardsthe EU accession.

The support among Austrian citizens towards the EU enlargement had beensubject to investigation of a large-scale telephone survey (n=1000) conducted twoyears before the accessions of its Central Eastern European neighbour states (Eu-ropapolitik 2002). It has to be noted that the population in Styria and in Carinthiaresponded much more positive than the population in other parts of the country likein Upper or Lower Austria or in Burgenland12: About 77% respectively 76% of theStyrian respectively Carinthian population answered that in their opinion the sep-aration of Slovenia from former Yugoslavia has been a positive development forthe Styrians and Carinthians themselves, whereas only 58% of the Burgenlandpopulation saw clear advantages regarding the opening of the border towards Hun-gary (ibid.). Asked about their opinion regarding the EU accession of their neigh-bours, 70% resp. 73% of the Styrian resp. Carinthia population explicitly agreedwith the EU accession of Slovenia, only 17% resp. 12% did not agree with it, andabout 10% said it did not matter for them. The data of Austrian population in otherprovinces like Burgenland towards Hungary was lower (55%) as well as in LowerAustria and Upper Austria towards Slovakia and the Czech Republic (about30%).

What about corresponding data regarding the Slovene population’s opinion? Asimilar telephone survey among 1000 respondents has given the following results

12 For all the data given see Europapolitik (2002).

82

(ibid.): In 2002 about 69% agreed with the anticipated EU accession of Slovenia,whereas 30% disagreed with it; the corresponding positive attitude among the pop-ulation in Hungary (82% resp. 14%), Czech Republic (70% resp. 26%) and Slo-vakia (88% resp. 12%) was little higher than in Slovenia. However, since the ref-erendum for the EU accession of Slovenia, which has taken place at March 23rd

2003, we know that 90% agreed with the EU accession, 10% disagreed with it,whereas the overall turnout has been at about 60%. 53% of the Slovene populationin 2002 hoped that the EU accession of the country would have positive effectsregarding the economic development, 20% were rather sceptical and expectednegative effects. When asked about particular fields of interests, 26% resp. 34%expected positive resp. negative effects regarding unemployment, and 44% resp.17% were optimistic resp. pessimistic regarding political stability of the country.37% expected positive effects regarding consumer’s prizes, 42% expected negativeones. 38% of the Slovene population expected that in a common community withAustria and CEE countries there would be better chances to gain any successfulresults, whereas 33% were rather sceptical regarding this. After having outlinedsome public opinions of the Austrian and Slovene population regarding the EUaccession, we will now turn to specifics in sociology.

Surely, sociologists actually perceive themselves as actors in an Europeanneighbourhood. However, if we compare the relationship between Hungary andAustria with that between Slovenia and Austria, there are on both sides clearly seenmore problems in case of the latter (Langer 1996)13, possibly as drawn from his-torical experiences. Hungary and Austria have come to a compromise in the Hab-sburg monarchy in 1867, in contrast to Slovenia and Austria where “Austrians”have been the aristocratic dominators and “Slovenes” the servants. Structural in-equalities between them and the perception of power relations therefore seem tohave older historical reasons. The sometimes difficult historical relationship re-sulting from enforced “Germanization” of Slovenes since the 19th century is alsoindicated by language-related hesitations and backgrounds in using German lan-guage till nowadays: “All German-speaking people do have a feeling that theyshould speak English because the German language especially in Central Europestill is a language of domination. Particular people then think of National Social-ism, some people think of the Middle Ages till the modern times, where the Ger-mans were the disposers” (I 8). Concerning both ethnic minorities, Slovenes inAustria and the German-speaking minority in Slovenia, as an intercultural merge“do cause feelings of embarrassment when I speak German. This is the embarrass-

13 This has been indicated by a study of sympathy scales towards other peoples both in aninternational sample as well as among the population of the Eastern Austrian border regionBurgenland, which shares common borders with Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia. For detailssee Langer (1996: 132pp.).

83

ing side. The polite side is that … English is a foreign language for both, then weall have problems and are discriminated, that is somehow plausible. .. The German-speaking people have this mixture of politeness and embarrassment why they im-mediately change to English. Then the Slovenes do the same, because should wenow show that we are able to speak German, or are we servile when talking inGerman. And this in the end means that all of us do speak less German than pos-sible” (I 8).

In this statement we not only detect how the use of specific languages is con-nected to the historical experience of power relations among European neighboursbut also that this historical domination points to a particular cognitive structure andemotional feelings of embarrassment, politeness, and servility that affect commu-nication patterns among close neighbours till nowadays. Language proficiencyclearly is seen as a key factor in gaining some knowledge about the neighbourcountry. Some Slovene sociologists with whom we talked in German during theinterview frequently use the libraries, bookshops and archives of their neighbouringcountry. Since the 1960 s, when radio and TV stations were more spread in Maribor,people were used to hear Austrian radio programmes and watch Austrian television,because they were said to be “more realist news” in contrast to the ones at home (I8). Since the Cold War has been characterized by propaganda from both sides, thereis indicated the interest in first-hand knowledge and a view from afar towards one’sown country. However, Slovene sociologists pointed out that it was sometimesdifficult to imagine why historical monuments like the “Duke’s Chair” (Herzogs-Stuhl/Vojvodski prestol) are of such special importance for some Austrians (I 8).This indicates the long-lasting significance of symbols for national identities, whereup till now rather the same ones, like the Duke’s Chair or the famous white horses,the Lippizaner/Lipici, are demanded from both sides for establishing national andcultural identity.

Within the 1970 s and 1980 s there has also been, on a personal level, a fruitfulexchange among sociologists in the field of art events evolving around the GrazForum Stadtpark and its literature symposia, the annual autumn festival in the fieldof arts (Steirischer Herbst), visiting the House of Arts with its Trigon exhibitions,while sociologists were reporting in Maribor newspapers about these events (I 8).Since decades there are personal relationships and acquaintances, however, theirlevel of institutionalization has been rather low. “There was something, one mightsay threads, but from the threads there did not result a woven texture” (I 8). Thestrategic geopolitical position of such cities as Graz, is appreciated as having “apeculiar role” (I 4) in setting a scene for particular neighbourhoods and trans-na-tional co-operations, a South Eastern European orientation also within research.Moreover, this is true for cities like Ljubljana in Slovenia too. Recognize that wehere point to factors of supporting trans-national co-operation ‑ like language com-

84

petency, the ability to create peculiar events like meetings ‑ and strategies of dealingwith shifting European neighbourhoods ‑ like the ability of building a “bridge-function” among scientific actors in the neighbouring countries.

As a consequence of the EU accessions important to mention is the experienceof shifting borders in Slovenia and Austria, and post-Yugoslav territories. In formertimes, and significantly different to other socialist countries of the Eastern Bloc,the so-called “green” border between former Yugoslavia and Austria was open formutual tourist visits and shopping, and enabled a rather similar way of life of theregion’s population. In the 1960 s there was the first wave of migrant workers whodid not only bring foreign money but also goods and ideas to Slovenia. Nowadaysthere has the border vanished, like it was for hundreds of years before. However,there are arising new ones like the EU-Schengen border between Slovenia andCroatia, which were joint members of the former Yugoslav state before. WhenCroatia will join the EU in July 2012, these external borders of the European Unionwill shift again to other post-Yugoslav territories in the south.

Furthermore, experiences of borders definitely influence habits of social mo-bility and forms of social exchange as reported in several incidents. So after theEU accessions of both Slovenia and Austria, it is said, for instance, that people fromMaribor now, before the highway in Slovenia is completely finished, use transportmotor ways on the left bank of the river Mur/Mura to the Slovenian area of Pred-murje, because there are no trucks which drive from Italy via Hungary to Slovenia(I 8). “My student from Gornja Radgona/Radkersburg tells me that currently themost important basis for visitors is, that in Austrian bars it is still possible to smoke,but in the Slovenian bars it is no longer permitted. So now they go across the bridgeand then, prattling, go back home” (I 8).

Sociologists interviewed sometimes also addressed how the experience of Eu-ropeanization of national societies has led to changes in the way close neighboursdo perceive and recognize each other. In general, coming closer to each other asmembers of the European Union and knowing each other a little better therefore,has resulted into a decrease of homogenization in mutual perception in favour ofan increasing differentiation. In this respect the perception of Austrian sociologistsis remarkable, who in former times mainly perceived their colleagues in commonresearch projects as Yugoslav sociologists, not as Slovene ones: “The East was forus a red spot. For us, Yugoslavia was a homogeneous entity, a red spot” (I 14).From the side of the Slovene research partners “everything has been described andsold as Yugoslavian, methodologically not consistent, but in these days it was po-litically necessary, politically correct to do so” (I 14). Differences among Yu-goslavs were not clear to the Austrians, meanwhile Slovenes “opened the perspec-tive about the diversity of Yugoslavia” (I 14) for them. Austrian sociologists couldlearn at conferences in Yugoslavia that there did not inevitably exist a common

85

identity of Yugoslav sociologists, while Yugoslavia has been perceived as a rather“artificial unit” (I 7). Against the official propaganda of the Cold War on both sidesof the former Iron Curtain, there has been crucial an interest in first-hand knowledgeabout one’s neighbour country (I 14). For young Austrian students, Yugoslavia inthe 1960 s and 1970 s has also served as “an ideal role model”, because Yugoslaviahas not been perceived like the USSR: “Anyway, we were actually open-mindedin relation to the East, and interested what is going on, in Yugoslavia too” (I 14).

However, as part of the Cold War politics and their effects on mutual percep-tions, in the former Western part of the Iron Curtain knowledge about the formerEastern side usually has been rather poor. Slovene sociologists, when travelling tothe West, were often confronted with prejudice and lack of understanding, encom-passed with a severe incapability of differentiating among post-socialist countries.“I remember once I had a lecture in an American university. Somebody even askedme about Dracula. He thought that I am coming from a communist country, fromSlovenia. Well, there are no differences between Slovenia and Romania, so heasked me about Dracula. I had to be very kind to explain him that Dracula is notpart of my DNA” (I 17).

Moreover, patterns of mutual perception were more or less implicitly anticipatedas linked to power relations existing among sociological centres of knowledgeproduction. By a Slovenian scholar it was confirmed that this reported attitude ofseeing “black-and white” and being incapable of differentiation among their nearestneighbours, does persistently exist in some scholarly networks (I 16). Even underthe assumption that one shares specific background experiences, for instance, be-cause of one’s gender, this experiential similarity is perceived not as strong ascitizenship, socio-historical and cultural commonalities. One researcher stressesthat colleagues shall be made aware of these differences within post-Yugoslav ter-ritories or the Eastern Bloc. One des-illusionary experience was for this sociologist,attending a conference in the United States, “the way we were treated, …like a kindof native, a ‘domoroci’, indigenous. You come to some place and there are peoplewho live there but they are not able to speak for themselves. Or they can speak forthemselves but they cannot analyze that. And there are Americans who can analyzeour experience and who can tell us what is going on. … When you come to some-body, and give them raw material, from which they would make a picture, do youunderstand what I mean? So that was a very bad experience in the beginning of mycareer” (I 16). What this Slovene researcher addressed can be depicted not only asa rather homogenized picture in cognitive perceptions, but also as a form of ex-ploitation of knowledge resources and, let’s call it the experience of “indigeniza-tion by others” perceived as more powerful than oneself. The ability to use one’sown knowledge resources also depends on relations among the sociological com-munity that are at least not guided by more or less implicit forms of domination,

86

as intellectual colonization and indigenization by others. Also this researcher toldabout fruitful strategies of emancipation in the European context: She decided tostart spreading own knowledge around as the best way of correcting this false rep-resentation of knowledge. As has been argued, by publishing their own history ofCEE members’ sociologists in English language, this homogeneous picture of theEast in the West more and more has broken down (I 16).

A Long Common History with Some Important Breaks

Our third hypothesis has been that self-conceptions and mutual perceptions asEuropean neighbours are themselves subject to historical change and affected bythe EU accessions. The assumption is that European neighbourhoods as relation-ships to close neighbours are sometimes highly affected by the process of Euro-peanization of sociology; they might also affect the perception and reality of powerrelations among intellectual centres and peripheries of knowledge production with-in the sociological community at large. Here again, current Europeanization ofnational societies and of sociology as a scientific discipline might redefine formerhistorical phases or at least helps to remember also antecedent common histories,however also bridging important historical breaks.

In their accounts, sociologists referred to context as a historical entity in differentways, arguing that time since the EU accession is rather short, especially in Slovenia(I 10 a). Historical context is also at stake in the emerging nation state and its historyfrom 1945 respectively 1991 onwards, or in the common experience of being partof the Habsburg monarchy before 1918. Sociologists underlined, that there is along-standing common history of Slovenia and Austria in times of the Habsburgmonarchy. Slovenia and Austria have numerous similar characteristics because ofthe historic heritage regarding “the religion, the stages of industrialization andmodernization, the construction of (gendered) personal identities, etc.” (I 12). Thecities of Maribor and Graz, with only 50 kilometres of spatial distance betweenthem, as well as the cities of Ljubljana and Klagenfurt with a distance of 70 kilo-metres, do in many respect share common history, culture, arts, and agriculture;spatial proximity of the two nation states in this sense also indicates similar socio-cultural and historical backgrounds. As one sociologist put it: “For 60 years thereexisted the borders, but 600 years before that was not the case” (I 8).

Stemming from these often fruitful experiences, there might evolve a specialkind of nostalgia regarding “Central Europe” related to the former Habsburgmonarchy (Mozetič 1994). As an example, one Austrian sociologist noted havingbeen surprised recognizing by a picture of the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph inSlovene houses, when in Yugoslav times he has been invited by communist pro-

87

fessors to visit their parent’s homes in rural regions (I 14). Partly these incidentsare rooted in similar historical experiences that point to an exciting common Euro-pean past. Current Europeanization of national societies might lead to or is en-compassed by attempts of redefining history as a common one also from the view-point of a joint historical heritage. Partly, however, a nostalgia towards the Habs-burg monarchy can be depicted as a kind of myth (Mozetič 1994) which has to berelativized as a mere continuity, when confronted with a rather harsh reality.

The possibly common history was, because of different historical experiencesespecially in World War II, also perceived as problematic by sociologists, and eventhe enduring perceptions of each other during the Cold War were sometimes notreally adequate as indicated by statements given below. When one nowadayscrosses the mountains between the Carinthian part of Slovenia and Austria, one isreminded by the memorial park of the former concentration camp Loibl/Ljubelj, aspart of the camp Mauthausen, of a terrible, inhumane and traumatic history of manypeople persecuted, tortured and murdered during the regime of National Social-ism. Since Slovenia is one of the few countries which successfully freed itself fromNazi-occupation by its own, particularly with the military help of the partisansfighting in the mountains, the self-conception of the former Yugoslav state as wellas of the current Slovenian state has been explicitly anti-fascist since its beginning.This, of course, is also the common sense of the Second Republic of Austria since1945. However, the official political recognition of Austria in the Moscow Decla-ration of November 1st 1943 as “the first victim of Nazi-Germany” has not con-tributed to a critical and open public discussion of Austrian responsibility for itsown past. A huge proportion of the Austrian population supported or was simplyopportunistic to the NS-regime between 1938 and 1945. Nowadays there are stillattempts necessary to come to terms with the past traumatic experiences at bothsides of the borders. Although the young Republic of Slovenia has its good relationto neighbours as a very verse in its national anthem coined by the writer FrancPrešeren (“not enemies any longer, but neighbours shall you be from now on”), itsCarinthian counter-part unfortunately till nowadays talks about a brutal and literally“bloody” history of the respective border.

Resulting from these considerations of the contextualization of sociologicalknowledge production in the two nation states Slovenia and Austria, one has to takeinto account a wider cultural and historical framework of European neighbour-hoods: There do exist close relationships and somehow more neighbouring contactsof Slovenia to former Yugoslav territories and of Austria to Germany not only insocio-political and economic affairs, but within the scientific community too. Asan important effect of the EU accession, the Anglo-Saxon context increases inimportance for both. Besides, it can be argued that the EU accessions had an impacton the perception of neighbourhoods in a common Europe, insofar as a rather ho-

88

mogenized pictured vanished in favour of a more differentiated one. Sociologicalcommunities who perceived themselves as being dominated by others, sometimesalso intellectually colonized and indigenized by others, were able to successfullydevelop strategies of emancipation and of “tangential coalitions” (Mlinar 1995) indeveloping a bridge-function against anticipated intellectual centres. However, wehave also recognized persisting inequalities in structural opportunities for bothneighbouring countries, largely stemming from different historical contexts anddifferent time-spans since the EU accession. Nevertheless, the quality of interna-tional contacts has shifted in a common European Union, since the EU activelysupports various instruments for promoting common trans-national activities inteaching, research and development.

“Fractal Distinctions”: Empirical Research and Theory Formation

What about perspectives of intellectual developments of an evolving disciplinesuch as sociology? And how can these convincingly be linked to and analysed asinfluenced by processes of sociology’s Europeanization? In which way is it possibleto talk about a paradigmatic intellectual change in the formation of sociology, cer-tain fields and topics of social research, peculiar theoretical frameworks, as affectedby the Europeanization of the discipline? In the following, we will mention anddiscuss at least some aspects of these questions.

First, in the social sciences the “normalization thesis” is still prominent, pro-viding for the view of a continuously professionalized discipline by getting rid ofmore theoretically and philosophically oriented thinking: This often also meanstranscending or loosing ideological boundaries and affiliations of the evolving en-tire discipline (Mozetič 2001). Contrasting this thesis, however, as constitutive forsociological thinking since the very beginning of the discipline, several authorshave noted the prevailing dual relationship of “data sociology” and “interpretivesociology” (ibid.). There still seems to be a steadily device among sociologists intheir scientific everyday practice and scholarly communication to opt either for“data sociology” or for “interpretive sociology”, or let’s say, for empirical socialresearch or for theoretical sociology. In investigating those cognitive patterns, An-drew Abbott suggests to depict these differences as “fractal distinctions” in thedevelopment of sociological knowledge, like that between quantitative and quali-tative research, or positivist sociology versus interpretive sociology (Abbott 2001).He argues that these patterns of thinking evolve not so much as an outcome of alinear growth of knowledge, as the normalization thesis seems to suggest, thanrather do result from circularly emerging groupings and intellectual paradigms in

2.3.2

89

the development of the discipline (ibid.). Can Abbott’s rather global vision fruit-fully be applied to sociology in the respective neighbouring countries?

Regarding this, to Abbott’s theorems we would like to add the following threehypotheses: First, this change of theoretical paradigms does not only develop inhistory, but several paradigms can be prevalent at the same time and sometimeseven in the same city, when institutionalized in different departments at local level.Second, there seem to exist connotations of sociological paradigms that are con-nected with the very historical development of national traditions of sociology. InAbbott’s words, there are developing more “fractal distinctions” within one veryparadigm. For instance, what might be qualified by Austrian sociologists as a moreempirically grounded way of theorizing sociology, could, perhaps, be seen fromthe viewpoint of Slovene sociologists as a rather theoretically oriented approach ofdealing with sociology as empirical science. Third, in addressing these suggestedfractal distinctions not within, but between disciplines, Wolf Lepenies underlinessociology’s development out of the tension of the natural sciences, on the one hand,and fiction and literary studies, on the other (Lepenies 1985). He argues for soci-ology as a “third culture” between those two, which has in its history often managedto bridge the gaps between competing knowledge claims of these intellectual tra-ditions. Subsequently we will deal with the first two of these assumptions in inter-preting if, how and in which areas sociologists identify “fractal distinctions” in theintellectual development of their discipline.

Recall that specifics of national traditions of sociology can not only be charac-terized as differences to other national communities, but as internal differentiationstoo. When asked about possible particularities of Slovene sociology, sociologists’diagnosis was, quite similar to Abbott’s hypothesis, that of a kind of duality ofintellectual structure, where the inner-sociological division of labour between themeasurement-oriented, behavioural “empiricists” and critically oriented “theo-rists” obviously seems to be rather clear. These streams are characterized as beinginstitutionalized at different sociology departments even in the same city, as at theFDV respectively the FF faculty at Ljubljana University. It has been argued thatthere are inherent reasons for conflicts between the two sociologies. Theses ap-proaches to sociology, both relevant to teaching as well as to research, seem to beinherently incompatible “divergent paths” which are said to “do not converge” (I11). However, individual sociologists, since they were trained in both, in theirteaching would like to make more substantial links between the quantitative andthe qualitative, the critical and a measurement-oriented approach (I 11). This in-tention sometimes is foiled by the fact that the two streams of sociology also attractdifferent types of students (I 11).

Statements from Austrian sociologists, however, do not always support the the-sis of “fractal distinctions” within sociology. Austrian sociology is said to have “no

90

real homogeneous profile, … there are relatively local specificities” (I 20) depen-dent on the respective departments. Graz Department of Sociology is said to bemore historically and philosophically oriented, as specific for the German-speakingcontext, for since the early days of sociology there has been a rather strong linkageto philosophy (I 20). Furthermore the relationship between theory and empirics isdescribed as one of “peaceful co-existence” (I 20) in the sense that empirical so-ciologists do also work in theory-building and theoreticians are not averse to em-pirical sociologists. In contrast to the United States, where profiles are said to becharacterized in a more distinct way, in Austria sociologists do work on relativelybroad and diverse research topics, and theory formation is more important in Eu-rope, or specifically in Graz, than in the United States (I 20). Furthermore, at GrazDepartment of Sociology there is said to exist a good co-operation with eco-nomics with no deeper conflicts between the disciplines (I 20).

However, at large such a dual structure between “empirics” and “theory” mightalso exist as a latency evolving from specific historical experiences within Austriansociology: Andreas Balog and Eva Cyba (Balog/Cyba 2001) talk about two soci-ological “sub-cultures” in the emergence of sociology in Austria, albeit both wereinclined to empirical research as well as to a critical approach in the sense of CriticalTheory of the Frankfurt School. These two groups were clearly also distinguishablein their relationship towards academic institutionalization, as academic sociologyon the one hand and sociology rather distant to it, on the other. First, there existedsociology at universities with the claim of primarily carrying out quantitative em-pirical social research and bound to a massive interest in contractual research. Sec-ond, there was a more diverse and contradictious group of sociologists, whose maincommonality has been their distance to academic sociology (Balog/Cyba 2001: 9).One of the two groups’ similarities, however, has been the claim that sociologyshould be conceived as an instrument for reform orientations (ibid.). This initiallyconflict-riddled relationship of two sub-groups of sociologists became, however,slowly less important since generations of sociologists have changed. The authorsdescribe this tension as rather not so pressing anymore, at least in the self-concep-tions of Austrian sociologists of today (ibid.).

The assumption developed in the chapters before has been that there is a well-established empirical orientation in sociology in both countries under investigation.Significantly, both Austrian as well as Slovenian sociologists locate themselvesrather on the “empiricist” side, albeit possibly because of different reasons. Aus-trian self-conceptions seem to be more or less implicitly guided by a comparisonwith the German neighbour’s world famous theoretical “thinkers and writers” (I 7,9, 14). They describe themselves rather as empirically and critically oriented aswell (I 1, 7), with a lesser inclination to the building of grand theories so popularin German thinking. However, they identify themselves with the Anglo-Saxon way

91

of thinking in the sense of Johan Galtung’s analysis of different intellectualstyles within the community (1981). Here it has to be mentioned that cultural iden-tity of Slovenes has always been closely linked to the importance of their language,and therefore is seen to have developed and preserved by its “thinkers and writers”too (Benigni-Cokan 2007). Moreover, in Slovenia many famous writers and intel-lectuals have played a crucial role in developing national identity (Debeljak 2004:141pp.).

Slovene sociologists are also equipped with a rather strong tradition in quanti-tative empirical research, mainly evolving around the FDV in Ljubljana. In Slove-nia especially quantitative methods seem to be heavily used. Qualitative methodsare taught only for students of cultural studies, not for students of sociology at theFDV, who are trained in general, not specifically in qualitative methodology, atleast that is said to depend much on the individual teacher; however, the hope isthat this situation might change within the next years (I 13). In contrast to that, inAustria the usual sociological research practice is balanced between quantitativeand qualitative methods (Fleck/Nowotny 1993: 114). Although the stated tensionbetween different conceptions of sociology clearly goes beyond the faculty level,in Slovenia this is from time to time also linked to different traditions of sociologyin Ljubljana (I 16). On the one hand, there is the more empirically oriented FDV,on the other the more theoretically oriented FF faculty. Sometimes the relationshipis seen as a good compatibility of these approaches, turning out in fruitful inter-professional relationships. Sometimes however, the competition for financial re-sources and the faculties’ attempts to gain intellectual territories for their know-ledge claims is underlined, because “university is not something which is some-where in the air, but is also grounded on the floor” (I 16).

For our research purposes, what is at stake is the contextual meaning of empiricalresearch practice in contrast to critical theoretical thinking in sociology in the twonational sub-structures of the scientific community, as it is outlined by sociologiststhemselves in the often slight underpinnings of their discipline’s self-conceptions.Since these categories are used as more or less “fractal distinctions” working quitewell in sociologists’ scientific everyday life, it is nevertheless often unclear thatthe “empiricists” themselves might internally be as much diverse and varied as the“theorists”. In the following we will present two examples of rather well-knownempirical research traditions within the two states, one Slovenian and one Austri-an.

92

Social Research: Comparing Two Outstanding Cases

Empirical social research as it has been undertaken by the Ljubljanska School hasdeeply influenced the development of sociology in Slovenia. Although the situationat Yugoslav times was said to have been “albeit somehow ideologically deter-mined” (I 18), it was possible to undertake empirical research and to enlarge andstabilize the sociological curriculum in this respect, with a specialisation in socialinformatics at the FDV (I 18). The Slovene Public Opinion Poll project Slovenskojavno mnenje has begun in 1968, due to the emergence of a small research instituteclosely linked to the FDV of Ljubljana University, the Centre for Public Opinionand Communication Research (CJMMK)14. As a heritage from Yugoslav times andas a specificity of Slovene sociology till today, the Centre has been founded in 1966and is a research unit with twelve members (status February 2012). Since 1968 itregularly carries out the Slovene Public Opinion (SPO) Survey as a basic sourceof empirical data for social scientists in Slovenia, mostly financed by the respectiveMinistry of Science15. Databases include a broad variety of relevant topics likesocial stratification, quality of life, national identity, political culture, role of gov-ernment, religion, family values, work values, health indicators, political orienta-tion, industrial relations, mass media preferences, life-style indicators, transitionalstudies, environmental studies, and attitudes towards the EU.16 The Centre hasextensive experience in various forms of quantitative survey methodology and hasalso investigated methodological problems, such as sampling, measurement, andsemantics. Evolving from the Centre, empirical research in a variety of differentfields was done in social structure and stratification, social mobility and migration,urbanization processes, cultural sociology, and mass media. On a yearly basisevolving from 1968 till 2008 there appear empirical data on the Slovene popula-tion’s attitudes and social behaviour connected to a broad variety of social fields;all the empirical data are publicly available in four books (Toš 1968 to present). In1987 there has been realized a Yugoslav-wide empirical research project on theclass-consciousness and social structure of the population in Yugoslavia, repre-sentative samples from all supra-national republics were included; nowadays it isseen as “meanwhile some kind of historical document” (I 18), but neverthelessoffering a lot of interesting insights into the situation from these days. There are,in the words of one key sociologist, still numerous potentials buried in these datamaterials, which were never exhaustively used in research (I 18).

14 If not otherwise indicated, the information on the Centre is based on www.cjm.si/cjm_english(Feb 15, 2012)

15 www.issp.org/slovenia.shtml (Feb 25, 2012)16 www.cjm.si/cjm_english (Feb 25, 2012)

93

This kind of empirical research has also been of some political influence for theindependence of Slovenia: The SPO project can be interpreted as a sociologicalcontribution within the process of independence and restructuring of Slovenia es-pecially by research. “With the social surveys we contributed in several areas tothe fact that Slovenia has existed as an entity within internationally comparativesociology. This is also very important. This resulted not only in stately indepen-dence but also in an identification of a new entity in the minds of sociologists, wherethose had interests to analyze problems also in Slovenia integrated within Centraland Eastern Europe” (I 18).

The SPO project has many international contacts, both to Germany as well asto Austria. As well-experienced within empirical methodology this was a goodbasis for integrating oneself in all important infrastructure projects, in the Interna-tional Social Survey Programme, the European Value Survey, the World ValueSurvey, and the European Social Survey (I 18). Empirical sociology in Sloveniawas very well developed also in Yugoslav times, as an empirical discipline evenmore developed than in Austria, as one sociologist draws a comparison to theneighbour country (ibid.). However, it was indicated that sociology has also beenmore concentrated in Ljubljana, which is not the case in Austria (ibid.). The Centreat the FDV has developed own research capacities and infrastructures and neverhas given submittals for field work to market research institutes from abroad; it hasrather bundled its efforts because of scarce financial resources: “Giving a researchproject to someone else means having money for that, organizing research alonemeans to run a project also with less money. We do that since ever and up till now”(I 18).

One interviewed Slovene sociologists (I 8) has speculated that the SPO projecthas been financed by Paul Lazarsfeld in a time of the emergence of the FDV in the1960 s, which, however, could not be verified. A key researcher in this field ratherargued, financially the research institute has not been supported by internationalfunds, but only by own resources having been earned by diverse research activities,in order to invest them into social surveys (I 18). This orientation might be differentto the one of Austrian research, where there are said to arise sometimes difficultiesto finance large-scale empirical research (ibid.). Regarding the question of financialsupport of former Yugoslav research institutes by American research funds therecan be added the following: Due to the Archive of the Ford Foundation 17, since1959 there has been funded the exchange of scholars and professionals from formerYugoslavia to the United States and Western Europe; in 1962, furthermore, therehave been supported libraries and equipments for universities in Yugoslavia. Since1968 till at least 1978, stemming from the Ford Foundation, there continually have

17 For all data see the website of the Ford Foundation, www.fordfound.org (Feb 25, 2012).

94

been established trans-Atlantic contacts and collaborative research projects in re-gional and urban planning to conduct interdisciplinary training and research inYugoslavia, especially evolving around the Urban Planning Institute of Sloveniaand Ljubljana University. Furthermore, in 1972 there has been financed a newYugoslav centre for managerial education and advanced management studies.

Coming back to the SPO project, as one Slovene sociologist stated, “in othercountries it was impossible to undertake research like this” (I 13); that prompts thequestion what has been supportive for the development of empirical research inthose days. There were several answers given by a key researcher of the SPOproject (I 18) who addressed distinct social conditions, namely political liberalism,the availability of specific disciplinary knowledge and its successful institutional-ization, productive and widespread research activities, a clear political will towardsinstitutionalization, and the availability of international contacts to similar insti-tutes.

First, Slovenia has been, also in Yugoslav times, a more liberal area in relationto other Yugoslav supra-national republics: “Ideological pressure has existed atuniversity, of course, but it has not been so impressive than in other constitutiverepublics”, which was clearly a positive structural opportunity (I 18). Second, therewere also professional opportunities offered by pioneering persons at the FDV. JozeGoričar, an influential professor of jurisprudence, had been successful in introduc-ing sociology. Teaching methodology, as sociological core competency, has beenvery important since the early days of the FDV. Founding a methodological disci-pline at university has not been common for the situation in Yugoslavia, and un-common for the situation in Western countries in those days too, where maybe inFrankfurt or in Cologne there existed some research institutes, but not very mucheven abroad (I 18). Third, the practice of the Centre was to start with many researchstudies in sociology of culture and consumer behaviour, where 12.000 persons weresubject to a survey study remaining unrepeatable (I 18). Fourth, there might besome reasons concerning political development, “more hard politics, reckoningsomehow and break-ups with the 1960s” (I 18), however, politicians could be con-vinced that public opinion research “one must not undertake with spying by thepoliticians, but by professional research institutes” (I 18). That is to say that theresearch centre experienced political support to do this kind of research. Fifth, theCentre was one of the earliest institutes, even earlier founded than counter-parts inGermany: The leading Slovene researcher in this field was able to visit severalopinion poll institutes in Germany and in Italy (I 18). All these various circum-stances obviously contributed to the fruitful emergence of a strong tradition ofquantitative large-scale research in Slovenia within the last four decades.

To get a sense of another meaning of empirical social research, as well as quitedifficult conditions of its genesis between the two World Wars, we will now explore

95

a rather well-known example of the beginning empirical sociology in Austria. Asa peculiar empirical study, which widely emanated in German-speaking countriesand in an international context as well, the study “The Unemployed of Marien-thal” written by Marie Jahoda, Paul Lazarsfeld and Hans Zeisel (Jahoda1933/1975) was mentioned by several Austrian sociologists. It was a break-throughin empirical sociology and social psychology and one of the most well-knowncommunity studies in German-speaking countries; in addition, what might beunique of this study too is the fact that there has even been created a movie out ofit (Einstweilen wird es Mittag) (Fleck 2000 b). Due to the authors, characteristicfor this early socio-graphic study of the impact of unemployment is its mixed me-thodical approach, where both qualitative as well as quantitative instruments wereapplied: Objective facts and subjective interpretations, current situations and his-torical perspectives, as well as reactive and non-reactive techniques have been in-tegrated into the study (Paul Lazarsfeld, cited by Fleck 2000 b: 225).

In 1931 the authors began to do social research in a village in the south of Viennawhere most of the local population became unemployed because of the suddenclosedown of the only local textile industry. The researchers described the slowingdown of the social life in the village as a “tired community” (Jahoda et al.1933/1975: 55pp.). By case studies they analyzed the attitude of the long-termunemployed due to a typology of four different types, “unbroken ‑ resigned ‑desperate ‑ apathetic”, and indicated that only one quarter of the unemployed hasbeen identified to react “unbroken” and the vast majority reacted rather “resigned”due to their reduced expectations and pretensions regarding life in general (Jaho-da et al. 1933/1975: 64pp.). This has been visible too in the behaviour of managinghousehold, caring for children and hope for future. The drawn typology is inter-preted as the actors’ slowly moving down due to these types of attitudes, while ofspecial importance was the impact of unemployment on the time-structuring ofactors within their daily life. This was also indicated by the investigation of actorsin their walking speed along the country-road of the village (Jahoda et al.1933/1975: 83pp.). The major finding of the study was that the drastic economicsituation of the unemployed resulted into a change in the socio-psychological at-titude towards resignation of the respective persons.

The forced emigration of Jahoda, Lazarsfeld and Zeisel from Austria to the USand to England as well as the political situation of National Socialism was ratheradversarial to the prompt reception of the study (Fleck 2000 b: 224 p.). Further-more, for several decades, unemployment was not perceived as a big social problemanymore investigable by sociologists; however, this changed in the 1970 s, wherethe study of the “Unemployed of Marienthal” was discovered again (Fleck2000 b: 226). In newer Austrian sociology this break-through study and the difficultas well as innovative social conditions of its genesis have been reflected as part of

96

a growing interest in the history of sociology and in the reconstruction of the em-inent influence of the researchers on the development of sociology (Nowotny 1983;Fleck 2000 b). Charles Crothers (Crothers 2000) once has shown, that when com-pared to other national and international traditions of sociology, Austrian currentsociology is more than average active in the history of sociology, which mightdepend on a rich historical heritage when dealing with an intellectually excitingpast (Crothers 2000: 287). This suggestion seems to be applicable to the researchas outlined by the Marienthal study too. In addition, it is possible that this earlyexample of empirical research in the importance of work and the socio-psycho-logical costs of unemployment has also animated Austrian sociologists in the em-pirical investigation of unemployment evolving especially since the late 1980 s byHans Georg Zilian and Christian Fleck (Zilian 1989, 1994; Fleck/Zilian 1990). Inaddition, for sociology after 1945, several Austrian sociologists mentioned LeopoldRosenmayr’s empirical sociology of the life cycle respective sociology of ageingas manifest in various empirical studies and theoretical publications (Rosenmayr/Höllinger 1969; Rosenmayr/Köckeis 1966) as a well-known Austrian example ofempirical sociology developed within the last decades.

From these two examples of empirical social research we can draw a more de-tailed picture of its different historical legacy in the neighbour countries to get amore adequate understanding of what could be meant by empirical sociology.While the first one might in some way support the normalization thesis of a con-tinuously developing, quantitatively dominating sociology since the late 1960 s,the second one provides for an innovative study with important consequences forAustrian empirical sociology till nowadays. Well, at first glance their differencesin historical circumstance as well as in methodological approach, applied re-search techniques and even in socio-political claims of the researchers are quiteobvious. This supports the suggestion of “fractal distinctions” and contextualmeanings of empirical sociological research even within the field of empirical so-ciology itself. However, at second sight there might be recognized some similaritiesin its historical importance: Both of them contributed to the self-conceptions ofempirical sociology within their national communities, and both of them found itsinternational resonance in the wider scientific community. When we ask whetherthese examples might provide points of contacts for current international socialresearch in an European context, they offer much of relevance: On the one hand,studying unemployment and its impact on the local population is a pressing socialproblem for European countries again. On the other hand, continuous large-scaleresearch clearly provides for an indispensable data basis for cross-cultural com-parative studies, as they are more and more needed for a developing Europeansociology.

97

Research Topics: Reflecting Transitions and Inequalities

The problematic of a division of labour within sociology carries with it the oftenimplicit vertical hierarchies of so-called relevance of sociology’s topics of empir-ical research and conceptual analysis, with connotations of the importance of so-ciological problems and theoretical frameworks: This is manifest in a “core” corpusof knowledge ‑ like sociology of inequalities, sociology of work ‑, and hyphen-sociologies often depicted as rather marginal ‑ like sociology of sports or sociologyof arts (Mozetič 2001: 220 p.). In this section we focus on the sociological reflectionof one of the core subjects or research topics of the discipline, the investigation ofsocial transformations and inequalities. Of interest are the explanations of sociol-ogists given by themselves why these research topics are rather dominant, prevail-ing, or otherwise absent in sociology, and which needs and trends they recognizein sociologists’ inclination to find adequate analyses of social transitions and in-equalities.

A bibliometric analysis of two leading sociological journals (Družboslovnerazprave in Slovenia, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie in Austria) duringa time-span of 22 years has shown an astonishing differentiation of research top-ics in the respective national sub-structures of the sociological scientific commu-nity (Hönig 2008). One of the most significant results were that within the last twodecades in Slovenian sociology there has existed a rather high interest in researchtopics like political democratization and economic change, in the sociology oftransformation and the sociology of European integration as well. However, thistheoretical and empirical inclination was not so prominent in sociology in Austria(ibid.).

Remember that this differentiation of research topics has also been suggestedby Piotr Sztompka (2002: 551) underlining that sociologists of East and South EastEuropean countries are specifically well equipped with theoretical knowledge re-garding social change and social movements, reflexively addressing these devel-opments with key concepts like political democratization, civil society, and socialcapital. Sociologists in both countries were asked how they would explain thisempirically evolving difference in national traditions of sociology respective so-ciological journals. Austrians referred to the interest in these issues with relationto the rapid change in Slovenian society, where sociologists “might be under pres-sure in turbulent times to make sense about these deep transformations” (I 4). Such“hot and urgent topics” (I 4) carry with them an existential meaning for Slovenesociologists, whereas in Austria these often are perceived as “nice and interesting”(I 4), but not as comparably moving ones. On the other hand we find accounts fortrying to explain this attitude due to the fact that “Austrian sociology as nationalsociology, has more or less missed Eastern enlargement” (I 14), albeit with some

98

few exceptions. That these topics of research are more attractive for Slovene soci-ologists have been explained by themselves because of the “so-called transitionperiod in the 1990 s from totalitarian regime to democracy, from social economyto capitalist economy, also some other cultural transformation” (I 13) as reflectedby sociological research, thinking and observations. In contrast to their colleagues,Austrians were said to be simply not so much involved in these processes (I 13).

For the purpose of getting an insight in these societal transformations, the viewof one Slovene sociologist might be quoted at length: “I would explain that theseare topics of Slovenia because we are the member state who went through thisprocess, accession of the EU, and there were some problems how would some fieldsof life be integrated in the EU. Because in some fields, Slovenia had better solutions,better laws, more rights, in comparison with some other EU countries. So therewas, in front of a public, a concern what will happen after the EU accession. Becausesome social rights are quite good in Slovenia. Some women’s individual rights, e.g.abortion right, the right of parental leave, we established fathers’ leave, after ac-cession. There was a quite good health policy, health insurance, in Slovenia. After,I can’t really say after the accession, but after this period of transition, some of therights deteriorated. Especially in the field of health insurance, then accession to theclinics, gynaecological surgeries, in this field I think that we all see that the situationis worse than before. So this is the reason for why that many articles are publishedin our sociological journal about EU accession, EU membership and what is goingon in the EU. Because of the different insights and position of Slovenia before. Sowe all thought more about which are the changes which happen in Slovenia andSlovene society” (I 16). What does this process furthermore mean from a Slovenepoint of view? In former times Slovenian society was an egalitarian one, not onlyin its official version, but also in daily life. Now processes of globalization, dif-ferentiation and social inequalities become much more visible and evident, “peoplefeel like this” (I 3). This might also provide for much sociological work on socialdifferentiation and social inequalities (I 3).

However, some sociologists underline that some problems or topics of researchare not sufficiently researched in sociology within Slovenia. There are, in theirpoint of view, also still open questions, where sociologists are not very interestedin and are not subject of inquiry. One of these examples would be social stratifi-cation as a topic, where actually little empirical data about class division and the“new rich” strata exist (I 15). This prompts the question why there is so little readi-ness to investigate such attractive research topics: “Maybe it is quite demanding,it is not easy to research such mechanisms, to do such research, it takes time. It isnot easy to get funded for such a big project” (I 13). Furthermore, problems withone-sidedness and bias perception were mentioned: “There is not always a goodwill and willingness to investigate some topics from different points of views” (I

99

13), for instance from different methodological stands or backgrounds in the un-derlying philosophy of science.

Besides, it was argued that sociology in Slovenia has been very much concernedwith the national question, especially in times when Slovenes did not have theirown state. When one compares them to Kurds in Turkey, who are ten times morethan Slovenes, it becomes visible that if one does not have a nation state, one thenis at mercy of those who are in power: “Slovenian sociology of course is moreconcerned with the issues which are relevant for their own fate. … I am sure thatAustrian sociology, or Danish sociology, has similar preoccupations” (I 17).Slovene sociology, due to these sociologists, is interested in how globalizationaffects national identity, culture, and economy. As one Slovene scholar put it, so-ciological explanations of nationalism do exist, and sociology can explain nation-alism as a social phenomenon, “but this does not mean that sociologists will not benationalists, as we have seen” (I 15). This statement implicitly refers to a publicincident with a rather nationalistic sociologist within the often delicate historicalrelationships between sociology and politics, which will be addressed below.

Others seek explanations for specific research topics within Slovene sociologyin “political capitalism” and “issues of political correctness” (I 6). Democratization,political sociology, political and economic change have been important for soci-ology in Slovenia, one sociologist speculated, maybe because these topics are em-braced within the European Union and consequently it turns out to be a promisingstrategic device of researchers when doing research on them. “Sometimes it is goodto focus on the topics which are so to say dictated by the European sciences’ bu-reaucracy in the EU”, since then it is easier to gain EU research funds. That soci-ological language is even said to be “polluted” by a politically motivated and highlynormative rhetoric of the European Union, has been criticized by a Slovene scholarin reading articles of his younger colleagues (I 6).

How this pre-occupation with specific research topics of relevance is discussedamong Austrian sociologists? If we reflect the smaller research on politicalchange, stratification research, social inequalities in Austrian sociology, we wouldlike to explore one possible reason for it as outlined by an interview partner (I 14).The Austrian sociologist observed “a paradigmatic shift” in the European socialsciences of the last decades from social theory to cultural theory, as part of a de-velopment from vertical to horizontal analyses of social inequalities. Since the1960 s and 1970 s, the interest of sociologists has been focused on the concepts ofsociety and social inequalities; social inequalities have mainly been subject to in-vestigation as vertical ones, as inequalities between social classes, like farmers,workers, and the bourgeoisie: This has, for instance, resulted in political efforts ofpromoting the lower classes in their access to education, in opening universityhigher education for more children of farmers and workers with the aim of a fair

100

distribution of life chances between the vertical classes within society (I 14). How-ever, it has been suggested, today social inequalities are mainly discussed in relationto “horizontal” differentiations, as between women and men, between migrants andother citizens, between young and old people, the disabled and the non-disabledones; it is argued that this has, on a theoretical level, resulted into a shift from socialtheory to cultural theory, from social structures to social meanings, where everysocial phenomenon nowadays keeps being discussed in relation to “culture” (I 14).In contrast to it, discussing the concept of society has become only one of manypossible views, but is not at the centre of social scientific discourse anymore. Par-allel to that development, an enforced individualization within the social scienceshas been observed, which has resulted in a movement from mainly quantitativemass data to rather qualitative data; this has been described as oriented towardsindividuals depicted as learners and developers of the research process, for exampleby action research, as emancipation process not of social classes but of individualsubjects: Within the social sciences this individualization has also been visible intheoretical models oriented towards economics, as manifest in Rational ChoiceTheory (I 14). The hypothesis is, furthermore, that this cultural turn or shift fromsocial theory to cultural studies clearly has been, albeit indirectly, affected andaccelerated by historical circumstances, namely the breakdown of the socialist-communist regime of the former Eastern Bloc: Of course, cultural studies havedeveloped before, in the 1980 s, but this paradigmatic shift, so the thesis, has mas-sively been accelerated by the breakdown of the communist system (I 14). It mightbe the case, so one could speculate, that the European Union furthermore hasspeeded up this tendency towards cultural studies within the social sciences, par-allel to a political concentration on horizontal inequalities (I 14). Anyway, with thiscultural turn in sociology, in the theoretical discussion also new social actors haveemerged within public discussion: Nowadays trade unions do not have the powerlike some decades before (I 1), but today non-governmental organizations do havean influence on discourses of inequalities, discussed as horizontal ones. This cul-tural turn or tendency within Austrian sociology as part of European social sciences,to focus on differentiations which are perceived as “horizontal” ones, has also beenconfirmed by another Austrian sociologist ironically stating that “sex, crime, andviolence are topics in Austria too, of course” (I 7).

Although there is recognized this cultural turn or paradigmatic shift in discussingsocial inequalities within sociology at least in Austria, for several times there hasbeen articulated a strong research orientation of Austrian sociology within specificfields, like the history of sociology or the sociology of science and technology. Theimportance of science and technology studies were, by Austrian sociologists activein this field, not considered as strong as this was indicated by the bibliometricanalysis (Hönig 2008). However, there were articulated the need and challenge of

101

science and technology studies for sociology. Especially for rather small academicinstitutions it would make sense to focus on areas like sociology of science andtechnology (I 19). Linked to that need it was recommended to change the studyprogrammes of sociology towards more communicative skills of students to trans-late their sociological perspective into other inter-disciplinary fields. On the otherhand, inter-disciplinary studies often lack the mediation of conceptual thinking andresearch instruments; so it was recommended to organize study programmes stillin disciplinary way, but at the same time to promote opportunities to enrol in post-graduate study programmes more inter-disciplinarily oriented (I 19). Of course,there are science and technology studies in Slovenia too. And as we will see insection 2.6., actually there are strong and lively trans-national co-operations in thisfield between Slovenian and Austrian researchers. The increasing university insti-tutionalization in Slovenia, however, is foiled by a counter-development, wherewithin the changes initiated by the Bologna Reform Process the attempt to insti-tutionalize science studies in the curricula has not been successful in Slovenia (I5).

Since now, we have dealt with a core topic of sociological research, the analysisof social transformations and inequalities, and we have turned to estimations andsuggestions of sociologists regarding the ability of their discipline to develop anaccurate diagnosis and adequate explanations. As it has already been indicated,sociologists in Slovenia seem rather better equipped to reflexively deal with theurgent questions of deep transformations European societies undergo nowadays.Not only these are issues of the society in which they actually live, but they alsobring with them well-developed tools and broad experience for such an analysis ofthe entire society. This holds both for a continuing research interest in political andeconomic change and investigating broadly its societal consequences in differentareas of public life as well. A discourse on these research topics seems to be notthat present in Austrian sociology. Furthermore, by sociologists there has beensketched a peculiar shift or cultural turn in research interest as well as in sociologicalconcepts from reflecting vertical structural inequalities to horizontal cultural di-versities. Since this has not been discussed among Slovenian sociologist one mightspeculate that this conceptual shift has not yet reached Slovenian sociology to itsfull size or is rather marginally developed, in relation to the core interest in mech-anisms of social differentiation and inequalities. However, as we will discuss lateron, there are already Slovene examples of teaching and research in cultural diver-sity. Nevertheless, it was suggested that this paradigmatic shift of social scienceshas been accelerated with the collapse of the former Eastern Bloc. What can beinterpreted as the role of the European Union in this regard? In which way doEuropean science policies support or hinder these observed tendencies of individ-ualization and culturalization within the social sciences? Sociologists from both

102

sides suggested that the European Union’s agenda-setting supports research on“politically correct” issues, regarding political participation and democratization,managing anti-discrimination and cultural diversities. Focusing on these topicsseems a rather rational and strategic device for sociologists when interested ingaining EU research funds; however, inevitably they compete with other socialscientists, for instance, of the cultural studies, for them. Up till now we cannot tellwhether this suggested shift in research interest might be of consequence for thecore competency of sociology to claim explanative power on structural conditionsfor social actors, power relations, new elites, and inequalities in life chances. Wewill later on turn to these questions again.

Sociological Theory: The Professionalism of Some Different Mosaics

When asking about specific theoretical paradigms in sociological thinking, in bothcountries there are mentioned some peculiar theoretical traditions from the past.However, regarding the current situation most of the sociologists spoke of mucheclecticism in sociological theory. Especially in Slovenia there is a tendency to-wards reception of current theorists like Niklas Luhmann and Pierre Bourdieu vis-ible, and a strong tradition in Critical Theory as well – which also Austrian soci-ologists claim for themselves. This prompts the question which differences inmeaning of “Critical Theory” do exist: In Austrian sociology we can detect a moreor less clear relation to the Neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School, as it was espe-cially important in Germany, but also in Austria since the early days of institu-tionalizing sociology around 1968. In Slovenia there is a strong Marxist traditionof thinking since decades, where there has also taken place inner-Marxist criticaldisputes from the 1950 s and 1960 s onwards as a lively intellectual debate. Sincethe breakdown of Marxist Theory as dominating paradigm in sociology, with thecollapse of the former Eastern Bloc and the end of the socialist state of Yugoslavia,there has been stated a “multi-paradigmatic” situation in theoretical thinking inSlovenian sociology (Adam/Makarovič 2002: 537), whereas critical thinking mighthave got another meaning since then.

Several Austrian sociologists have speculated that within Austria a specific the-oretical tradition might not have been emerged (I 4). However, a stream of impor-tant classical sociologists can be found in sociology in Austria, like LudwigGumplowicz as one of the founding fathers of Austrian sociology as well as in theschool of Austro-Marxism. It was suggested that this classical tradition of one’sown national tradition of sociology is stronger in Austria than in Germany,France or in the US (I 9). Austrian sociologists, furthermore, from time to timedistinguished themselves from the German tradition of theory formation, stating

103

that in Austria Luhmann’s System Theory is “not so popular” (I 1) and without thatrespectable attitude towards enormous conceptual efforts as known in Germanthought. Rather, in its empirical focus it was said to come rather closer to an an-ticipated Anglo-Saxon style of thinking (I 1). In Austria, it was argued, one defi-nitely cannot find such grand theories like in classical German philosophy: GeorgWilhelm Friedrich Hegel as well as Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann werementioned in the sense of “Protestant imperial theories”, grand theories linked to(former) empires and close to capitals of power, as a socio-historical basis wherethese theories develop (I 14). At the end of the Habsburg monarchy there wereintellectual streams like the Vienna Circle, Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, andthe language philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, which in some sense might re-flect imperial thinking too, but which also differ in some respect from Protestantthinking in Germany or France (I 14). Austrian sociology, so one sociologist stated,was either strongly subjectivist, with some similarities to Anglo-Saxon social sci-ences, or also formalistic, which counts on the one hand for psychoanalysis, on theother hand for the Austrian School of National Economics of Josef Schumpeter (I14). There might exist “some different mosaics, but not in the sense of a grandtheory, like in German philosophy” (I 14).

In Slovenia, the dominant theoretical paradigms between the two World Warswere Catholic sociology as well as its Marxist counterpart. On the one hand oneshould mention Aleš Useničnik, on the other hand the main counter-current EdvardKardelj, “who was later then possibly the closest political associate a few yearsbefore Tito” (I 15). At Yugoslav times there has been social formalism (Ludwigvon Wiese) present in Belgrade and Emile Durkheim’s sociology too (I 15). Soci-ology as profession has been “imposed by the communists, when they decided thatYugoslavia should be different from the Soviet model, they decided that historicalmaterialism would not do and Marxist sociology would be the right thing” (I 15).Beside this, sociological scholars identified no particular theoretical approachesdeveloped in Slovenia, but rather an eclecticism in theory generation and concep-tual thinking (I 6).

Slovene sociologists have emphasized (Bernik/Roncevic 2001) that after the endof the dominating Marxist paradigm, Niklas Luhmann’s System Theory in someaspects has found advantageous conditions to be broadly absorbed within Slove-nian sociology. This was promoted by the fact of numerous translations of Luh-mann’s works available since the 1980 s in professional journals, as well as by someinherent characteristics of System Theory similar to Marxist Theory, like its for-malism and macro-sociological knowledge claims. Regarding the abandoning ofutopian elements of thinking as characteristic for the current sociological zeit-geist, Luhmann’s anti-utopian approach quite neatly fits in this trend. However,this view of a broad influence of Luhmann’s theory could not fully be confirmed

104

by sociologists themselves arguing that currently “it is not possible to say thatLuhmann’s theory has any important influence in Slovenia” (I 6).

The eclecticism or the multi-paradigmatic situation of theoretical sociology bothin Austria and in Slovenia seems to be a result of the general enhanced profession-alism of the discipline where utopian elements of a teleological historical perspec-tive have clearly been abandoned. However, as far as sociology still claims to reflectthe totality of its society and as far as it therefore realizes an important interpretationand orientation function for society at large, it will not give up its genuine interestin broad theories with explanative power, conceptual sensitivity and deepened re-flexive scope: “From its very beginning sociology has linked itself to models oftotality from the history of philosophy and socio-technical promises. Knowledgeand insights were thought as directly linked with feasibility, control and new orderof society. If nowadays the scientific euphoria of positivism and Marxism does notencounter much understanding, because they are based on a drug which has de-creased in its effectiveness more and more, we shall keep conscious to the deepirony of the idea that with the passage of teleological models of history and thedischarge of the idea of being able to eliminate non-intended consequences of ac-tion, sociology now would have reached its scientific phase, at last. …On the onehand, this holistic asceticism can be interpreted as an expression of a new re-spectability, which should not be left due to the limits of science. On the other hand,an abstinence can also be interpreted as failure of sociology, as a kind of shy awayfrom the important questions of our time” (Mozetič 2001: 213 p., transl. added).

Struggling with Hybrid Institutions: The Rise of Entrepreneurial Science inthe Institutional Landscape

Within the last decade, the role and status of universities as classic institutions ofknowledge production have significantly been subject to change all over Europe.This concerns not only the evolvement of a new mode of knowledge productionand universities’ relations to other sectors such as the public-administrative systemand private industries. An increasing capitalization of knowledge itself has led to“academic capitalism” of “entrepreneurial” universities (Slaughter/Leslie 1997;Etzkowitz 2002; Viale/Etzkowitz 2010; Münch 2011), as it might also be intendedand enforced by European Union’s science policy. It seems plausible to suggestthat this development generally might not be restricted to a particular disciplinarycontext. Rather we can assume that the concrete dynamics of capitalization and therise of entrepreneurial universities very much differ due to their embedding in aspecific landscape of competing knowledge producing institutions in the respectivenation states and beyond. In the following we will investigate the hypothesis that

2.3.3

105

this increasing competition of knowledge producing institutions can convincinglybe linked to the Europeanization of the discipline. This might be most relevant inthe question how different institutions such as public and private universities andresearch institutes outside university, react against and deal with EU science pol-icies and research funds. At the same time it might be plausible to assume that theseinstitutional dynamics of Europeanization, and actors’ strategies to deal with it,manifest themselves differently, depending on the very institutional landscape giv-en in the respective national and regional context.

In describing the sample of departments investigated we have mentioned that inSlovenia, sociology is very well institutionalized at universities, in terms of aca-demic positions, when compared to the rather small size of the country. In contrastto that, in Austria much more applied sociology is undertaken in rather small re-search institutes outside university, while, seen from an Austrian standpoint, theSlovene sector of research outside university is rather low. One of the first privateinstitutions was the Peace Institute in Ljubljana, funded with the support of theGeorge Soros Foundation in the 1980 s. Recently, new institutions for research andteaching emerge like entrepreneurial universities in Nova Gorica and in Koper,which all change the academic landscape enormously. Currently there is perceivedmuch competition among diverse institutions of teaching and research in Slovenesociology. “New institutions spring up like mushrooms over night”, argued onesociologist (I 5), referring to the massive growth of smaller institutions outsideuniversity in the last years. However, it has been critically observed that this insti-tutional growth is seldom accompanied by enough resources to build up an adequateinfrastructure (I 5). Within the academic community, as represented by the olduniversity faculties in Ljubljana and Maribor, this development causes some con-flicts and different opinions. In fact, the state is said to be dividing public resourceswhich have been dedicated to the old public universities before, also to the youngerones, so that competition for public funds is enforced (I 5). Universities are eitherpublic, or, in case of the new organizations, explicitly private ones, albeit equippedwith public funds. For this reason it is plausible that one Slovene sociologist hascharacterized them as “hybrid institutions” (I 11), coining an in-vivo code that wewill borrow in the following account when characterizing the new relationship anddynamics underlying the competition and collaboration of different institutionalactors in the landscape.

Some sociologists appreciate the existence of smaller hybrid institutes as en-abling more competition by privatization, decentralization and regionalization ofuniversities. Others warn that there are no evaluation procedures available for as-sessing this institutional development, causing anxieties because of a massive lossof scientific quality and excellence by hybrid institutions; besides, in 2008 therehas still been lacking an evaluation committee at national level enacted (I 5). In

106

addition, public universities fear that hybrid institutions might attract many youngpeople to study there, irrespective of study fees required at private institutions, andthat public universities might face problems to gain enough students (I 6, I 11). Thesame applies to departments of the social sciences: “It is quite easy to establish adepartment of social sciences, it does not cost a lot, because of the infrastructure.So competition is getting stronger and stronger” (I 6). Some scholars even formulatethat these new institutions, apart from the two established ones, build “a third centrefor sociology in Slovenia” (I 10 a).

This fact of arising new institutions for teaching and research in sociology isalso closely linked to political debates within Slovenia, which might be only in partunderstandable for researchers coming from outside. The confirmed privatizationof universities has been enforced by the former conservative government (2004 till2008) and some political reasons behind that have to do with “older elites – newelites and so, communist elites – tradition elites, new elites – spring people – oldtime people” (I 11). In 2008 the conservative Ministry of Higher Education andResearch has been said to actually reduce the amount of students having the chanceof being enrolled at the FDV. As one scholar argued, there might be some rationalargument for saying that not too much students shall study sociology, when on thelabour market, for instance, more biologists are needed (I 5). However, he alsounderlined the, from a scientific standpoint, clearly irrational, political motivationof arguments, in the sense that the national conservative government is not pleasedto promote its potential leftist critics at university (I 5). Nevertheless, there are stillthree to five times more people interested in studying sociology at Ljubljana Uni-versity, than can actually enrol, so that the numerus clausus system among potentialstudents of sociology is applied (I 6). A similar institutional procedure regulatingcompetition among sociological scholars is active too, a so-called “concurrenceclause” between universities. Two younger sociologists, who just finished theirPhD and were entering slowly the FDV as teaching docents before, were fired fromLjubljana University because they had to decide not to split teaching loads at thisfaculty with that at the younger Nova Gorica University (I 11). As one Slovenesociologist observed, especially in the beginning phase of these emerging smallregional universities, many migrated to these institutions because of honorariawork, which has been broken now due to this new legislation of Ljubljana Uni-versity (I 11).

What about a comparable situation for universities in Austria? In fact, they arecompeting in some terms with the so-called Universities of Applied Sciences(Fachhochschulen), but apparently not so much than in Slovenia. This is indicatedby several reports on their respective relationship (Prisching 2001, 2005; Prischinget al. 2001 a), but also by some own experiential data regarding the social conditionsfor their research and teaching activities gained between 2005 and 2010. Univer-

107

sities of applied sciences have been established due to a legal regulation in 1993,since the midst of the 1990 s in Austria. One condition for its institutionalization isthe required proof that their need and acceptance is in no competition with othereducational institutions like public universities in the respective regions. Further-more, universities of applied sciences are subject to a permanent control by a na-tional council (Fachhochschulrat). In financial terms, they are privately fundedmore or less by the Federal Provinces of the Austrian state and have emerged outof co-operation with industries, specifically within the technical sector. In this senseit is more or less adequate to speak rather of fully private institutions and not somuch of “hybrid” ones as they were characterized in the institutional landscape inSlovenia.

Regarding the number of students, public universities have about ten times morestudents, but only about three times more graduates than the private ones(Prisching 2001 b: 165), since the drop out rates are lower at the latter. Universitiesof applied sciences restrict students’ access by several application and evaluationtests, and since only about 25 students per academic year are allowed to enrol in acurriculum, the proportion between teachers and students is much better than atpublic universities. In subject terms, the study curricula are oriented towards prac-tical tasks of the respective professions and not so much towards a disciplinarilyoriented stock of knowledge. In terms of the labour market, they are regarded aseducational institutions for specialized practitioners, while public universities areseen as educating generalists often seen as more competent for leading positionstoo. Concerning sociology, up till now there is no opportunity for offering sociologycurricula at universities of applied sciences, but related professions like socialworkers and social managers are educated in some fields like empirical researchmethods and social theory. Moreover, it is observed that public universities andprivate universities of applied sciences apparently attract different types of studentsfor a study, more or less oriented towards a quite practice-oriented quick studycurriculum or a longer curriculum in fields rather oriented towards disciplinaryknowledge. Private universities guarantee their students a quicker study of Bach-elor and Master curricula, and in contrast to universities also part-times studies areoffered. Universities of applied sciences are mostly oriented towards teaching withoften high teaching loads of its staff (about 16 to 18 hours per week) which prac-tically hinders research activities. Since there is no basic funding of research atthese institutions, research activities almost entirely depend on the acquisition oftertiary party funds – an institutional condition for research that is quite similar tothat of non-academic research institutes. Not to forget that university staff oftenexperiences more intellectual and organizational freedom than their colleagues atprivate universities of applied sciences, where there are strict obligations for re-

108

porting about every hour of their research and teaching activities (Prisching 2001:161).

The prevailing practice- and teaching-orientation of the universities of appliedsciences might contribute to the fact that public universities usually do not reallyperceive them as serious competitors for public research funds or in offering sci-entific excellence to a broad public interested in scientific products. As we will seein subsequent chapters too, public universities’ strong orientation towards and self-presentation as true holders of “pure science” and of corresponding intellectualfreedom and scientific excellence, contribute also to their practices of distinction(Bourdieu 1979). This seems to be the case not only in relation to universities ofapplied sciences, but also to research institutes outside academia with enactingmore or less semi-professional “applied research”.

One form of institutionalization of sociology outside university, which is spe-cific for Slovenia, is its institutional anchoring as a teaching subject at secondaryschools. It has been introduced in the 1960 s, perceived as part of a political edu-cation of pupils (I 6). Times have changed, of course, however, this institutional-ization can be interpreted as a continuing expression of sociology’s high publicrecognition within the educational system at large. Although the amount of lessonsin sociology allows pupils to get to know sociology within only one year, there areseveral of them choosing sociology as an optional subject in their high school ex-aminations: Out of 10.000 pupils finishing secondary school in Slovenia per year,about 1.900 choose sociology as a subject for their last high school exam, compa-rable to the number of students choosing psychology (I 3). On the one hand, it isappreciated that pupils at secondary school learn something about their society,enabling them to acquire basic knowledge usable for a variety of social scientificstudies (I 3). On the other hand, it is criticized that this institutionalization atschools may restrict the professional status of the discipline (I 6). The well-knownrecruitment argument of sociologists complaining about the perceived tendencythat “bright students, original thinkers and innovative persons” are not really at-tracted to choose sociology as their favourite study subject (Mozetič 2001: 217) isapplied in this case too. Introducing sociology as a teaching subject might also beperceived as disadvantageous for sociology as a discipline, as one scholar argues,“because you can create that image that sociology is just talking” (I 6), so youngpeople might decide for sociology by strategic reasons not to work hard.

Since decades, the education of sociologists for high schools is a specialty ofthe Department of Sociology in Maribor. Partially this might also explain the hugeamount of Slovene sociological textbooks as well as a broad research interest inthe sociology of education. Furthermore, this two-fold institutionalization of soci-ology both at universities and at schools allows sociologists in some cases to switch,even after a longer period, as ten years of working as a high school teacher then to

109

come to the university again and start an academic career there. This was the casefor two persons interviewed, and it might reflect the feminization of the professionof being a secondary school teacher in sociology, that both of them were women.For the purpose of this book, unfortunately it remains an open, albeit interestingquestion, which kind of sociology is being taught at Slovene high schools, while adeeper analysis of sociological textbooks in Slovenia might provide for some re-sults regarding this.

Do particular institutional conditions support or hinder peculiar cognitive strate-gies of sociologists in dealing with the assumed Europeanization of science? Theprovisional hypothesis is that both actors’ general attitude towards an assumedEuropeanization of science and the specificities of their cognitive strategies to dealwith Europeanization are dependent on the institutional conditions of their researchenvironments and therefore systematically differ between staff of universities andof research institutes outside university. To investigate this assumption, in the fol-lowing we will compare accounts of sociologists that are appointed to universitywith the accounts of those working at research institutes outside universities.

We first take a look at some research institutes outside academia. Since the1970 s and as a heritage of a former relatively close link to political institutions, inAustria there exists research outside university specialized for contractual re-search with a strong service orientation, as the IHS in Vienna or the IFZ and IFFin Graz respectively Klagenfurt. On the other hand, in our sample we have seenthat the institutionalization of sociology at universities is not as strong as in Slove-nia, when measured against actual academic positions.

First, we can distinguish and characterize research institutes inside and outsideuniversity due to their institutional conditions18 as, for instance, a) the fundingstructure, as more or less dependency on tertiary party funds or public subsidies;b) their particular institutional tasks, as mainly research or teaching too, c) theprevalent mode of knowledge production, as evolving around more or less trans-disciplinary, heterogeneous, and problem-orientated research topics, or orientatedtowards a rather homogeneous disciplinary stock of knowledge, and d) the orga-nizational form and structure of research, as organized around certain researchprojects and research groups, or research not structured in form of research projectsand done by individual researchers. Second, we will deal with different cognitivestrategies of these institutions’ scientific staff, for instance, a) in conceptualizingorganizational change at universities, research institutes and the institutional land-scape at large, b) their self-conceptions (Weingart 1998) and practices of distinction(Bourdieu 1979) against each other, and, c) the question of potentially divergentaction-orienting norms and values of research, as partially visible in a reported

18 For these institutional divergences of universities and research institutes in social conditionsof research and cognitive strategies of researchers see also Table 6.

110

ambivalence (Merton 1996) of sociologists in relation to the reward system of aca-demic science and the reputation of EU financed research. Subsequently we willsee that these systematic differences in the institutional conditions do also con-tribute to divergent “repertoires of evaluation” (Lamont/Thévenot 2000) and todivergent cognitive strategies of its research staff when talking about research andwhen assessing a possible impact of Europeanization of one’s research as well.

Regarding institutional conditions of research, and particularly its funding, atresearch institutions outside university, the proportion of third party funds is veryhigh. The IFZ Graz it is about five times more financed by third-party researchfunds than by university resources (I 2). These financial preconditions do not onlyinfluence the organizational structure of research in form of research projects donein research groups; they also affect the way of self-conceptions and practices ofdistinction against others within the institutional landscape. Those researchers’ ac-counts of their own research environments are clearly presented as the more pro-gressive and innovative ones, and it is emphasized that institutes outside universityhave promoted a clear orientation towards third party funds as a long-term per-spective much earlier and stronger than the university (I 2). Actually “en-trepreneurial” universities are seen as following the market oriented research out-side university, in the sense that research topics are more externally determinedand universities more and more are dependent on tertiary party funds as reportedin their so-called intellectual capital reports (Wissensbilanzen). Given these chang-ing organizational and institutional conditions for universities, it has been stressedthat nowadays it is not so much of importance whether departments are locatedinside or outside university, because the university system itself changes veryquickly (I 2). In former times researchers attempted to develop abstract general-izations which were applied to all concrete problems. Nowadays one recognizesthat problems have to be solved out of the very specific situation itself, in a problem-centred and interdisciplinary way: “The old academic sciences were rather self-contained or self-centred and progressed in disciplinary ways, nowadays there ex-ists post-academic science or ‘mode 2 science’, which enfolds as a rather problem-oriented one” (I 19).

However, one clear disadvantage of research outside university reported is itsshort-termism: Its personnel resources are rather employed towards singularprojects in short-term working contracts. One possibility to prevent these disad-vantages of economically precarious work is seen in the solidarity of the researchteam, where it attempts to employ researchers with long-term working contracts (I2). In addition, research staff at non-academic research institutes is often educatedin more than one subject: There are employed technical engineers with a post-graduate study in sociology, or a linguist having studied ecology too, or a chemicalengineer educated in philosophy (I 2). However, inter-disciplinary research has

111

also some disadvantages for inter-disciplinarily oriented researchers, for it is stillnecessary to write a dissertation thesis oriented towards one’s specific disciplineand not to particular problem-fields. As Austrian researcher Helga Nowotny oncehas argued: “Society has problems, and universities have faculties”, and in someterms this conflict-laden relationship cannot be neglected (I 19).

Regarding self-conceptions, Austrian research institutes outside university rep-resent themselves as “strong players within the European Union” in trying to es-tablish themselves as institutions with a “bridge function” between East and West(I 2). The growing need and demand for organizing contacts and communicationamong scientists from several European countries is perceived as a factor leadingto innovative institutional practices of bringing researchers together at conferencesor in common projects (I 2). It is an interesting question, whether the backgroundknowledge of research within the field of science and technology studies (STS)might also enrich researchers with a basic knowledge of practical co-operativeexperiences to localize oneself as these successful players within the EuropeanCommunity. As one sociologist has suggested, maybe STS scholars are betterequipped for critical thinking regarding the actual science policy within one’scountry (I 5). Others reported that some interest in EU practices is favourable fordealing with the EU “business”, for instance, in the competition for researchfunds (I 20). Anyway, within the field of science and technology studies, there isa lively research outside university, however, parallel with a growing institution-alization of this orientation taking place at some universities in Austria too, specif-ically in Vienna (I 2).

Concerning cognitive tasks, one of the advantages of research outside universityis that it can react with more flexibility to social change in its topics, projects andinterests of research, for it is clearly more oriented towards the market of researchprojects and is closer in its linkage to societal problems (I 2). Research undertakenat institutes outside university is usually much more practice-oriented and “ap-plied”, and project teams often collaborate with social groups in the region. In somerespect, this type of research is clearly linked to the European Union as in theorientation towards regionalization. The latter can be depicted as a dialectical de-velopment resulting from Europeanization: “This is actually the contradictious re-lationship to the EU. On the one hand, everything becomes bigger, more central-ized, more unclear, but on the other hand this has the effect that old regions becomeenforced, for one cannot identify with Brussels, which is rather depicted as athreatening or abstract entity. Therefore these older regions as the Alps-AdriaticRegion in a trans-national way increase in importance. People of course have toincorporate themselves into some entity, bodily as well as mentally, which is notpossibly provided by abstract political units. There I notice a progress from the

112

nation state to the region which on the other hand becomes stronger and morerecognized by the people themselves” (I 19).

Some of these restrictive as well as enabling circumstances can also be identifiedwithin the well-known research institute in Ljubljana, the Peace Institute. One ofthe main differences between university and research outside university is seen inthe divergent institutional tasks or foci of basic work, which is also teaching atuniversity and solely research at institutes outside university. However, scholarsdiscussed the idea of combining both teaching and research, “how to circle for theinstitute to the university and back: So I could teach five years at university, butafterwards I would need a year for my own research and I would be based at theinstitute. And somebody else could come from the institute to teach that year insteadof me. So we could circle around, we would all benefit from that, I think. Becauseif you only teach and do not have time for basic research or kind of empiricalresearch, from which you can get data and put it into theory, you can find yourselfin a kind of empty space, just to repeat yourself all the time” (I 16). However, thisidea did not get an approval from several people: On the one hand, university staffthought of themselves to be the only one to be able to teach specific subjects, andon the other hand, for the institute staff there already has been enough competitionbetween those institutions and universities (I 16).

Regarding organizational conditions, there is experienced not so much pressureat the institute as at the university, and there is sometimes also more support andinfrastructure to do research, attending conferences, going abroad, and having spe-cial teams for project applications. At the university, however, one’s basic job isto teach, “research is something extra, and you have to do that more or less on yourown to do the job” (I 16). The sociologist interviewed here clearly reflects some ofthe characteristic differences in the world of university and the world of non-aca-demic research institutes as once characterized by Hans-Georg Zilian: While atuniversities there still exist prevailing old hierarchies and merely feudal thinkingamong its staff who often can afford to focus on research only at weekend andholidays, the logic of institutes outside universities seems to be rather due to themarket-oriented calculus of contractual research (Zilian 2000).

The growing competition for scarce financial resources and public appreciation,among universities and research institutes as well, presents itself as a rather newphenomenon in Slovenia, producing anger and anxiety among its communitymembers. This seems quite plausible, since this conflict-riddled situation appar-ently is determined by political decision-makers too rather due to political affilia-tions instead of criteria of scientific rationality. Like other sciences, in Austriasociology is subject to massive budget reductions after a broad university reformin 2002, there is a growing pressure of economization, of intellectual capital re-ports, and evaluation of research performance and research output. In some way,

113

research institutes outside university might have some advantages, because theyare more dependent on contractual research projects as this is also promoted byEuropean Research Framework Programmes. Besides, their personnel is often bet-ter equipped for the time-consuming tasks of writing and submitting research ap-plications, in terms of institutional support and cognitive abilities to write proposalsas well. Mobility and exchange of research staff seem to be handled with less bu-reaucratic hindrances and maybe also better opportunities for social mobility andgetting into contact with other researchers than it is the case for university staff.Since the university reform in 2002, at least in Austria there have been massivereductions of financial support for researchers who want to travel abroad for at-tending scientific meetings and conferences.

Articulating A Particularly Strong Voice: Sociology Within the Concert ofthe Disciplines

In times of restricted financial resources, both by public subsidies and third partyfunds, there are enforced competition and conflicts not only among universities,older and newer ones, as well as among diverse research institutes, but also amongscientific disciplines. What is at stake then is the position and the power of soci-ology in the “concert of the disciplines” (Meleghy et al. 1997). When we subse-quently sketch suggestions given by sociologists in this regard, we shall first of allclarify what is meant by “interdisciplinarity”: In following Michaud (Michaud1972), Neil Smelser (Smelser 2004) once has suggested that this term basicallycharacterizes the interaction among two or more different disciplines, which mayrange from simple communication of ideas to the mutual integration of organizingconcepts, methodology, terminology, data, and so on (Smelser 2004: 53). He un-derlines that we are used to perceive disciplines as entities due to their universityorganization, training, career patterns, discipline-based professional associations,organs of publishing and funding, so to say, due to their social structure. But whenwe take the internal differentiation and fragmented intellectual representations ofdisciplines into account, the image gets much more messy. However, interdisci-plinarity too has an institutional as well as a cognitive component.

As already outlined before, in a theoretically and historically informed perspec-tive, Andrew Abbott has suggested the development of sociology within an inter-action field of competition related to other disciplines as follows (Abbott 2001).On the cognitive level, Abbott argues, it is possible to identify “fractal distinc-tions” and “fractal circles” in a common flux of growing and changing knowledgewithin the sociological discipline. Every twenty to thirty years this is evolving ina change of a paradigm as life-cycle, what Abbott has called “settlements, … the

2.3.4

114

link between a discipline and what it knows” (Abbott 2001: 136). Abbott docu-ments these cognitive shifts in the relationship of history and sociology as scientificdisciplines, but also in the development of such sociological paradigms like con-structionism and Labeling Theory. However, on the level of social structure, Ab-bott indicates the prevalence of academic disciplines because of, first, the relativestability of the academic labour market organized around disciplines. Second, heunderlines that “there are far more research problems than there are disciplines –so many, in fact, that a university organized around problems of investigation wouldbe hopelessly balkanized” (Abbott 2001: 135). Therefore, Abbott argues, interdis-ciplinarity and problem-centred research might evolve at cognitive level, however,are not successful on an institutionalized and structural one (Abbott 2001). Withthese rather short notes on the relationship of disciplines in mind, we will nowdescribe step by step the views of sociologists on their own discipline, in the lightof public discourse as well as in the relationship to other disciplines.

The current presence of sociology in Austria is in-extricably linked to the emer-gence of social-democratic politics in Austria during the 1970 s. In the late 1960 sand beginning 1970 s “it was impossible for politicians not to mention or even citesociological insights as part of their public speeches” (I 9), and notably even literaryartists did so, as the famous Austrian writer Thomas Bernhard. However, nowadaysthis public recognition of sociology has vanished, writers are probably more presentin the media than social scientists and often seem to have a rather higher publicacceptance and recognition in dealing with problems and topics of broad publicinterest.19 In terms of institutional anchoring, the decline of sociology at universi-ties began in the 1980 s; since then, the institutionalization of sociology at Austrianuniversities is “in a long-lasting phase of stagnation” (I 9), maybe even a reduction,and this development is similar to that in other countries of the European Union.This stated stagnation of universities is explained by the overall tendencies towardsculturalism and economization within society at large, a fact that we will turn tolater on in more detail. An effect of that development might be the emergence ofso-called “crypto sociologists” (I 9) educated as sociologists, but give their actualnon-sociological position and not their education as sociologists when asked abouttheir profession. This cryptic existence might also reflect sociology’s position andpublic recognition within European higher eduation policy and the ambivalentstruggle and hierarchy among the disciplines. So it could be observed that personswho teach sociology at the Austrian Pedagogical Colleges educating primary andsecondary school teachers may be interested in calling themselves sociologists,although they are not specifically trained in sociology but rather in pedagogy (I 9).

19 In this respect it would be interesting to compare the relationship between sociology andliterature in the two countries, since there are sociologists who publish literary texts in Slove-nia too, like Aleš Debeljak.

115

Also Slovene sociologists do notice the rather decreasing public appreciation oftheir discipline: “Slovene sociologists have always a problem with professionaliz-ing, in the sense that they do not gain a high acceptance in society at large, and theyhave not gained an identity from outside” (I 5). Furthermore this might also beindicated by the fact that sociological associations and conferences are being per-ceived as rather absent in the media, at least less present than jurisprudence andeconomics (I 5).

That low public recognition of sociology specifically in relation to society atlarge can be found rather in the same manner when asked about the status of soci-ology in relation to the natural sciences. Beside this, the orientation towards “hard”sciences is said to be rather strong in Slovenia, in the sense of publications countedby the SSCI or the application of evaluation criteria modified by people educatedin the hard sciences. However, the same measurement of sociology as those sci-ences is seen as quite inadequate, for publishing a book in the social sciences isstill regarded as important, beside publications in scientific journals (I 5). In Aus-tria the way sociology is taught at the universities of Graz and Klagenfurt is moreoriented towards the humanities (Graz) and educational studies (Klagenfurt). How-ever, both departments have experienced a slow shift towards the economic sci-ences, as visible in their localization within the faculty of economics, and partiallyin changing curricula by emphasizing economic subjects. Moreover, in the opinionof one Austrian sociologist, Austrian linguistics are more important because ofexisting multilingualism and language minorities within the country (I 1). Regard-ing research on European integration, there are also many political scientists active,who are relatively strong within the social sciences in Austria at large. However,this does not so much motivate sociologists to publish with them (I 1). It might bethe case, as one scholar estimated, that within the social sciences in Slovenia po-litical sciences are not so strong, when compared to research in sociology, than inAustria (I 1). However, this assumption could not be verified. Indeed, in Sloveniathere is a rather close relationship of sociology to political sciences, but also tojournalism to be observed, which results from a history of sociology as being in-stitutionalized at the same faculty as in former times that for political sciences andjournalism (FDV). Clearly, within the heterogeneous field of the social sciencesSlovenian sociology is characterized by a strong research orientation (I 6) alsovisible in the huge amount of professorships and research positions at various re-search centres specifically at the FDV. Furthermore, as indicated not only by resultsfrom bibliometric analysis of two sociological journals (Hönig 2008), but also inthe context of the interviews, in Slovenia there exists a rather strong political so-ciology, as a kind of bridge between sociological and political thinking (I 17). Asmentioned above, it is plausible to assume that sociologists were much more in-volved in actual political change of their society than Austrian ones.

116

A Paradox of Weakness: Internal Cohesion Versus Internationalization ofSmall Scientific Communities

Which factors do influence the forms of scientific co-operation and interaction, theintertwinement and density of an institutional landscape of knowledge producinginstitutions within a given nation state and beyond? Does the mere size of a givenscientific community have an effect on the amount and impact of its internal andexternal relations, namely trans-national co-operations with researchers abroad? Ifyes, in which way? Since decades do sociologists of science undertake research onfactors possibly causing existing cross-national differences and similarities in theproduction, diffusion and expansion of knowledge within a country or beyond inan international scientific community (Crane1972; Luukkonen et al. 1992;Schofer 2004). Recall that in the context of this study we investigate two cases ofrather small- or medium-sized countries respectively scientific communities; itmight be interesting in which way sociologists take account of this fact when ex-plicitly asked about Europeanization’s impact on their discipline respectively sci-entific communities.

In empirically investigating opportunities of institutional actors in an explicitlyEuropean framework of science policy, and critically assessing Fritz Scharpf’stheorem of the joint-decision trap within particular political-administrative systems(Scharpf 1988), political scientist Edgar Grande (Grande 1996) once has charac-terized interactions of science relevant actors such as private industries and publicadministration, as a “paradox of weakness”: The paradox refers to the assumptionthat the decreasing capacities and autonomy of actors influencing public policywithin a state, as result of more dense decision processes by intertwined institutions,can simultaneously be accompanied by their increasing autonomy in relation totheir societal environment (Grande 1996: 388 f.). He identifies this paradox notonly in the position of private industries in processes of negotiating decisions, butalso in conditions of access to public decisions; in this sense, he emphasizes, in-ternal weakness can be accompanied by external strength (ibid.). Due to Grande,Europeanization of science policy has not only shifted the political decision makingprocesses from national to European level, it has also changed the logics of influ-ence between public and private actors (Grande 1996: 392).

Here we refer to this paradox of the nation state as a metaphor or analogy ap-plicable to the field of science policy as well, adapting it to the situation of sociologyin small nation states respectively scientific communities where it seems to beparticularly applicable. Our hypothesis is that both countries, as small (Slovenia)or medium-sized (Austria) national societies and scientific communities as well,are forced to a rather strong outward-orientation and internationalization of theirresearchers. Moreover, it is suggested that in case of Slovenia this might be even

2.3.5

117

stronger because of the smaller language community. However, as strongly indi-cated by several interviews there is another massive pressure for internationaliza-tion at least within the Slovene community, because publishing abroad is inevitablynecessary for going ahead in one’s academic career in promotion and postdoctorallecturing qualification procedures.

In the perceptions of several sociologists, sociology in both countries is ratherstrongly internationally oriented. One reason given is that the relatively small sci-entific community at a national level forces researchers to actively seek for co-operations on an European level, which might be also found in the ESA. This issaid to distinguish Austrian sociologists from their German neighbours where arather huge sociological community exists (I 1). The same internationalization ori-entation was also stated for Slovenia, with clearly appreciating the presence of high-quality research and researchers at an international level, numerous internationalconferences taking place in Slovenia, supporting a comparison between Slovenesociology and Scandinavian sociologists. This probably is due to the socialistbackground of both Slovenia and some of the Scandinavian countries (I 1). “Whenyou are smaller you have to be more globalized in a sense, because you are muchmore exposed to foreign influences. …In a sense it is a privilege, if you are small,then you have to be highly open” (I 6). How does internationalization of researchaffect the content of knowledge products? Specifically when one undertakes re-search in a highly specialized area, it is argued, the need for internationalization isenormous mostly visible in publication strategies (I 6).

Apart from stronger structural pressures and opportunities for international ori-entation, most sociologists emphasized the disadvantages of being member of arather small research community. These were referred to as less movement, flexi-bility and change of institutions, less competition of knowledge producing institu-tions because of a small national community, too much closeness, stronger nepo-tism and clientelism (I 5). This situation by a Slovene sociologist is seen in contrastto Austrian sociology, where Austrians have to compete with Germans for univer-sity positions, if they do (I 5).

Indeed, there seems to exist a kind of dialectical relationship of internationalorientation and internal social cohesion in the national community: “A small com-munity is not highly integrated at home just because there is not much discussionamong colleagues” of national scope (I 6). Sociologists from both states report thatprocess from a rather strong internal cohesion towards more internationalizationof the sociological community and relate to examples of the ÖGS and SSD con-ferences. A strong international orientation seems to negatively affect the internalsocial cohesion, indicated in the decreasing resonance of annual conferences ofboth communities’ sociological associations. As one Slovene sociologist told, informer times the internal cohesion as well as the external perceptions of sociology

118

were much stronger: “We had an important feeling that we do something important,the meetings of Slovenian sociologists were well attended, there were all a lot ofjournalists there. If you now organize a meeting of sociologists there are only fewsociologists coming and no journalists” (I 6). It was suggested that nowadays so-ciologists care more about international contacts than about contacts at home; asone of the effects the SSD is in trouble as well as the public visibility and resonanceof sociology is decreasing too (I 6). His Austrian colleague reports a similar processof decreasing internal cohesion. In his estimation of Austrian sociology, one of themost impressive examples has been the annual conference of the Austrian Socio-logical Association ÖGS taking place 1986 in Graz entitled “Societies at Borders”,gaining a lot of international resonance. „1986 there was also the figure of Wald-heim (the former president of Austria, heavily discussed in public because of state-ments referring to his biography as a soldier during World War II, note), but fouryears later communism was gone. At the sociological conference one felt, but noone knew what was coming. …Female Soviets have spoken to audience, very in-telligent people, who held flaming speeches, … very skilled, very self-confident. ...There was a new constellation of speakers which never happened afterwards again”(I 14). With more and more internationalization the internal social cohesion becamelower and lower, increased offers in international meetings made the Austrian So-ciological Association’s meetings more or less superfluous. However, it was in-sisted that Austrian sociology would have to internationalize itself to counteractthis trend of lower internal cohesion. “I feel that national discourse is not so intenseor dense than before” (I 14). Austrian sociology was at this time much more ab-sorbing, there were positions, contacts between younger sociologists and olderprofessors, sometimes rational relationships, sometimes nepotistic ones; this haschanged and other sorts of relations are necessary, for today having been employedin foreign countries is essential for going on in a scientific career (I 14). Still anopen question is, whether the EU accessions decrease the national link betweensociologists and politics, as sociologists’ potential employers in public and admin-istrative structures. Access to this data seems to be rather complicated.

Regarding language as one of the most important factors for successful scientificcommunication, there are seen both pros and cons of boosting English as linguafranca of the scientific community, by offering English lectures and seminars atuniversity. Some Slovene researchers are willing to “simply accept the fact thatnowadays you have to read books in English, because you depend on Englishbooks” and not on German or Spanish ones (I 6). This is also clear because thereare not many translations of sociological books available in Slovene, so the FDVfaculty in its policy is very much oriented towards the US and the UK. Furthermore,the choice of language also reflects a specific relation to the natural sciences, forscholars in the hard sciences usually publish exclusively in English. In this respect,

119

regarding the language of communication, Austrian sociology might be moreemancipated from them. However, in Slovenian sociology it is in part criticised asstrong orientation of sociology towards a naturalistic model of scientific produc-tivity (I 5). One of the cons of boosting English in scientific discourse, in the wordsof an Austrian sociologist, might be that sociologists still have the responsibilityto communicate its results to the members of its own society (I 1). In a similar way,it was mentioned that sociology as social scientific discipline and its descriptiveand explanative power as well are essentially rooted in the ordinary language ofeveryday social life: It would therefore be inherently problematic to give up orunderestimate the importance of one’s own language community, by the risk todistance oneself from the very roots of one’s science (I 11).

Science, Civil Society, and Politics: Sociologists’ Contribution to SocialChange

The hypothesis is that in both countries sociology as a scientific discipline has aspecific – however different ‑ relationship to politics, in its historical backgroundas well as in the current institutionalization, whereas it might be possible that thisinfluence of internal state politics decreased in the last decades in favour of a moreEuropean policy.

When asked about the contribution of sociologists to democratic developmentand independence of their society, Slovene scholars told a broad variety of publicactivities, starting even in the 1980 s as a “good time for intellectuals” (I 6). AfterJozip Broz Tito’s death in the early 1980 s and since about 1985 a change withinthe communist party system was on the agenda too, the communist party has beenpractically gone (I 5). In these times dissidents founded the well-known and quiteinfluential journal Nova revija, wherein the social movement and its intellectualstoo were provided with a scientific communication organ. At the Faculty for SocialSciences in Ljubljana many people found an intellectually stimulating environ-ment, there were organized public meetings by dissidents who were personallyinvolved in the democratization movement. Leading scholars like Tine Hribar,Dimitrij Rupel, and Jože Pučnik were part of a group most important as a stimulusfor political change, they contributed at least indirectly to the political climate inSlovenia (I 5). “Sociology was able to discuss topics which were hot topics andthen sometimes not politically correct topics. In this respect sociology was veryinfluential” (I 6). Political sociology evolved very much within Slovenia, however“everything was so highly politicised at that time, we did not know in fact this timethat we did political sociology” (I 6).

2.3.6

120

In the 1980 s, the concept of civil society introduced by social scientists had amarked influence in public discussion. The language of civil society has been pop-ular in explaining socialist society and its critics too, in the form of an independentsociety and self-organization against the state. Even when sociologists question itssociological meaning as “a too weak concept”, specifically in its activating functionhistorically it was important, “a great invention from the West” to give the orga-nized movement an ideological legitimacy (I 6). Nowadays the ideal of civil societyhas, it is argued, vanished completely, and even in a negative way it refers to “ego-istic groups defending their own narrow interests” (I 6).

In comparison with other Central and East European states, in Slovene societythere took place an “evolutionary change” (I 5). The independence of Slovenia was,in reverse, of course important for doing scientific work. Today there are observedstruggles between different social groups, who have gained influence and meritfrom the 1980 s most (I 5). Controversial issues like the presence and past of theSlovene Republic and traumatic historical situations for different social groups areopen for discussion at the FDV too (I 5). Today there are no “external blockadesand some ideological pressures” for sociologists anymore; what can be observed,however, is a “new individualism of researchers, where it very much depends onindividuals how strong they would care for the discipline” (I 5).

By Austrian sociologists 1968 is seen as a starting point of a broad public’s re-orientation which influenced the rise of sociology in the country.20 After WorldWar II Austrian political parties as well as the university structure was characterizedby the wide integration of old Nazis within their structures (Pelinka/Rosenberger2003: 58). Because of the huge number of former members of the NSDAP amongthe Austrian population, the debate on the NS-regime has for a long time beenrepressed. Only after decades Austrian dealing with its history has been publiclydiscussed due to specific “scandals”, culminating in 1986 in the intense publicdebate regarding the biography of the former Austrian president Kurt Waldheim.The students’ movement of 1968 brought a broader social change from a domi-nating conservative-catholic climate at universities towards “a particular form ofintellectuality, particular intellectual structures” (I 14), as well as a strong orienta-tion towards the Anglo-Saxon world. This was realized in a “sophisticated and alsoconflict-riddled way” (I 14), since the United States were also the focus of cri-tique in the Anti-Vietnam movement (I 14). In discussing the political and socialbackgrounds of the founding of Austrian journal ÖZS, former editors have under-lined the importance of the students’ movement for sociology (Balog/Cyba 2001).

20 In the interviews with some Slovene sociologists the magic of the 1968 students’ movementhas been present too. One scholar has told to have written his diploma thesis about it, anotherone in 2008 has actually prepared a monograph on the students’ movement and its influenceon the university system after four decades (I 15, I 10 a).

121

Before, sociology has only rarely been in the focus of public discussion, only veryfew students were actually studying sociology, and there has been little interest insociology by politicians and the media. However, this situation changed with thetrend towards politicization in sociology, enforced by a strong orientation towardsthe Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School (Balog/Cyba 2001: 7). At theoreticallevel, and as a dispute within the discipline itself, this found an expression in acritique against the traditional theoretical and methodical orientation of sociology,resulting in the Positivismusstreit, the debate between representants of positivismand Critical Theory. This mostly had an influence on the students’ movement, “inimages and claims towards sociology as being primarily ‘political’ and purposefulin the sense of contributing to change ‘society’. This perspective did not only putinto question the practice of sociology and social sciences at universities, but alsohas been an attack against the dominating everyday life in diverse fields and hasfound resonance in public and rhetoric of political debates” (Balog/Cyba 2001: 7,transl. added). By this view the public perception of sociology has been influencedfor a long time. The importance of the Critical School decreased in the 1970 s, whenpoliticized students oriented themselves towards traditional Marxism and orga-nized themselves in “communist groups” (ibid). Furthermore, since sociology hasbeen rather present within public debates, the discipline became of increasing sig-nificance for politicians too, resulting in a “detabooization of topics, to a liberal-ization of political discourse after the Cold War and therefore enabled politicalchange and reforms. In its entirety, this atmosphere has surely contributed to thepolitical success of the social democrats in Germany as well as in Austria” (Ba-log/Cyba 2001: 7, transl. added). This might have supported a situation of slightlydiffering images of sociology as a discipline, which has been coined by an Austriansociologist as follows: “In Slovenia, sociology is taken as an agency for modern-ization. In Austria, sociology has been perceived as politically leftist” (I 14).

Since the early 1970 s till 2000 the social democrats have been part of the Aus-trian government, in the 1970 s for three times as the only governing party, till 1983as part of coalitions, and have enormously shaped the welfare state, universitypolitics, issues of education and research too. The phase of expansion of the highereducation system in Austria from the 1970 s onwards has been clearly influencedby the politics of the social democrats, who sought to reduce inequalities betweensocial classes by promoting access to the universities also for children of farmersand workers. Unfortunately, among students at public universities this goal couldnot be reached in the quantitative amount originally intended, although social strat-ification and class inequalities are less among students at universities of appliedsciences. Since then at least the proportion of women within the tertiary educationalsystem has been steadily increasing too. The Second Republic of Austria has, sinceits very beginning, been a party-dominated state in a sense quite different to parties

122

in other liberal political systems, which had a recruiting function for leading per-sonnel not only within the political structure in the narrower sense, but also forbanks and industries, for the educational system and jurisprudence (Pelinka/Rosen-berger 2003: 61). This is partly explainable due to the tradition in the politicalsocialization of several generations, as well as due to the protectionist system en-abling clientelism in the distribution of professional positions (Pelinka 2003).

However, there has been recognized the decreasing organizational scope of tra-ditional parties and the eroding dominance of the two biggest parties, the socialistsand the conservatives, since the 1980 s: Furthermore, the decreasing influence ofthe welfare state reduced the opportunities for parties to ensure political affiliations(Pelinka/Rosenberger 2003: 62pp.). These processes of the declining role of thestate, also for shaping the institutional conditions of sociology and individual so-ciologists, were somehow accelerated by the EU accession in 1995. In the wordsof an Austrian sociologist, with the EU accession “what Austria consisted of, in-stitutionally, links to ministries, parties, this has been in part abolished” (I 14).However, at the same time there arose other possibilities like participation of so-ciologists in EU projects, international conferences and networks of trans-nationalco-operation (I 14).

From 2000 till 2006 there has been a coalition of the conservatives with the right-wing and populist party FPÖ/BZÖ. Due to this coalition the relationship betweenAustria and other EU member states was seriously damaged. In the official state-ment of the EU presidency in January 2000, four days before the starting of theright-wing coalition, there has been announced, in case of participation of the FPÖ/BZÖ, bilateral measures including no official bilateral contacts at political level,declining diplomatic relations to merely technical affairs, and inhibiting Austriancandidates from professional positions in international organizations (Pelinka/Rosenberger 2003: 96 p.). These measures, which are interpreted as an agreementof governmental chancellors of the EU member states, has been criticised by theconservative right-wing Austrian government as an interference into nationalsovereign rights of Austria (ibid.). In September 2000 these measures were stoppedon the basis of an evaluation report of a three-person “Council of Wise Men” in-vestigating the attitude of the Austrian government towards European values,specifically in granting rights for minorities, refugees and immigrants (ibid.). Re-garding university politics, large university reforms were planned already in the1990 s, however, this process of drastic finance reduction was accelerated as partof the conservative politics by the university reform in 2002; we will deal with thisin later chapters in more detail. Since 2006, renewed in 2008, there exists a coalitionbetween the socialists and the conservatives again.

In general, the relationship of sociology to politics seems to be highly visible inSlovenia, at least in the conversations with sociologists. In talking with Austrian

123

sociologists, this has not been comparably strong, while the reasons for that remainunclear. It can be assumed that political decisions by government and ministries,do have a rather strong influence on the developmental possibilities of a disciplinein any country. This is remarkably reflected by Slovene sociologists, but almosttotally absent in the statements of Austrian sociologists. Maybe it is perceived asan issue of such common thinking that it is not put on the agenda in the context ofan interview between Austrian sociologists and an Austrian student. Maybe it isalso indicating a particularly high political consciousness of sociologists in Slove-nia, as one of the Austrian sociologists interviewed (I1) has suggested.

The young state of Slovenia had, up till now, three periods of governments: First,from 1991 to 1994 there existed a national coalition, where the left parties – formercommunist and socialist organizations – were in opposition. Since 1994 for morethan ten years there was a left-wing government of two parties. 2004, in the yearof the EU accession, again a right-wing national coalition with a similar structurelike in times of independence arose; in these times critical sociologists and tradeunions questioned the proposed social and economic governmental reforms forbeing neo-liberal (I 10 a). From September 2008 till 2012, there again existed asocialist government in Slovenia, while since the beginning of 2012 a right-wingconservative government arose again.

It is important to understand that very soon after the EU accession of Sloveniathere took place a political change in the government too. Current conflicts amongsociologists, in actively supporting or in criticizing governmental politics, are a by-product of this history. However, as suggested above, for foreign people not fa-miliar with Slovene politics it might be difficult to understand all the differentia-tions of the debate. There has evolved a raging conflict among sociologists regard-ing the upswing of new smaller institutions as in Nova Gorica, which have beensupported by the conservative government till 2008. Discussed were specificallythe poor methodological quality of research proposals about a Casino in NovaGorica and the influence of politics on the media, for instance, on the daily news-paper Delo (I 10 a). In 2008, broad discussions among sociologists were publiclyavailable on television. The conservative as the smaller group of sociologists crit-icised the FDV faculty in the sense of a “continuity of old regime”; however, “thisleft side has a long tradition of critical opposition to the previous regime and alsohas a critical orientation to this new Republic of Slovenia” (I 10 a). These conflictshave also their parallels regarding the national financial support of research in thecontext of EU programmes, by the former conservative Ministry of Higher Edu-cation and Research and the board of the Agency of Research as rather right-wingrepresented one, at least in summer 2008 (I 10 a). As several scholars suggested,the conservative Slovene government from 2004 till 2008 seemed not to be verymuch attached to Slovene sociology, but rather were perceived as “relatively, not

124

critically, but nearly rudely averse to the social sciences” (I 18). However, sociol-ogists are said to be used to that because in former times they also have lived andworked through similar experiences. “And in historical development one again andagain encounters those, in reverse, to a confirmation of what already happened andwhat might be happening again in a different framework” (I 18).

One Austrian sociologist (I 1) has perceived a rather strong political conscious-ness of sociologists in Slovenia and furthermore mentions the relatively high num-ber of educated sociologists now working in different fields of politics. This is truefor a former Minister of Foreign Affairs (Dimitrij Rupel) and an ambassador (KatjaBoh). As told by his Slovene colleague, “FDV is enormously indebted to Slovenesociety, for we have donated a huge number of excellent young politicians, threeof our diploma candidates from different areas. The premier minister, who has nogood relation to his faculty, is a diploma candidate from the FDV. The minister forforeign affairs has been a teacher and professor at the faculty” (I 18). As an anecdoteof a political affiliation of a sociologist shows, a national orientation of a sociologistis possible: Slovene sociologist Šešek in the last years of Yugoslavia has been putinto prison because of criticizing the government in a pro-Serbian orientation. Yu-goslav sociologists founded a petition to free him from prison, “so you can imaginethat big mistake they made. But it was an orientation of that time that the govern-ment must be more liberal” (I 10 a).

In this section we have explored the diagnosis of sociologists regarding specificsof sociology in two nation states concerning the national and historical context ofthe respective scientific community in a nation state’s framework of reference. Wehave outlined different European neighbourhoods, which also changed as an effectof the EU accession of Slovenia and Austria, as an emancipation process fromformer Yugoslav territories and from Germany, which created new possibilities ofEuropean co-operation. Furthermore we have sketched some “fractal distinc-tions” (Abbott 2001) immanent in the discipline. On the one hand we recognizedempirical sociology as it is, for instance, manifest in the Slovene Public OpinionPoll project. On the other hand, we identified a rather theoretical eclecticism char-acteristic for sociology in the neighbouring countries, which departs itself fromGrand Theories’ building in favour of a rather critical and empirically based schol-arly imagination. The sociological reflection of transitions and inequalities is ratherstrong in both countries, and specifically Slovene scholars in the last decades havecontributed with their research to political and societal change. However, as Aus-trian sociologists underlined, sociological thinking has been subject to an importantparadigmatic shift from the analysis of structural vertical inequalities to puttingcultural studies and horizontal differentiations on the agenda. As referring to itshistorical backgrounds it was suggested that this cognitive change has at least beenaccelerated by the collapse of the communist system and the enlargement of the

125

European Union. Furthermore, we have outlined not only the often contentiousrelation to other social sciences, but also some current structural conditions of re-search outside university and the evolving competition between old and new in-stitutions of sociological thought in the institutional landscape. An important ad-ditional finding was that increasing internationalization of the sociological com-munity might be a pressure for and a privilege of small countries as well, howeverthis weakens the internal cohesion of national traditions of sociology.

Intervening Conditions of Sociology’s Europeanization

Collective Biographies of Transformation

In the following we will deal with what can be interpreted as “intervening condi-tions” (Strauss/Corbin 1990: 75) of the Europeanization process, in the sense of amore general framework affecting strategies of action and interaction as a broaderstructural context, as time and space, culture and socio-economic status, career,history and individual biography affected by the EU accessions of the respectivenation states. In this section, these conditions of the EU accessions’ impact areexamined on different analytical level, following step by step a continuously moreabstract aggregate of investigation. We will distinguish the level of sociologists’biographies of transformation, the level of their experience with research projectsfunded by the European Union, the local departmental level, the nation state’s uni-versity system as an entirety, then the European level in asking about experienceswith the so-called Bologna Reform Process and European mobility programmeslike ERASMUS. This is to be then transcended by the question in which way wecan talk about an European dimension and Europeanization process of sociologyat all.

Results from the interviews with sociologists both from different countries andfrom distinctive generations have provided for instructive insights in the interplayof individual biographies, career paths and macro-sociological structures that hadan impact on “how to become a sociologist” so that we can talk of sociologists’collective biographies of transformation. As one example a sociologist describedthe historical changes to which Slovenia in the last century has been subject to whentelling about his grandmother who had during her life six different citizenshipsalthough she never moved more than ten kilometres away from her home village(I 17): She was born as an Austria-Hungarian, then lived in Royal Yugoslavia afterWorld War I, which was then occupied by Italians till 1943, then taken by theGermans, after World War II there was Tito’s Yugoslavia, and in 1991 she got theSlovenian citizenship. That individual life has bridged many historical epochs and

2.4

2.4.1

126

points to the fact that the meaning of national identities is always a question of deephistorical concern and as such is subject to changing socio-historical circumstancesand political environments. These narratives, as they enfolded in the context of theinterviews, have prompted several questions: How has the change of the political,social and economic conditions emerged with macro-sociological transformationslike the breakdown of the old regime in 1989, the independence of a new state, orthe accession to the European Union, been perceived by the sociologists them-selves? How can the idea of C.Wright Mills that so-called private problems are tobe seen in the light of public issues (Mills 1959), or the old slogan of the feministmovement that “the personal is the political”, be recognized in sociologists’ ownaccounts of their professional lives? In the following, these questions will be dealtwith, in at least giving some short description of anticipated biographies of trans-formation of sociologists.

Recently, Mike F. Keen and Janusz Mucha (Keen/Mucha 2006) have exploredsocietal transformations in sociological autobiographies emerging specifically inEast European countries. In comparison with their Western colleagues, their situ-ation has been peculiar: “Given the ideologically charged climate, they alwaysfound themselves challenged within the dilemma of resolving the contradictionsbetween the desire for intellectual independence and academic legitimacy, on theone hand, and political survival on the other, especially when the results of theirresearch contradicted official orthodoxies” (Keen/Mucha 2006: 3). In exploring the“dynamic interplay between self and social structure, biography and history”(Keen/Mucha 2006: 10) the authors underline that after 1989 sociologists adoptedseveral strategies in response to the breakdown of the state. One of these was themigration from sociology to the “sociologization” of neighbouring disciplines orthe increased research interest in new or previously forbidden topics such as strat-ification, ethnic relations, gender, religion, and political sociology (ibid.).

Christian Fleck (Fleck1996, 2011) has provided for collective autobiographiesof sociologists in a German-speaking context focusing on the social and intellectualconditions of sociologists getting interested in the discipline after World War II.The author suggests that the persecution and murder of “the most productive seg-ment of social sciences between the two World Wars” (Fleck 1996: 8, transl. added)has been devastating in various respect, both morally and cognitively by the burdenof the historical crimes and by discrediting scientific critique and universalism.Socially and in terms of institutionalized education, this was realized by preventingfree intellectual exchange in world views and scientific theories as well (ibid.).Therefore it is of particular interest how, by the historical opportunities of the late1940 s and early 1950 s, one has come to become a sociologist and which non-scientific influences like the respective family background has played a crucial rolein this regard (ibid.). Fleck’s compendium of seventeen auto-biographies includes

127

sociologists from former West and former Eastern Germany, Switzerland and Aus-tria, and particularly deals with the early career experiences of sociologists.

Ralph Turner (Turner 1990) has drawn a comparison of scientists’ biographiesbetween Anglo-Saxon and US socio-cultural contexts which he has investigatedby content analysis. He underlines that the meaning of terms and phrases whencharacterizing one’s reward and reputation within the scientific community evenwhen there is a common reference language like English is rather different in con-notations relating to one’s own activities (ibid.). Surely, this result can only in partbe applied to the case of the interviews we deal with. In the context of the interviews,English as a foreign language for interviewer and interviewees was heavily used.Though, some Slovene sociologists occasionally switched between English andGerman which might not only reflect broad language competencies but maybe alsobiographical influences.

We might depict as a sociological (auto-)biography (Merton 1988) when theauthors “relate their intellectual development both to changing social and cognitivemicro-environments close at hand and to the encompassing macro-environmentsprovided by the larger society and culture… such accounts bear witness that one’sruns of experience and foci of interest, one’s accomplishments and failures, werein no small part a function of the historical moment at which one has entered thefield” (Merton 1988: 20). We will keep that concept in mind, however, here aregiven only notes and no further claim is made in this respect, specifically becausethe given biographical remarks are too short to carry too much analytical weight.Sociologists interviewed were simply asked about their way to sociology and theirexperiences in undertaking a scientific career. The course of analyzing interviewsindicated then to draw a distinction between three generations of sociologists in theneighbour countries, cohorts that slightly differ in relation to the “structure of op-portunities” (Merton 1996) that has shaped or at least influenced their personalbiographies of transformation as well as professional careers.

The first generation of sociologists born 1945 and earlier can be depicted as thepioneering one at the university departments of sociology educated in the 1950 sand early 1960 s. The proportion of these first generation sociologists amongSlovenes was higher than among Austrians interviewed (about one third). Thiscould be one reason for the unfortunate fact that accounts of Austrian sociologistsregarding that early stage of institutionalization of sociology, in our interviews havebeen rather rare. Some of the pioneering sociologists are retired since several years.However, in some cases they do still offer seminars at universities due to theirspecific research areas. One of them has been retired from teaching obligations butstill undertakes social research on the basis of a part-time researcher at an instituteclosely linked to the university. For the pioneering sociologists, it can be assumedthat the influence of World War II has been rather deep. Again, there is a remarkable

128

lack of Austrian accounts in this regard. However, one biographical account of oneSlovene sociologist (Jogan 2006) should be given in detail here to get a sense forSecond World War’s catastrophic effects on lives of sociologists. She has finishedher Bachelor’s degree in sociology in Maribor in 1960: “Maribor is the secondbiggest city in Slovenia, and in Slovenian history is remembered as the city wherein April 1941, Hitler demanded, ‘make this country German again.’ This an-nouncement of the genocide of the Slovenian people was, tragically, also connectedto my personal life. In accordance with the Nazis’ plan for the genocide of theSlovenian nation, during the first months of the occupation the German occupiershad exiled about 80,000 Slovenians. Among those unlucky people, banished fromhomes with hand luggage only, were my parents. From November 1941 until theend of war they were held in a series of forced labour camps in Germany, workingas slaves under only slightly better conditions than those in the concentrationcamps. In one of these camps, Loessnitz, in February 1943, I was born. After thewar, my parents, with four children, returned to the fatherland, which had beenfreed through the partisan war of national liberation. They found their home robbedand the family property destroyed” (Jogan 2006: 21 p.). How much this history ofoccupation must be still relevant today we have recognized by the fact that theNational Socialists’ Umsiedelungsaufruf, the German announcement of Slovenepeople forced to leave their country in 1941, more than 60 years later still has beenpinned up at the door of the sociologist’s office.

After World War II there only seldom has been institutionalized sociology as astudy curriculum at universities, which in both countries started in the early1960 s as well. Therefore, many sociologists from both countries received theiracademic degrees in neighbouring disciplines like jurisprudence, philosophy, his-tory, or psychology first and then somewhat migrated to sociology. Some of thesepioneering sociologists got the opportunity for scholarships abroad as in the UnitedStates, where they gained professional and methodological knowledge, came incontact with well-known sociologists in an international context, and brought withthem new scientific ideas. “In Slovenia in the late 1960 the political climate hassaid to be rather liberal so that people were allowed to go abroad to accept foreignscholarships and also to voice new ideas at least in universities” (I 6). One of thesociologists who studied in the United States and got his PhD there, reported: “Iwas very glad because I met there very famous sociologists who were my teachersand professors. This helped me to get a wider prospective of what sociology is” (I17). After their study most of them started an university career as the first generationof scholars after World War II and therefore had an enormous influence on thedevelopment of the academic discipline since the 1960 s, both in teaching and inresearch. Many of younger sociologists were attracted and educated by these pio-neers. Mentioned as influential teachers in this respect was the professor of ju-

129

risprudence Joze Goričar who had a big impact on the founding of the FDV inLjubljana, till nowadays the faculty’s library is renamed in honour of him. Fur-thermore, Austrian sociologists Leopold Rosenmayr from the University in Vienna,who has undertaken much empirical research in the early days of sociology inAustria, has been recognized as influential for some sociologists’ decisions to begina study of sociology or to study particularly in Vienna.

Pioneering sociologists often had several contacts and co-operations to neigh-bouring countries since the early days of the discipline’s institutionalization. Therewere scholarships open for Slovene students in the United States, the United King-dom and Germany, or the possibility for Austrians attending international confer-ences at former Yugoslav territory. However, they also reported that due to earlyprofessional obligations they quickly went into a job, for instance as a lawyer, andonly after some time began to study sociology (I 18). Furthermore, scarce financialresources often prevented sociologists from travelling opportunities, even whenthere were official opportunities for doing so (I 12). In Yugoslav times there werealso teaching possibilities open in other supra-national republics like Serbia whereone of the sociologists had been a professor before: “At that time a central Europeanatmosphere could be sensed there in contrast to today where there has been a lot ofmigration” (I 15) of mostly Serbs. Only after the independence of Slovenia therewere new teaching possibilities open for professors at Slovenia’s new universi-ties which was an incentive for people’s “strategic decision” (I 15) to change theirprofessional environment.

One sociologist told a story from his early childhood which shall be given herein full detail: His interest in social and political affairs started as a young child offour years, when his father, a manual worker, in 1949 “locked the door and put acurtain because they were listening to the Voice of America in Slovenia, at 6 or 7o’clock in the evening. Not all people had radios, so four or five people joined himto listen to the Voice of America which was transmitted from Munich, so it wassome mysterious. I saw people there having their heads very close to the radio. Theregime was jamming, interfering, into the Voice of America, who was speaking ofcourse in Slovenian, you could not hear everything, and when this happened, theywere even closer to the radio. So it was like for somebody, like Christmas, mystery,I was so much fascinated. There was a war in Korea that time, and they werespeaking about the war in Korea, and you know that there is a regime, which forbidsto listen to foreign radio stations. Probably I then got interested in internationalpolitics, world affairs, so probably first I would think this would enable to travelme a lot around the world. …A banal empirical fact, but this is the way I gotinterested in these things” (I 17). Moreover, the breakdown of the socialist regimehas affected Slovene society differently than other post-socialist or post-communistsocieties. A sociologist from the pioneering generation told that he has been in 1991

130

for several times in Berlin, Germany, and has been asked about his “previous pro-fession”. Reporting that he was a social scientist teaching methodology also before1991, was almost incredible for his colleagues in the former German DemocraticRepublic, who after 1989 mostly lost their former professorships at Berlin Hum-boldt University (I 18). In Slovenia there has not been such a transformation ofuniversity staff active in terms of professional cadres, which is perceived as clearlysupporting “a normal development of society and the state” (I 18). Rather, therewere enacted changes in public proprieties, as visible in restitutions of former cler-ical proprieties like the Catholic church at the still public island of Bled, Slove-nia (I 18).

The second generation of sociologists, born between 1946 and 1960, has beeneducated in sociology in the late 1960 s and the 1970 s and often was particularlyinfluenced by the students’ movement of 1968 and a politically flourishing time ofthe social democrats in Austria in the 1970 s. When these sociologists as studentsdecided for the subject of their study, they also mentioned other potentials or in-tentions like medicine, history of art, philosophy, law, economics, diplomacy, andjournalism. However, the decision for sociology was sometimes led by the higherreputation of the discipline within the field and the higher critical impetus of soci-ologists too (I 6). Sometimes, sociologists mentioned their background from au-tochthonous or ethnic minorities so that issues of identities have raised their interestin sociology (I 1). Although this generation of sociologists also were often open todepict sociology as an usable instrument by doing social research for supportingand enabling socio-political reform, in some terms they distanced themselves fromthe older professors active at universities (Balog/Cyba 2001). In this respect thestudents’ movement has been important, for especially in sociology, in German-speaking countries there has been heavily discussed the Critical Theory of theFrankfurt School.

Due to the fact that the 1960 s and 1970 s were a phase of a rather rapid expansionof the higher education sector which made many academic positions available, forsociologists of the second generation there has been a specific “opportunity struc-ture” (Merton 1995: 153pp.) characteristic. Usually they started to work at univer-sity or research institutes relatively quickly after the end of their study, withoutencountering much competition for academic positions in this field (I 20). It seemsto be the case that these decades of the beginning expansion of the discipline havebeen rather advantageous for this generation of sociologists. However, they them-selves often describe their scientific career as dependent on arbitrary incidents too:“One can create the conditions of possibilities, but how this develops in reality isoften dependent on contingency” (I 19).

In Slovenia, since 1985 there has been introduced a university programmeknown as “2000 Young Researchers” for continuing scientific education, financed

131

by the Slovene government, which gave researchers in various fields the possibilityto promote their scientific career by postdoctoral lecture qualification. When start-ing 1985 for a six-year fellowship that programme “must have had effects yearsafter it too. … I can say that to me it was given a second phase of youth in my life,it was a gift. …I cannot be against socialism, because of that” (I 8). In the beginningthere were students looked for at the age of between 30 and 40, nowadays peoplearound the age of 25 do take part in the programme (I 8).

Moreover, as is the case with some Slovenian sociologists, three persons fromthe second generation of sociologists have enjoyed fellowships or summer schoolsin Germany, Great Britain or the United States. Some others were educated associologists in Germany and then came to Austria for a full professorship, sincethere are much more sociologists with postdoctoral lecture qualification in Ger-many than in Austria, and the salaries for university professors in Germany are saidto be rather low in comparison with those in Austria. From an Austrian sociologistit is regretted that the immobility among Austrian researchers is rather high; personswho do start their career at a specific university usually stay there for decades (I20). In Austria, the Institute for Advanced Studies and Scientific Research (IHS)in Vienna has been important in the post-graduate education of sociologists specif-ically in the 1970 s. In Slovenia, the FDV in Ljubljana offered several young re-searchers a possibility to do research in some projects before starting a career alsoas a teacher. In former times, there has not been that mixture of research and teach-ing for them, but rather “two categories of people”, the teaching and the researchstaff (I 5).

During their career these second generation sociologists have experienced sev-eral discontinuities in macro-sociological development, as the independence ofSlovenia in 1991 or the EU accessions in 1995 and 2004. Sometimes these societaltransformations are also observable as shaping the conditions for one’s professionalbiography and academic career. In Slovenia several sociologists mentioned to haveworked before 1991 for many years in quite other professional fields, for instanceas an IT-expert or an industrial worker or a school-teacher, before they decided toenter university again and started a scientific career. The fact that sociology as asocial science is sometimes affiliated to politics too, has sometimes resulted intodifficulties for politically engaged people. Some describe themselves as havingbeen perceived “by authorities as a person who was not very reliable, not veryreligious in the sense of socialist and Marxist ideology, …suspicious for the gov-ernment or for politics in that time” (I 13). This actually resulted in being preventedfrom teaching opportunities both at university and at secondary education level.However, at the Ljubljana Institute of Sociology, in the 1980 s one could meetscholars who also had to face severe restrictions, “this was a kind of exile or aghetto, such people” (I 13), however, with similar experience and interest. The

132

political change of 1991 apparently has been advantageous in this respect, so thatformer teaching prohibitions were then diminished or it simply has become moreattractive to engage oneself with sociology again.

One specificity of Slovene sociology is, furthermore, its institutionalization asa teaching subject in secondary high school education. Till nowadays students ofsociology have often been already interested in that subject as pupils of public highschools and as university students they can choose an education as a sociologyteacher. Regarding sociology as a high school teaching subject, questions of genderseem to play a role, insofar as the profession is rather feminized; however, peoplefrom a secondary school teacher’s professional life in general might switch to uni-versity (I 3, I 16). Since there were not immediately positions open at university,one woman combined an employment at a research institute outside university withthat of the university. Afterwards, this has not been possible anymore because ofthe already mentioned “concurrence clause” of Ljubljana University.

The third or, let’s say “project generation”, of sociologists, born 1961 and later,has been educated mainly in the 1980 s and 1990 s, in a phase of stagnation ofuniversity institutionalization at least in Austria, and the emerging of the newSlovenian state. Sometimes for members of this generation there has been the stu-dent’s organization important for their way of thinking, so after a technical educa-tion in deciding for a post-graduate study in sociology (I 2). The restriction thatprofessional positions at universities are no longer available seems to have indi-rectly supported the development of research institutes outside universities as wellas the possibility becoming part of the teaching staff at the rather young universitiesof applied sciences both in Austria and new entrepreneurial universities in Slovenia.Besides, the EU accession clearly has expanded the possibilities of research insti-tutes outside university to function as a bridge between West and East. The insti-tutions as well as its personnel profited much from international networking, pro-viding for several young researchers possibilities to gain deeper professional ex-perience by employing them in research projects funded by the European Union.One sociologist employed outside university underlined that although universitypersonnel resources are scarce, the university might become a perspective againdue to an anticipated cohort change: Many of the professors who began to work atuniversity in the 1970 s as a phase of massive growth in the higher education systemin Austria, will get retired within the next years (I 2). It seems to be plausible thatthere are also slight differences between the current sociologists employed at uni-versities, mainly from the second generation, and younger sociologists employedoutside universities. Some of the second generation sociologists in Slovenia regretthat they miss an internationalization attitude among the young researchers whorather orient themselves towards local job possibilities of the newer universitiesthan attending for a scholarship abroad: It is argued that they do not really transcend

133

their local framework to be more present on an international level (I 13). For de-veloping an international perspective in one’s study and research “it is more de-manding, more competition, more risky. Well, but there is no other option so tosay. I think not for all scientists, but for those who are more ambitious” (I 13). Thissociologist speculated that one of the reasons for a rather local orientation of hisyounger colleagues might be that – in contrast to the 1980 s – nowadays standardsof living are rather similar in Slovenia and in the rest of Western Europe. Further-more, he suggested that this problem could be solved by the enforced internation-alization of such new departments and universities, in frequently taking part inEuropean projects or in exchange of students and professors. In this regard he un-derlined the important difference of either a researcher’s local orientation or of aninternational perspective co-operating with colleagues abroad. This reminds us ofa distinction that was made by Robert K. Merton, differentiating “localism” and“cosmopolitanism” in its influence on different social communities (Merton 1996).

The Project Organization of EU Funded Research

It is not an over-estimation of the European Union’s research programmes if oneassumes that these institutional frameworks have transformed the European land-scape and the process of doing scientific research in sociology too. The EuropeanUnion in recent years has systematically promoted funds for undertaking researchand development in the Research Framework Programmes. By doing so, however,unambiguously it has adopted a model of scientific collaboration used in the naturalsciences to the sphere of the social sciences. In contrast to their counterparts, socialsciences are deeply rooted in the society and the language of those which are theobject of their study, as the relevant context and subject of the enfolding scientificendeavour. In order to investigate in which form and to which extent one couldpossibly talk about an effect of the EU policies of agenda setting, sociologists inthe border region were asked about their knowledge and experiences with researchprojects funded by the European Union. In a rough definition let us talk about aresearch project as a temporarily undertaken scientific endeavour, with specificrequirements in topics, usability and evaluation of research performance due toparticular criteria, in financial terms supported by EU research programmes, andin organizational terms often characterized by trans-national project teams.

First, accounts of experiences with EU funded research projects apparently differto some extent if sociologists are located within or outside university structures.This can be at least partially explained by the fact that research institutes outsideuniversity are economically heavily dependent upon third-party funds. In this re-spect, what might be regarded as something historically new, they are nevertheless

2.4.2

134

often successful in applying for research projects funded by the European Union.Unsurprisingly, researchers located outside university mostly appreciate the newresearch possibilities opened by EU funds.

Subsequently, we would like to link the particular social conditions of researchinstitutes outside university with actor’s cognitive strategies and their general at-titude towards Europeanization of science and research. As social conditions weaddress financial issues and main cognitive claims, the underlying “project culture”and the consciousness about the need for EU research projects at all. As cognitivestrategies we consider three central issues: How do sociologists conceptualizechange of knowledge production at general level, as this was indicated by Gib-bons et al. (1994)? What about their self-conceptions (Weingart 1998) and thepractices of distinction (Bourdieu 1979) against competing actors in the field? Isthere any ambivalence in the reward system active in the scientific community(Merton 1996) reported by them, as far as EU research is concerned? Let us considerthese parameters step by step.

By sociologists it was outlined that research institutes outside university are inan advantageous position too, since the underlying “project culture” of undertakingscientific activities remarkably matches the very conditions of those institute’sconditions of doing research (I 2). Flexibility and programme orientation of re-search institutes outside university is said to be much bigger. Regarding institu-tional change enacted in the university system itself, universities are perceived asmore slowly adapting to these requirements, in regard to economic pressures towhich research institutes outside university are much more and longer subject tothan universities (I 2). The Austrian Council for Research and Technology is saidto be also strongly oriented towards social sciences, however, universities are saidto be less interested in research programmes of this kind (I 2). By Austrian soci-ologists from the “project generation” there was clearly positively commented thefact that also national research funding systems have more or less got under pressurethrough the enforced strategy of European research programmes (I 2). As a strategyin dealing with it, not only the orientation towards specific research programmeshas grown, also the system of evaluators within these programmes is positivelyperceived; before the EU accession, many research funding resources are said tohave been disseminated relatively without control, now enhanced academic stan-dards of research and research funding are emphasized and realized (I 2). Irrespec-tive of the institutional background in or outside university, there was also under-lined that EU research programmes by their evaluation procedures do have an im-pact on Austrian science policies insofar they support the application of more ob-jective criteria, have improved the quality of research in general as well as theconsciousness about it (I 2, I 14). Others from an university department, however,do not think that quality criteria of research have advanced since the EU accession,

135

for “the standards are not dictated mostly by the Europeans, but by the Americans”(I 6).

This in principle positive appreciation of the EU role in general remains not soclear with academic sociologists located at university departments. On the onehand, the latter are mostly publicly financed and there are some other national fundpossibilities open too. Furthermore, this implies that university structures are sel-dom advantageous conditions for doing EU research, because for academic per-sonnel it is rather “the basic job to teach and research is something extra” (I 16).One Slovene sociologist reported that she had to make efforts in consciousness-raising among her own colleagues that money invested into project applications isnot lost but might come back to the very department (I 16). In contrast to it anAustrian colleague argued that involving oneself into EU research is increasinglybecoming relevant for university staff, because being successful in applying for anEU project might be a question of reputation within the scientific community: “Firstof all, you gain reputation, with an EU project you can supersede all people, youpersuade them all (from the department, note)” (I 14). Think of the so-called in-tellectual capital reports (Wissensbilanzen) required from universities in the contextof Austrian recent university reforms (Universität 2008). Thus, for individual de-partments it is clearly an advantage to run an EU financed research project. Thismight have been true in former times too: At least some Austrian sociologists reportthat recruitment for university positions and access to career often were more de-pendent on project experience than on scientific publications (Balog/Cyba 2001:19). A sociologist employed at university reported similar developments. In formertimes, as an Austrian academic there was the institutional possibility and the fi-nancial incentive to gain money by projects financed by ministries: “Today thefinancial incentives are practically diminished, there is only an incentive to widenone’s house and to employ more people or to keep one’s position” by EU fundedprojects (I 14). Apart from this, younger research assistants sometimes can be em-ployed on a temporarily basis in the context of these projects. For several times ithas been underlined that ‑ like for sociological free-lancers outside university ‑ foruniversity personnel there is practically no other real alternative than to take partin the internationalized competition for research funds offered by the EuropeanUnion: “If I get involved in that (EU research policy, note), I am taking part in acontinental discourse. If I do not get involved, then I do not have any audience, nocounterpart, and no prestige” (I 14). On the other hand, university personnel per-ceived that very competition with some ambivalence within the reward system(Merton 1996), at least at department level. It has been suggested that scientificreputation is not automatically higher when one is successful in applying for an EUfunded project, because participation in the EU agenda is criticized as sometimestaking part in what is perceived as the “rhetoric” of policy-advocated research (I

136

20). Again, from this point of view, semi-academic research institutes seem to bethe better equipped or more adequate ones in pursuing “this kind of pragmaticallyapplied“ policy-relevant research (I 20), whereas universities emphasize their statusas holders of “pure science” and scientific excellence.

After the EU accession there are perceived to be more chances to come togetherin an international sociological community and plan some common researchprojects. There are new possibilities open for promoting and boosting researchactivities even with only little money by post-graduate study-courses, commonworkshops, international conferences or project developmental activities (I 2). OneAustrian sociologist has taken part in an evaluation in this case which indicatedthat interest in co-operation is very strong (I 2). Sometimes, however, Sloveneresearchers underlined the perceived difficulties of that process of learning how tosubmit an EU research project: “We are at a starting point. …The options are open,we are learning how to do that, how to apply“ (I 3). However, university personnelis also provided with so-called supportive structures like research managementservices located at the university faculties, whose explicit task is to help and lookthrough the EU bureaucracies of how to submit a research project. Slovenian re-searchers very much appreciate these structures, although it has sometimes beennoticed that there are too little personnel resources available in this regard (I 3, I 6,I 16). Austrians on average found these services, like attending workshops on howto write a research proposal, rather useless (I 14).

To which dimensions of EU funded research21 appreciating or critical attitudesactually refer? For our purposes, we can distinguish between project’s cognitivesubject orientation, its institutionalized organization, the anticipated EU pressureon the national research system, the evaluation procedures of EU funded research,and the assumed effect on sociology’s enhanced professionalism.

Regarding project’s cognitive subject orientation, when sociologists took a crit-ical stance towards the research culture promoted by EU project possibilities, theyforemost mentioned the disadvantage of thematically fixed EU-calls for proposals.The “certain selectivity of EU research programmes” (I 2) is seen in the fact thatEU agenda policies determine the topics of research and it is not clear yet, in whichway these programmes really promote subject diversity. Some sociologists clearlyargued that the EU does not cover the full scope of different themes in sociology(I 4) and that there remain research topics not well researched which do not getpublished (I 14). In regard to EU policies of agenda setting it was criticized thatEU as a huge union of diverse countries “dictates its topics” (I 14) to more than500 million people, although in former times each of the nation states have had itsown agendas. Still national agendas are important, but at the same time “many look

21 For a diagram on these factors of sociological knowledge production see also Table 6 inchapter 3.2.2.

137

for that what is expected by the EU, even well-know scholars like Jürgen Haber-mas” (I 14), as it was claimed. Because in EU programmes research is much ori-ented towards actual and current problems, “everyone of us can tell the EU top-ics funded in advance, like a broader sustainable climate change, gender issues,and so on” (I 4). Furthermore, it has been suggested that in EU projects researchwork itself and the possibility to develop one’s own research should be of moreimportance than its anticipated rapid usability (I 1). Therefore, a critical factorclosely connected to that agenda policy is the, in the view of sociologists, over-estimation of the pragmatic and utility side of research projects by the EU. Thetendency towards equating a pragmatic orientation of social sciences unequivocallywith “more usefulness” or even “more quality” has been heavily criticized (I 6).Moreover, it was proposed that the EU should provide for a fund like the AustrianScience Fund FWF to submit proposals with self-chosen subjects and researchtopics, “because then I can build on my own resources, know-how and strengths,where this is of interest for the EU” (I 1).

Addressing the institutional organization of EU funded projects, another disad-vantage of EU project research frequently mentioned is the rather high level ofbureaucratically organized administrative work. It is a time-consuming task writinga proposal, which preparation requires at least one month before submitting it forevaluation, and getting into contact and negotiations with many different researchpartners in several European countries; a high proportion of time is dedicated tomanagement affairs, because “Eurocrats” fear corruption and therefore the effortsundertaken for project’s control are enormous (I 20). “The main hindrance is reallythat it is exhaustive to orient oneself towards all these guidelines of the EuropeanCommission, so one has to be rather crazy to start such EU projects” (I 20). Peoplewho do not have a genuine research interest in all these European practices ofresearch, might easily become frustrated (I 20). Call policies are seen as rathermeaningless within the social sciences, because those of the natural sciences arecopied for the social sciences too (I 4, 20). Sometimes it is not easy to find outwhich topics of research are actually addressed by these calls; then there are up-swing concepts like inclusion, exclusion, knowledge and so on, which are said tothen appear in all of these calls (I 20). In rather the same manner it is argued thatthe Lisbon strategy is a normative guideline for any research project in that Euro-pean research funding programmes are assuming social scientific research to bepolicy relevant, in the sense of 1960 s social technology (I 20).

What about the cognitive project strategies of researchers, which they regard asappropriate in dealing with EU requirements of funded research? Interestingly,sociologists already successful in applying for EU research projects, reported aboutso-called “as-if”-strategies to be developed in the context of dealing with so-calledEU “business” (I 20): If one takes part in the EU business one has to act “as if”

138

one’s research were policy relevant, “as if” one manages to provide for policyrelevant advice, and “as if” one’s research might be helpful in creating more jobs.However, “we do not have any ideas how one creates more jobs, but we do par-ticipate in rhetoric and so those things decrease in importance and reputation withinacademic debates” (I 20). Apparently, it is experienced as more or less necessaryto develop these “as-if”-strategies for being successful in applying for an EUproject. To develop these “as if”-strategies means to act contrary to own, sometimesbetter knowledge and true beliefs in cognitive potency and practical usability ofone’s research, in favour of taking part in rhetoric then manifest in proposal writing.Moreover, “talk” and “action” seem to fall apart in these strategic, however oftensuccessful devices.

In institutional terms, strategies to deal with EU policies of agenda setting re-quire to take financial issues strongly into account. In addition, since seldom third-party funds are available for all real costs, one has always to be ready for lookingfor new funds. One sociologist employed at a non-university institute estimatedthat about 10 per cent of his working force are dedicated to look for that, for publicfunds are no longer available and at the same time projects are growing bigger andbigger (I 19). He underlined that one has to be very well informed which enterprisesand which research programmes do offer funds for which research areas: “This isa lot of work, however remains undocumented. But you have to do that, otherwiseyou do not have any chance” (I 19). But also Slovene institutions reported of severerestricting conditions regarding competition for financial resources: “I am afraidthat this new orientation of research and co-operations towards financial meanswill have an impact and I do not know what will at the end be the result of this” (I18). When there are large-scale international projects like ISSP, ESS and so on,these projects are successful in gaining funds for a small part of their research, butmost of it has to be funded by the national communities alone, and that is a realhuge hindrance to it: Only the top of an iceberg is financed by EU funds; this causesmany problems for researchers, how to bridge over these financial needs amongtheir national communities (I 18). One big Slovene research institute manages todo so because it puts money gained from other research and other sources into theselarge-scale projects (I 18). From Ljubljana University during the conservative gov-ernment (2004 till 2008) there has been experienced that the former governmentalpolicies (Ministry of Higher Education and Research as well as an Agency forResearch) of supporting diverse EU projects, specifically in deciding on the moneywhich EU projects can be publicly supported, is rather a political issue in decidingboards (I 10 a). Others observe that a political will for using structural opportuni-ties and transforming it into mechanisms for facilitating trans-national cooperationin this regard is still lacking in Slovenia, which “does not use its own resources orinner ability to discover what is going on around” (I 11) or to deepen one’s know-

139

ledge in comparative sociology. “So we are followers, we are not setting the pri-orities, we are using the funds and are following structural opportunities. We arenot expanding in our minds, we are expanding by chance” (I 11).

Especially those who have tried before and were not successful in receiving anyEU funded project reported the running competition for research funds as “verycomplicated and frustrating. I do not see that a first rate scientist who does not dealmuch with administration can pass through it“ (I 15). Concerning the project’sinstitutional organization, one of the certain disadvantages of European researchgroups is their size. When they are too big, people do not know well each other oronly know about one-third in the group well (I 6, 13). In addition, when in placethere is often a “mixture of people with different interests, with different workinghabits, and so on, and the results were really poor compared with the money wespent for this project. …Some of them were just interested in money, some only inresearch, it was a good experience to me, but also a quite disappointing experience.… There were good possibilities, but the results were rather poor” (I 6). Especiallywhen projects are too huge they are regarded as not so productive as they might beexpected, for “to manage 120 or 140 people is very difficult and the communicationis very limited. …Too much time is then devoted for managing, for communication,for financial regulations, administration” (I 13).

What about estimations on project’s evaluation procedures enacted by the EU?Another point of critique is the fact that one has to submit a proposal relativelyquickly and the chances of a positive evaluation are rather small (I 1). Sociologistshave estimated that the probability for successful project application not only inEU research, but also in Austrian national research funds, currently is no higherthan 10 to 20 per cent (I 7, I 14). Rather large-sized research institutions may beable to afford investing more personnel resources, while becoming “mere managersalways busy in proposal writing” (I 1); smaller departments, it is argued, are not sowell equipped in this regard (I 1). That “game of writing and for several times re-writing research proposals” (I 1) has even been described as “becoming a newpopular sport” and “merely a lottery. To be successful in an European frameworkprogramme is quite similar to win a joker” (I 7).

In 2006 there has been established a programme by the European Commissionto promote mainly young researchers after finishing their PhD, however, the pro-posal’s rejection rate has been about 97 per cent (Fleck 2008 a). It is argued thatbecause of this fact as well as because of the huge human capital of senior re-searchers needed for the evaluation procedures, the economic waste is enormous,and applying people are discouraged in that process (ibid.). Christian Fleck claimsthat the European Research Council (ERC) has chosen “the wrong model”, inmodelling itself similar to the US National Research Council which “works becauseall members of any scientific discipline are able to observe their whole field, follow

140

the publication output of their colleagues, have often an onsite familiarly with re-search sites, and are therefore in a position to make sound decisions about promisingyoung researchers. …The notion of an ‘American Research Area’ is superfluousbecause it already exists, along with a well-established system that distributes re-wards to those who are employed at universities that win annually ranking com-petitions” (Fleck 2008 a: 3 p.). However, these preconditions are not valid for theEuropean counter-part where the scientific landscape is much more fragmented: InEurope, researchers are largely immobile in terms of labour market, and one hasto be anxious that the European Research Council will decide upon proposals dueto the “Matthew effect” (Merton 1996) among the most prominent universities inEurope (Fleck 2008 a: 4). It would be better, Fleck suggests, orienting fundingschemes of the European Commission towards the successful history of the Rock-efeller Foundation, “a model that places a premium on the judgement of establishedscholars who are able to recognize the sparkling, creative habits of mind that makefor eventual break-through work. What the ERC has opted for, instead, is a ploddingbureaucratic machine that honours personal connections and predictable work”(Fleck 2008 a: 5). However, regarding evaluation procedures of EU funded re-search, on the one hand, especially younger researchers from the “project genera-tion”, employed outside university, appreciate a more objective stance of the projectevaluation undertaken by EU evaluators (I 2).

Concerning the subject orientation towards EU projects, several sociologistshave described a kind of apologetic research actually hindering lot of innovationas an un-intended effect of very strict evaluations: For those procedures one willformulate very carefully a proposal, rather oriented towards the mainstream, whichin fact hinders innovations, because “where it is really interesting the situation isso open that you in principle can also fail. Because you do not know in advancewhat will be your results … If you formulate a proposal then you do invest such alot of work that in principle you already know the result. You already have to beconvinced that what you get in results is correct. Within the project application youwill formulate this as a problem, of course, so as a project result you will not getmuch novelties” (I 19). This reported strategy of mainstreaming one’s own researchintentions, methods and procedures as well, can be taken as an individually rationalrisk-minimizing action, when the chances of positive project application are per-ceived as rather low. Surely, there is the advantage that financial resources forresearch are often very huge, partially also equipped with innovative knowledgeclaims; because of strict evaluation procedures, however, really exciting researchis said to be done outside this EU framework (I 19). In the point of view of anothersociologist, EU projects often are apologetic ones: “Researchers actually do antic-ipate what the EU wants to hear from them, this is apologetic research. Criticalresearch is not encouraged by those researchers, or the critical researchers do not

141

go to the European Union. This agenda setting policy I really see as a risk forfuture“ (I 14). The “agenda pressure” (I 4) is said to be active both for Austria aswell as for Slovenia. Of course universities provide for conditions that also allowto pursue one’s own research interest; however, they also have to gain third-partyfunded projects, are evaluated against these criteria, and of course the EU providesexactly for this (I 14). Advocacy as research done for employers, is often regardedas being opportunistic research, because EU General Directorates ask if it is ofimportance for them, and an evaluator is said to be incapable of having an impacton that (I 14). Another danger mentioned is that “thick project reports are laid downand get dusty somewhere, and nobody takes a look on it again” (I 19). Moreover,huge projects often are not evaluated and interpreted fully and “end as data grave-yards, this is their fate. … I would say about 90 per cent of the potentials laid downin the data of such projects are not actually used” (I 14). For after collecting thedata it is already necessary to apply for a second project again. Furthermore, projectpromoters often do not require or ask much about the data; it is required to publisha final report, but what is done with the data further on is not taken into account. Itwas suggested that results of higher education research actually should be moreperceived by the ministries involved, but have only hardly been used till now (I14).

Departments and Universities on Reform22

In the following, we consider that the university systems both in Slovenia and haveundergone several deep transformations and are subject to a reform within the lastyears. The main question here is which effects EU policies have on the level ofdepartments, faculties and the university system on the whole.

In Austria, the university reform enacted in 2002 is critically perceived by so-ciologists as a “neo-liberal dismantling of democratic universities” (Fleck 2008 b).In particular, the government respective the ministry sets agreements with indi-vidual universities due to specific objectives and achievements, there are no longerany general budgets of the universities; furthermore, more financial resources aresubject to the institutional competition among universities (ibid.). These agree-ments are based on specific indicators, and universities are forced to orient them-selves only to those and no others like resources of libraries or services for studentswhich are not mentioned: Moreover, these indicators are in principle able to bemanipulated (for example, higher alumni rates by lower grading requirements forstudents) and it is not taken into account “which effects might result for other

2.4.3

22 If not mentioned otherwise, results of this section are indicated by the focus group discussiontaking place at Trieste University, Italy, in July 2006.

142

members of the community thereof” (ibid., transl. added). Indicators like alumnirates are not seen as adequate like others, for instance in measuring the professionalsuccess of alumni three years after finishing their university study common in theAmerican system (ibid.). In addition, a system of external peers would be necessaryin the process of measuring these indicators (ibid.). From sociologists’ point ofview, so-called “intellectual capital reports” (Wissensbilanzen) actually cannot beinterpreted by the members of ministries: Polemically argued, the university re-forms can be associated with Stalin’s Five-Year-Plans, where everyone knew thatthose results were “mostly an indication of the imagination of the reporting unit”(ibid., transl. added).

Different to the situation of Slovenia, where the lacking integration of employersinto university affairs is criticised, and where rectors must be academics and re-cruited from the university staff itself, in Austria there has been established anUniversity Council (Universitätsrat). It consists of representatives from professors,students, and potential employers close to private industries, and has the decisivepower in shaping each of the universities. Regarding the role and importance of therector, the question arises, how a rector could also be perceived or what is his orher role within the university system: a primus inter pares or merely a “manager”?In a respective focus group it has been mentioned that these two are correspondentroles within university and higher education since the 13th century. And evennowadays at US universities there always are “a manager” as well as “a rector”active which might also be necessary to prevent any monocratic structure withinthe university system itself.

In Slovenia there has been perceived a “crisis of the entire university system”because of massive financial reductions, heavy bureaucratically oriented changes,rather high in-transparency among universities, and only few clear objectives (I10 a), as being part of the so-called Bologna Process on the one hand, on the otherhaving an impact on a rather small discipline like sociology is (I 5). Since 2005financial funds from the governmental ministries were no longer transferred to thefaculties, but directly to the universities’ administration, where a new mechanismof distributing resources arises. At the same time, the university becomes a relevantunit for research in itself and as a centre for infrastructure also dealing with ratio-nalization of university equipment. In July 2006, the Ljubljana University accepteda common strategy enacted for the next four years for having to integrate the olderfaculties as one main point of the common strategy, while it is clear that thesefaculties are no longer valid. In addition, there have been noticed institutionalchanges in the council of universities, which in former times consisted of repre-sentatives of government or society, while nowadays they are said to be “no morerepresentatives of society but rather managers”.

143

Concerning evaluations of Ljubljana University, there are neither financial re-sources for this nor for an external evaluation agency available (I 10 a). In 2008 theformer government has been oriented towards an enforced competition amonguniversities, which is assumed to in some way ensure the quality of higher educa-tion. However, from the Quality Assurance Office at Ljubljana University thatassumption has been explicitly rejected, while clearly opting for quality criteria setby agencies as a para-governmental involvement of control, whereas the formergovernment did not support this idea. The tendency towards privatization has beencriticized because university studies should be a public good and therefore care forquality. “Now in Slovenia some local politicians are eager to build in each city anown university, there is practically the climate among these people that we buildup universities as regularities in all these small cities, and then there arise thesetotally incompetent structures of faculties or universities, because there is notenough infrastructure for building up a regular university” (I 5). Whether the marketwill act as a controlling regulative or not, seems not to be guaranteed up till now.

Changing circumstances due to new institutional strategies set by the EU withinEuropean higher education and research do result in specific characteristics of whatcan be perceived as a norm and pressure towards internationalization for differentsocial groups involved like university staff and students. Subject to those restrict-ing, but also enabling conditions, the question arises how do they in fact react tostrategies of re-organizing research and teaching activities.

Considering the latter, sociologists reported that the FDV at Ljubljana Univer-sity is said to exercise an appreciated and “progressive” (I 5) policy in stimulatingthe teaching staff for offering foreign students courses in English. In addition, thefaculty is equipped with an infrastructure of good quality and technical equipment,which has been said to be surprising for foreign students too (I 5). Concerning theconditions of the research staff, however, in Slovenia there is frequently empha-sized the massive pressure towards internationalization by publications abroad asa basis for promotion and postdoctoral lecture qualification procedures (I 6) per-ceived rather ambiguously and sceptically by sociologists themselves. “I would saythat at the moment the universities are occupied by technicians and they have nofeeling for humanities or for social sciences. Technicians are simple, well, put someformulas in English and they think we should do it the same that it is only ourlaziness that we do not or our low level of knowledge or whatever. And they thinkso, and they occupy all the committees in the universities which are spreading this.Publish outside, aside from Slovene language, or perish” (I 11). Indeed, it is highlyquestionable whether the model taken from the natural sciences is adequately beingapplied to the social sciences. Furthermore, there are several effects mentionedfrom this internationalization pressure that contribute to the fragmentation of thediscipline. On the one hand, the internal cohesion is quite low, because one always

144

looks for new research partners to publish abroad instead of reading publicationsfrom colleagues. On the other hand, for publishing abroad there is a specific impacton the content, in specializing in empirical research in particular fields, letting alonetheoretically and generally oriented topics and knowledge claims of sociology (I6). Moreover, the tendency that in Slovenia many young researchers relatively earlycome to their postdoctoral lecture qualification, like in Anglo-Saxon countries, iscriticized “because in the world of science one needs one’s time for education,professionalizing, socialization within sciences” (I 5). A relatively big group withrather low selection criteria is said to contribute to a strong and negative force,while also nepotism and clientelism in access to career paths are said to be active(I 5).

Seen from an Austrian standpoint, this enormous pressure towards internation-alization, publishing in well-known journals of the SSCI, might also hinder at leastto some extent innovative forms of thinking (I 14). In Austria, there has been adebate about these factors of internationalization, however, at least the evaluationof the teaching performance of professors has been rejected: As one sociologistspeculates this might also be a result of the self-confidence of professors who donot want to have their knowledge “controlled by authorities active in Boston orBerkeley” (I 14). In Austria the orientation towards the natural sciences is said tobe not as strong as in Slovenia. Furthermore, the understanding of “professors” andtheir status as first knowledge producers is more oriented towards the old Hum-boldt universities; only assistants from the lower hierarchies of universities haveto deal with a rather high pressure of publishing, and have to give evidence thatthey can do so, it is assumed that professors already know how to do so (I 14). Inthe 1970 s and early 1980 s the competent engagement into project endeavours ofsocial reform, mostly set by socialist government, were decisive in access to uni-versity positions and career paths (Balog/Cyba 2001). This institutional frameworkand specific type of networking among the scientific community, characterized bypersonal relationships between researchers and ministries and between professorsand their students, has been erased within the last decades (I 14). It somehow con-tributed to a perceived crisis of the discipline in total for individual sociologists(Balog/Cyba 2001). Furthermore, there has been regretted the still high profes-sional immobility of university personnel in Austria, when compared to the UnitedStates (I 20). However, it might be the case that new EU funding possibilities,innovative forms of trans-national co-operation, and more structural possibilitiesfor studying and working abroad, at least to some extent substitute that vacuum infavour of international competencies on behalf of the university staff and theirstudents as well (I 14).

Sociology in some way has been perceived as decreasing in its public perceptionand influence in both countries. In Austria this is related to a general decline of the

145

discipline’s socio-political impact on society since the 1970 s, but specifically withthe political change of a former socialist government to several “grand coalitions”since the early 1980 s (Balog/Cyba 2001). As we have seen, Slovene sociology hasbeen an important force in struggling for independence of the new state particularlyin the 1980 s, but is said to have less influence and public resonance nowadays (I6). Irrespective of these transformed macro-social conditions for sociology, sur-prisingly both Austrian and Slovenian university departments experience a rathergrowing interest of students in the discipline, as evident in increasing student’snumbers, which is in need of explanation.

A Slovene scholar doing research in that field suggested four reasons for studentsto be continuously interested in sociology (I 11) which might be applicable to thesituation in Slovenia and Austria as well. First, in general the young generation issaid to be “fed up with technology”, which, due to labour market signals, is per-ceived as a hard and exhaustive study instead of the social sciences: At least still30 per cent of Austrian, 40 per cent of Slovene and 50 per cent of Polish studentsare said to be interested in a social scientific education (I 11). Second, supply char-acteristics from the university staff themselves are important, since social studiesare said to be quite good in design, while a general orientation of the study curric-ula equips students with broad competencies (I 11). Third, departments do usuallynot provide for definite signals regarding labour market’s demands, but leave thatto the students themselves: At Ljubljana University, specific agencies are mediatingjobs to students who come in close contacts with potential employers already duringtheir study. After one year, 85 per cent of graduated sociologists in Slovenia areemployed in any jobs, sometimes precarious work, but still equipped with relevantspecialised knowledge in social informatics (I 11). This fact might also contributeto a perceived specific advantage of studying at FDV. Fourth, there are substantialreasons for students twisted to things to study about modern world in an attractiveand conclusive way; although it is regretted that very bright students are said tooften decide for other studies than sociology, like international relations and marketresearch, the FDV in Ljubljana continuously attracts top students concerning schoolmarks (I 11).

As we have already suggested in previous chapters, the rise of cultural studiesis seen in connection to the collapse of the communist regime, attracting mostlyfemale students, while male students often take part in defence studies (I 11), apeculiarity of FDV, which does not exist at Austrian universities. Nowadays thereis the structural opportunity to reach education as high as possible, not only inSlovenia and Austria, but all across Europe: “It is a structural opportunity of theepoch feeling now. They (students, note) are very ambitious to go as far, as highas possible, very ambitious, because it is a structural opportunity. This was not soin the past and in the future maybe will not be the case” (I 11).

146

Due to recent university reforms in both Austria and Slovenia, the issues con-cerning student’s access to academic studies have been continuously under debate.Among students in Slovenia, the numerus clausus system is set by the Ministry forScience, Technology, and Higher Education. It is not an autonomous decision oran academic market issue, when about 40 to 50 beginners each year can enrol foreach of the 12 programmes of the FDV, except social science informatics andEuropean studies, where the contingent is slightly higher (I 11). The reason for thisis seen in the institutional competition between old and new universities offeringa better trade-off between them; otherwise old institutions would perhaps absorbthe whole enrolment because of higher reputation (I 11). Furthermore, financialreasons are important since students at new private universities have to pay for theirstudy (about 2.000 euros per year). The rector of Ljubljana University has actuallycriticized that Ministry’s policy (I 10 a). In contrast to that, students in Austria donot have to meet any numerus clausus requirements up till now (except frommedicine); however currently there are recommendations of the Austrian Ministerof Science towards an “obligatory passing of a flexible phase of entering and ori-enting one’s study” and towards assessment tests for Master and PhD studiestoo23. However, as a measure of the former conservative-right winged government,since 2000/01 there were regular study fees to be paid at any university. Universitiesthemselves still claim that the amount of fees (about 400 euros per study term) isinsufficient when compared to the actual costs of university education. In 2009,these study fees are abolished as an agreement between several parties in the par-liament, however, the study fees are not abandoned for students of the private uni-versities of applied sciences, except for two Austrian provinces.

At Ljubljana University, about one third of students are enrolled in part-timecourses to be paid, mostly enrolled by young students not actually employed, buthaving been unsuccessful in applying for a full-time curriculum (I 10 a). Usuallypart-timers can apply for having previous working experience credited for the cur-riculum, which actually generate some problems for universities. The drop out rateof part-timers is high, only 25 per cent actually finish their study (I 10 a). One ofthe problems is the lacking quality assurance in part-time-studies, while somescholars perceive studying part-time as “the easiest way to gain a diploma degree”(I 10 a). In Austria part-time studies are not possible to be enrolled at the old uni-versities, but at the newer universities of applied sciences since several years.

Furthermore, general problems with organizing the undergraduate level arementioned by Slovene sociologists. Sociological thinking and teaching shouldmainly be organized at post-graduate and doctoral level, but not at an undergraduateone: “Sociology itself has this inherent problematic as a discipline to be present or

23 Der Standard, Feb 10, 2009, p.7, transl. added. Since 2009, the entering phase of study hasbeen implemented at most Austrian universities.

147

to be organized on this undergraduate level” (I 13). Second, another challenge hasbeen seen in including a trans-disciplinary approach as very important and veryuseful for the curriculum (I 13).

Bologna and European Mobilities 24

In previous chapters we have in general outlined the main objectives and strategiesof the so-called Bologna Reform Process within the European Higher EducationArea. In the following section we will first consider some differences in the contextand state of implementation of the Bologna Reform Process at various public uni-versities, then turn to some experiences and critiques of the Bologna Reform andfinally focusing on possible future perspectives of co-operation within the relevantframework.

Let us first consider the state of implementation at different universities in theborder region. In Slovenia, the Bologna study curricula were not implemented allat once like in Italy or Croatia, but it took a long way to start this process. In February2008 it was estimated that at Ljubljana University about one third to one half of allstudy programmes has been implemented due to the Bologna Process, it is expectedthat till 2010 all the programmes will be changed (I 10 a). At FDV the BolognaProcess is implemented since several years with a 4+1 system, at FF the Bolognaimplementation started with the winter study term 2008/2009 with a 3+2 system.The Department of Sociology at Maribor University implemented the Bolognaframework to its curricula in winter term 2008/09 too. Klagenfurt University hasup till now not implemented the Bologna Process, at least in the field of sociology,since there is only offered a PhD programme. The Department of Sociology at GrazUniversity has implemented the Bologna Process in 2007/08, offering Bachelorand Master studies.

Relevant in considering the implementation process, is also to take the shiftinghistorical and national contexts of higher education into account. Actors involvedin the Bologna Process like universities, employers, students, and the government,sometimes differ due to these changing environments. Moreover, it is central torecognize those involved at regional, national and trans-national level as well as atdifferent hierarchies within the university system itself, for instance, faculties anddepartments. In Slovenia, the implementation of the Bologna Reform Process be-gan at national ministry’s level as well as at the universities themselves. On the onehand, academics and also governmental ministries who predominantly shape theprocess are pushed to apply the so-called “employability” of their students, a term

2.4.4

24 If not mentioned otherwise, these results are indicated by the focus group taking place atTrieste University, Italy, in July 2006.

148

coined within the framework of the Bologna Reform. On the other hand, employersand students themselves as important groups of actors are only insufficiently inte-grated within the process, which is described as a “paradoxical situation”. In ad-dition, university reforms, set in a five-year-process of reform within Slovenia, andthe Bologna implementation are often said to do not converge. In fact the reformprocess initiated by the conservative government does not correspond to the guide-lines of the Bologna Reform Process, as this is reported by representatives ofLjubljana University and also criticized by students and university staff. There issaid to be no procedure of quality control, therefore “lots of improvisations bystudents and professors” happen. Within the process there seems to happen nosufficient communication and co-operation with the basic actors, namely studentsand university staff. However, it has to be mentioned that in contrast to the ratherold cathedra universities in Yugoslav times, still active in other republics of formerYugoslav territories like in Bosnia-Herzegovina, there have been enacted changesspecifically in the management of universities and in research issues.

At the beginning of the focus group there were discussed the possibilities ofinfluencing the Bologna Reform Process per se from an academic side. From aSlovene department there has been taken the stance of considering Bologna as afact where it is useless to formulate so-called “rather personal and private views”of critique on it, in favour of discussing quickly the possibilities of an implemen-tation in trans-national co-operation. From an Austrian university department itwas underlined that the actors of the network “might use their social scientificcompetences in analyzing the Bologna Reform Process and make recommenda-tions on this ground”. Additionally, individual actors of the university system mighthave at least some influence on the Bologna Reform Process if they engage them-selves into boards, commissions and councils important for shaping the respectiveuniversities. In the following section, some of these practical experiences and crit-ical views of the Bologna Reform Process are outlined in detail to show the widescope of academic positions in relation to the issue of defining some merits anddangers of it.

The various positions regarding the potentiality of influencing the Bologna Re-form Process (BP) do also reflect a distinction between at least two different streamsof critique, a radical and a modest one (I 9): Radically, the main objectives of theBP are subject to critique, led by an parallel appreciation of the old Humboldtuniversities. It is sceptically perceived that the proponents of the Bologna ReformProcess underline economic competition and therefore regard university educationin instrumental way in relation to economic development. Furthermore, in this areathere is defined a market of students, of teaching and research products. Referringto these points, the identity of universities since centuries to contribute to insightsin personal and societal way, has been criticized to mainly be “paralyzed” by that.

149

This has become obvious with the Lisbon Strategy in March 2000, where Europeanhigher education unequivocally is used as an instrument “to become the most dy-namic and knowledge based economy of the world”. In reverse to that strategy,people are perceived to be forced to instrumentally and strategically undertake theirstudy in relation to labour market and not by intrinsic motivation (“employabili-ty”). In addition, it has been criticized that if “employability” is one of the centralobjectives of the Bologna Reform Process autonomous self-employed profession-als are neglected, not taking into account the current trend of the erosion of em-ployments into precarious work and the new dependencies of self-employed peoplefrom enterprises (I 9).

The second, more modest stream of critique is in accordance with the BP centralaims, led by academic reform intentions, but criticizes the means of its actual im-plementation. It aims at elements in the Bologna concept misinterpreted or wronglyimplemented, for instance the European Credit Transfer System is considered intotally heterogeneous way, and its meaning is rather unclear. This makes mobilityof students actually more difficult because of heterogeneous interpretations of theBologna Reform Process. As further disadvantages, which somewhat are identifi-able within those two foci of critique, there were mentioned that important actorslike students or employers have not been integrated into the decision making pro-cess. The governmental impact on university reforms is said to be kind of politicallyimposed, similarly the enforced market approach and employability. The changingroles of the academic teaching staff, the lack of quality control and parameters ofsocial change are not taken into account. It is criticized that research has not beenmentioned in the Bologna Reform Process and there are too heterogeneous issuesof its implementation. Specifically it is perceived that there are more resourcesneeded for succeeding in that process and that in sum a new reform will be neededafter some years. Let us more carefully turn to these arguments step by step.

First, in a generally radical critical view, the Bologna Reform Process has beenperceived as “politically imposed on university” (I 6), where academics cannotexpect much from that institutional change. Moreover, criticized were the “marketapproach” towards universities and the question of “employability” as it is formu-lated in various documents of the Bologna Reform Process. Symptomatic for thecurrent situation in Slovenia is a rather big expansion policy also in educationalaffairs, which is actually neither controlled by employers, nor by the government.However, effective commercial interests are applicable and relevant, as those ofindividual university professors who were, surprisingly, regarded as “the main ac-tors of this primitive market approach” having to deal with the economization ofeducation in form of a personal dilemma. It is not clear whether it is their role andtask to remain “classical professors” as servants to truth and science, or whetherthe new situation requires them to “sell their products, university courses, to the

150

public which is actually not interested in higher quality but only in rather quicklygaining certificates” (I 15). This dilemma is viewed to result in the erosion of theentire system of higher education. As a by-product of the Bologna Reform Processwe find the question of recognizing practical working experience for study curric-ula. This is experienced in case of part-time studies, where, in relation to companies,universities might become only commercial institutes to sell diplomas due to work-ing experience already acquired. In regard to the question of “employability” Kla-genfurt University representatives reported some results from a respective inves-tigation. In 1983, Klagenfurt Department of Sociology has undertaken a study bytelephone interviews asking for the needs of companies for graduated students.Only one company out of hundreds responded, they might need an MBA graduate.Now about 300 MBA have graduated from that university and were absorbed bythe market. So the sociologists concluded that it was merely a game to ask theemployers about their anticipated needs, their answers “must not to be taken seri-ously”.

Concerning efforts towards quality assurances, quite similar to the situation inAustria, in Slovenia there is only an ex ante evaluation of university curricula andcourses applied. This means that the quality system, as it is planned from the verybeginning of the Bologna Reform Process, is a rather weak one in practice. Seenfrom a broader view, however, the importance of quality control actually starts toincrease. According to the EU meetings in Rijeka and Bergen, common trans-na-tional standards of quality control applicable to higher education are being de-veloped. Slovenia has been considered to be rather slow in this process; so thequestion arises, why this is the case. However, one has to be aware that this doesnot even exist within the United States as the “mother” of inventing this approachto higher education, where experiences indicate that the market alone does notguarantee for quality in higher education. One has to consider, instead, some in-stitutionalized Matura tests for students like those at some US universities in orderto implement quality control in the process of accessing public universities.

Several modest critics claimed that the Slovene government did not provide forenough additional financial means for implementing the Bologna Reform Pro-cess, regarding research and teaching infrastructure. After student’s protests in thebeginning of 2008, who lost credits because of their change from diploma toBologna Master study programmes, the FDV and the Economic Faculty of Ljubl-jana University went to Slovene Constitutional Court and claimed that it was notfair that students of the new Master programmes were not well informed and theymust gain a financial compensation for that: So to say, after accrediting the BolognaReform Process, it was only then that the Slovene law has been changed decidingthat the former diploma education and the Master degree are equivalent (I 10 a).

151

Advantages of the Bologna Reform Process were viewed in the broader optionsfor students to choose subjects and enabling a required reform of public universitiesanyway. While some sociologists perceived it as personally favourable when theyhad managed to enforce their interests and integrate their teaching subject into theBologna curriculum (I 3), inevitably others have failed in the intra-departmentalconflict-riddled situation in re-organizing study courses. That structural conditionhas been regarded as a “very strong and unproductive quarrel among the academicstaff” (I 5), when deciding about preferred courses, teaching loads and arrangingthe job for themselves, irrespective of a potentially free-market of students makingtheir own decisions on courses offered (I 10 a, I 5). Some issues remained quite thesame like conditions for financial funds, the number of staff, pedagogical habit andorientation of professors: “So in new bottles there is sometimes an old wine” (I10 a). Others articulated their scepticism more drastically: “This is also such a stu-pidity, a faculty policy or university policy where all these academics do want toreform a new system, but the only change is that these new people now gain morepower. … Because when clientelism in a small institution decided what is importantto learn and to set preferences of courses, then I would say that Bologna is alreadyno big solution of old stuff“ (I 5). Some were quite critical that the Bologna ReformProcess does only enforce a rather instrumental orientation of students towards theircurricula, which does neither stimulate scientific competition and excellence northe improvement of the rate of academics among population at large (I 15). A mainand central radical critique of the Bologna Reform Process has been that it is onlyteaching oriented but does not recognize research as a task in its own right (I 9).Within this framework, universities have to become “schools” to produce gradu-ates, but are not regarded as appropriate institutions for science at large any more;instead of this, one should maintain the unity of teaching and research as the centralidea of the old Humboldt universities.

All the actors involved actually seemed to pursue very different interests andstrategies, where the common framework of discussion has been not really clearup till now: Students are said to choose their studies due to personal inclinationsand own plans of life, professors are said to be interested in selling their knowledgeproducts like courses. State institutions and supra-national administrations alsocome in with some ideas, employers and politicians are said to only think short-time due to their local political interests within their environment. Therefore, mod-est critics articulated the hope that it were up to the university staff themselves,who had to find better answers as relevant actors to the market, also integrating anethical stance to the issue. Summarizing the problems mentioned in the discussion,the current situation in the reporting universities might be characterized as “chaos”in content, as a much more complicated relationship between the professionallabour market and the universities, and as a development which clearly does not fit

152

with the experiences of US-education. “Only the name of the concepts seems to bethe same but not their meanings, which are completely different”, claimed oneuniversity representative, considering that the credit system of ECTS points wereby no means comparable to the US-credit system of A-B-C-grades, even if thiscomparison might be intended by the Bologna Reform Process. Some argued thatit might be too early after three years of introduction the Bologna Reform Processat the FDV in Slovenia to make a judgement about the changes. “I am not veryenthusiastic. I do not have many expectations that this will be better. I will besatisfied when it will be not worse. …This whole conception is not well consideredand not long lasting. I am not sure I think after five, six or ten years a new reformwill be needed. Possible for longer I would say.” (I 13)

Clearly there were different experiences with and views of the Bologna Processby the representatives of the university departments taking place in the group dis-cussion; however, they all shared a common interest in future possibilities of co-operation like the development and implementation of a joint Master programme.Regarding the definitions of Master curricula in terms of the Bologna Reform Pro-cess, a Master degree contains a fourth and fifth year of education after havingreceived the Baccalaureate grade: as in a 4+1 year form or a 3+2 years form. AMaster curriculum is equipped with 300 ECTS points. It was argued, however, thata common base for developing a curriculum might be the ECTS system dependingon how much students have gained, the duration of study might possibly adjust toit. There were several reasons and interests for a joint Master programme whichhave been addressed by the universities’ representatives: “It is good for universitymarketing, it is probably the closest form of co-operation between universities, andthere are students interested in it.”

At Klagenfurt University there is still a Master programme of sociology lacking,students enrol as part of irregular studies or PhD studies in sociology; therefore theinterest in establishing a Master programme has been rather evident. KlagenfurtUniversity itself has a rather strong history in the sociology of education. Actuallyfounded in the early 1970 s as an University for Education due to the current zeit-geist of these times, it has been promoting the importance and relevance of edu-cational tasks. Regarding the proposed Baccalaureate curriculum of Maribor Uni-versity, there has been suggested a higher recognition of the sociology of work anda decreasing actual amount of different subjects to be chosen at the same timeincreasing the working loads thereof. In addition, Klagenfurt University represen-tatives have formulated at least two future perspectives regarding trans-nationalco-operations at a Master degree level: Firstly, substantially it might orient itselftowards a “global sociology” so that sociology might be interpreted as “the basicscience of all human living conditions”. Secondly, it has been recognized that ininsisting on the important role of employers in the Bologna Reform Process, the

153

possibility of student’s self-employment has actually been missing so far. Afterhaving gained professional experience in national parliaments, European institu-tions, in inter- and non-governmental organizations, they will possibly be able towork as self-employers and middle-level agents between individuals and interna-tional organizations for preparing proposals for international organizations and forbuilding new relations between relevant actors. However, the academic back-ground of this kind of new knowledge was said to be not so clear up till now.

At Maribor University there has been coincidentally implemented a new Masterprogramme of sociology due to the Bologna Reform Process, therefore their rep-resentatives shared also an interest in developing that programme on a commonand more internationalized basis. Maribor University has suggested a Master ofEuropean Studies at an advanced level, which requires students with sufficientlinguistic skills as well as instruments of financing it, and proposed to contributeto the Master programme in the subject fields of sociology of religion and thesociology of education as well. Within the latter field there are qualified teachers,researchers available and students interested.

From Ljubljana University there were already some experiences with a Mastercurriculum. However, it was also underlined that the current orientation of sociol-ogy departments in Ljubljana is already much internationalized and there couldevolve a growing interest in a joint study programme. Ljubljana University’s rep-resentative has emphasized that “there are employers who need people trained dueto this working profile at an interdisciplinary basis of the social sciences, in thesense of a Hochschulogie (logics of higher education, note)”. However, up till nowit was not clear, what the academic level of this new knowledge about EU processes,programmes and institutions might look like and where to gain new knowledge andskills. Finally, there has been considered the need to develop structures for anyprogramme, and therefore also the need for additional financial resources.

Unfortunately, at least within the frame of the focus group discussion in July2006, a joint Master programme could not been realized by the respective univer-sities; due to our knowledge it has neither been in the years since then. However,an explorative approach to this common interest might have outlined some of themain arguments for suggesting such a close form of inter-university co-operationwithin the common regional context. As we will see, there are already promisingexamples of trans-national co-operation in teaching which might inspire differentactors in the border region as well. Before, we will consider some experiences withanother structural opportunity of trans-national higher education which altereddefinitely with the EU accessions of Slovenia and Austria, namely the ERAS-MUS programme.

In general, it has been frequently underlined by sociologists that the main ad-vantage of the Bologna Reform Process is seen in the fact that student’s and some-

154

times teacher’s exchanges are made easier now, as an intellectually stimulating andexciting experience of learning and teaching in multi-national groups within aninternational context. To sketch the recent development of ERASMUS students,which took part in an exchange between Austria and Slovenia, let us first considersome numbers: Outgoing students from Austria to Slovenia increased from 4 (in1999/2000) to 40 (in 2006/07) students per year, in total 232 Austrian students werestudying by ERASMUS in Slovenia till 2010; outgoing teachers from Austria toSlovenia increased from 13 (in 2000/01) to 29 (in 2006/07) teachers per year, insum 195 teachers from Austria were teaching in Slovenia by ERASMUS till2010.25 At Ljubljana University, the ERASMUS programme has started already in1999, before the EU accession. Due to an interview with an International Relationsofficer, for all six participating faculties of Ljubljana University, per academic yearabout 850 students go out and 500 students come in, and about 90 teachers areinvolved in ERASMUS teacher’s exchange (I 10 b).

However, ERASMUS students do often face some problems, not only regardingthe insufficient offer of English-speaking courses at their host universities, but alsoby complicated ways of applying for courses and having degrees accepted withinthe framework of the Bologna Reform Process. For instance, the FDV of LjubljanaUniversity has been very quick in implementing the Bologna Reform Process inestablishing a 4+1 year system of Bachelor and Master curricula, which is, how-ever, rather incompatible with the most common 3+2 system. Although this mightbe regarded as a rather technical issue it could have some impact on the studycontent too (I 10 b). When considering actual experiences with student’s exchangecloser, one recognizes that problems often emerge in offering courses. For instance,Graz and Maribor Universities have signed mutual agreements on the exchange ofstudents due to ERASMUS. One student from Maribor wanted to go to Graz, butwas not accepted there, which from a Slovene point of view might be astonishing,since the Graz Department of Sociology is bigger than that in Maribor: “One cansay, yes, we agree to co-operate, but in detail then the difficulties arise, the devilis in the details” (I 8). One of the problems was that of offering study courses, whenthere are not enough foreign students to organize a course in English. Similar ex-periences with a German student in Maribor led to the suggestion that students notnecessarily need to attend lectures in foreign language but at the end of the studyterm had to do presentations and examinations (I 8). Another structural restrictionin this regard is that in Slovenia there has been ratified a law that for each coursein a foreign language it has to be offered the same course in Slovene too (I 10 b).

The positive side is seen in the fact that the ERASMUS programme enablesmany contacts with a lot of different partners in Europe and promotes mobility,

25 www.erasmus.at/inhalt2.php (Feb 25, 2012)

155

while, as we have seen by our short examples, in practice this depends on thepolicies of the respective faculties too. Covering different teaching topics – andavailable financial reseources as well ‑ means more flexibility to attract the bestteachers to this study, and this has been clearly appreciated by sociologists inter-viewed. “I really enjoy that because the climate is different, you meet people fromdifferent countries and for social sciences this is very important to understand thedifferent countries” (I 6). However, the same Slovene scholar regrets to say thatthese courses are rather randomly organized and not always accepted because it isa time-consuming task for teacher’s preparation.

The negative side for students is that ERASMUS only supports part of the realcosts of studying abroad (I 10 b). Another problem is that the amount of exchangestudents at Ljubljana University actually decreased within the last three years; thisis seen in connection with the Bologna Reform Process, which study terms oftendo not permit students to go abroad, the sometimes complicated comparability ofECTS points, or lack of quality control in estimating the studies done at foreignuniversities (I 10 b). At issue is especially the task of how to guarantee a continuityof their study for outgoing students. To conclude, the intention of the BolognaReform Process was not to decrease student mobility but in fact it is the unintendedeffect that this happens to be so. Future challenges might be the creation of a clearor homogeneous orientation of different actors in this field.

Strategies Towards Europeanization of Sociology

Several well-known sociologists like Jürgen Habermas, Ulrich Beck, MaurizioBach, Georg Vobruba and Max Haller have analyzed the emergence of the Euro-pean Union from a sociological perspective. Jürgen Habermas (Habermas 1998,2011; Levy 2005) has coined a version of “constitutional patriotism” (Habermas1998: 225 p.) as the only ethically acceptable basis for citizens’ national identifi-cation. On the one hand, he argues, citizens’ loyalty to a common political cultureis based on “a common horizon of interpretation” (ibid.) of constitutional principlesrooted in a nation’s historical experience, hence permeated by ethics too. On theother hand, he stresses a legal system’s neutrality vis-à-vis internal differentiatedmulti-cultural communities and insists on keeping these two levels of integrationconceptually distinct: “The universalism of legal principles manifests itself in aprocedural consensus, which must be embedded through a kind of constitutionalpatriotism in the context of a historically specific political culture” (Habermas1998: 226). Moreover, Habermas applies this notion to the integration of Europe,suggesting a transition of the European Community towards a constitutional federalstate and the strengthening of political institutions in Europe. While the identities

2.5

156

of citizens are partially shaped by political and legal institutions, a created Europeanidentity of its citizens would, in reverse, support democratization of Europe: “Giventhe political will, there is no a priori reason it cannot create the politically necessarycommunicative context once the constitutional basis for such a context has beenlaid down” (Habermas 1998: 161).

Beck (Beck/Grande 2004; Beck/Sznaider 2006) has articulated the view thattoday’s sociology must not only focus on nation states but on Europe as a newresearch unit: For it is recognized that not only did new problems and researchtopics emerge from the European Union, but the existence of the EU itself is per-ceived as a new problem. What has changed is the very subject of sociology at amacro-sociological level, since earlier in history society conceptualized as nation’sstate has always been in focus of sociology (ibid.). Therefore, he argues for a “cos-mopolitan realism” as characterized by three commitments (Beck/Sznaider 2006:2pp.): First, the critique of methodological nationalism shall overcome the blindspots of traditional sociology to multi-dimensional processes of change. Second,the 21th century is perceived as characterized by an imposed cosmopolitan condi-tion of real people, therefore often as “a function of coerced choices or a side-effectof unconscious decisions” (Beck/Sznaider 2006: 7), keeping it distinct from a moralideal of cosmopolitanism as expressed in Enlightenment philosophy. Third,methodological cosmopolitanism shall develop post-national concepts of the so-ciety, become sensitive for often conflicting contextual universalisms and includeother “native” sociologies (Beck/Sznaider 2006: 13pp.).

Bach (Bach 2000 b) in an empirical perspective has claimed that European in-tegration has contributed to several new research topics for sociology, like thebuilding and conflicts among institutions within the EU, the emergence of a com-mon market, convergence and social integration in Europe, or political public andmigration in Europe. On the one hand, he conceptually analyzes the mutual rela-tionship of institutional differentiation at EU level and societal change and suggestsan application of Max Weber’s concept of domination towards it (ibid.). On theother hand, as a result of EU integration there are recognized re-structuring pro-cesses of social and political areas within Europe, focusing on a “territorial” struc-tural analysis of political and social change, as developed, for instance, by SteinRokkan (ibid.).

Georg Vobruba (Vobruba 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010) in several publication hasshown the centrality of the distinction “national” versus “European” not only forthe political regulation of society, but also as constitutive frameworks of referencefor the sociological interpretation of European integration dynamics. Vobruba ar-gues that the interests of different actor groups such as European and national po-litical elites and the wider population as well relate to this distinction in a waytransforming the tension into poles of a conflict relationship. Moreover, in high-

157

lighting the contradiction between the expansion and the deepening of the Europeanintegration, he emphasises the crucial importance of European neighbourhood pol-icy at the external borders of Europe for the future of the EU itself, since it implicitlyreplaces homogeneous by graded integration in a dynamic of “concentric circles”:Vobruba suggests that the deepening of EU constellations of interests manifestsitself in relation to internal and external borders and boundaries as well, where inthe tension of Europe’s wealthy centre and peripheries, the exclusion by closure ofexternal EU boundaries is accompanied by the centre’s self-interested help for theperipheries.

The central hypothesis of Max Haller is that EU integration is an elite process(Haller 2008) profoundly supported by political and economic elites profiting froma complex European market; in contrast to it is the perception of the broad popu-lation which is actually rather sceptical, or at least no more enthusiastic, in viewingthe European Union, since for many social groups life has actually become worse.Furthermore, he criticizes that only experts from the regions do have access to anddistribute EU resources, not integrating the broad public which remains largelyuninformed about these opportunities: Haller underlines that the EU accessions ofmost of the new member states have been undertaken too rapid and brutal, so thatproblems of unemployment and of democracy have arisen (ibid.).

In the following outlining the perspectives of sociologists interviewed on theEU we will see that several aspects of that discussion are visible in their accountstoo. Apart from their practical experiences with EU research and development,sociologists interviewed were asked about their general point of view of the Euro-pean Union: How do they perceive the European Union, and do they regard the EUaccessions of Slovenia and Austria as a danger, a threat or as a chance? In whichway does the EU accession affect their daily routines as a sociological scholarwithin the scientific community and do they develop strategies to react on and copewith these forms of transformations? Which challenges and tasks, concepts andprocesses encompassing Europeanization of national societies are perceived asproblematic ones from a sociological perspective?

Repertoires of Evaluation: Assessing European Science Policy

We were interested in sociologists’ ideas, concepts and approaches in viewing theEuropean Union and the anticipated effect of the EU on their scientific everydaylife. Our starting thesis in this regard is the assumption that the general view of theEU integration processes at least to some extent would affect how sociologists copewith that situation in their daily working life and which current and future per-spective do they recognize regarding the question of a developing sociology in

2.5.1

158

Europe. Specifically we were interested in self-conceptions, moods towards theEuropean Union and possible “strategies of transformation” (Weingart 1998) ofthe interviewed sociologist to deal with institutional and organizational changebrought by the EU. In this respect we follow Peter Weingart (Weingart 1998), whohas analyzed these attitudes towards and strategies of coping with societal trans-formations among mostly natural scientists in three post-communist countries(Russia, Belarus, Czech Republic) due to a secondary literature analysis. Due toWeingart (1998), scientists in post-communist countries are confronted with deeptransformations within their university institutional systems as well as theacademies of science. Among the effects of the societal transition at the level ofthe university system, he reports (Weingart 1998: 146 p.): the ageing of the scien-tific staff, which goes hand in hand with an internal as well as external ‘brain drain’;lack of funds and material equipment as well as severe budget cuts which causedthe reduction of personnel; the necessity and differing actual opportunity in takingup secondary jobs in order to get by economically; the increase of international co-operations as well as of publications in western countries which was accompaniedby a decrease of co-operations with former communist countries (Weingart 1998:146 p.). In the only non-natural scientific research institute that was investigated,a department of philosophy in Czech Republic, “the stress on programmatic dis-continuity and the complete reorientation (although now largely by virtue of indi-vidual choice) clearly indicates the ideological break with the past, which in phi-losophy and sociology is particularly evident. …It is not at all clear that thephilosophers who were subject to ideological pressures more so than any otheracademic field have most decidedly moved towards the traditional pattern of indi-vidualistic research. Their self-assessment is corroborated by their reintegrationinto the international community of scholars, which they proudly note” (Wein-gart 1998: 145 p.).

It is not clear up till now, whether and in which way this is also applicable tothe situation in the common border region respective in Slovenia. Slovenia as for-mer sub-republic of Yugoslavia had a quite different institutional framework thanmost of the other post-communist systems. However, regarding specifically theimplicit dimension of knowledge produced by actors and its relevance for processesof knowledge production, dissemination and distribution, it seems plausible to in-tegrate the examination of these strategies of transformation within the search forpossible impacts on the development of sociology as a discipline. It is interestingin itself how people act and react encountering these deep transformations initiatedby the EU accession of the respective country and in which way it does affect theeveryday life and future prospects, the habitus, the mood and the attitude of soci-ologists active in pursuing sociology as a scientific discipline.

159

While Weingart in his comparative investigation of scientists within EasternEurope emphasizes the action-oriented aspect of “strategies of transformation”,Michèle Lamont and Laurent Thèvenot in their cross-national cultural study of theinstitutionalization of categories and cultural practices in France and the UnitedStates (Lamont/Thévenot 2000) underline the notion of symbolic boundaries, cul-tural repertoires, and criteria of evaluation. By them, “repertoires of evaluation”are defined as “elementary grammars that can be available across situations andthat pre-exist individuals, although they are transformed and made salient by in-dividuals“ (Lamont/Thévenot 2000: 5 p.). Interested in the content of these criteriaor repertoires used in order to draw boundaries and evaluate practices, for instance,in the political and cultural sphere, she intends to document the distribution of theseschemata across national cultural repertoires and investigates how they competewith or are used in conjunction with one another. (ibid.). In this way the authorsdraw a distinction between “market-based” versus “civic” criteria of evaluationbased on social solidarity, or rather “moral” versus “aesthetic” criteria in evaluatingcultural excellence. Although Lamont and Thévenot do not investigate scientistsbut everyday knowledge actors, their approach can fruitfully be applied to our fieldtoo. In a similar way, sociologists’ judgments concerning the European Union andits science policy, as visible in their accounts, can be interpreted as part of nationaland cross-national “repertoires of evaluation”. In contrast to, or complementing,results given in section 2.2., here we not so much draw a distinction between twonational communities, but rather ask, which other factors might influence sociol-ogists’ evaluations of the European Union and its science policy.

The prevailing view of sociologists has been to see the European Union both asa chance and a danger. Most dominantly, they address the EU as a matter of factwhile there is perceived no other alternative specifically for small or medium-sizedcountries like Slovenia and Austria to their EU membership, given they do not wantto isolate themselves (I 16). On the one hand, social units of specific size are saidto simply be a new reality; on the other, there is observed that because of that bigsize specific forms of democracy like referenda run to their limits, regarding citi-zens’ participation, while both of it is considered as a historical process (I 19). TheEU integration is seen as an important step and a profound change, which is also achance for a more intense exchange by co-operation between countries (I 1).

Moreover, the amount of criticism against what is perceived as a kind of ideol-ogy encompassed by the EU accessions, has been remarkable. By sociologists,several central concepts have been reflexively and sceptically dealt with in thisregard: the role of political and economic elites and those of new social actors inthe field, new inequalities and organizations of work, issues of citizen’s participa-tion, EU bureaucracies and democracy, the status of the EU in times of globaliza-tion, nationalism and xenophobia in Europe, and a general social lag in contrast to

160

the enforced economic dimension of the EU. Subsequently we will deal with theseissues of critical concern.

It has been emphasized that particularly among academics the view on the EUis generally too optimistic and positive culminating into “base flatteries”, whereassociologists’ articulated critique is a specific challenge (I 1). However, it has beenself-critically prompted the question: “What is the aim of opposition against theEU when you are in the EU?” (I 14).

Some people underlined that they miss “a dialectical approach” towards theEuropean Union, regarding the dialectical relationship of EU integration and thelow internal cohesion within national communities, resulting into the disintegrationof national structures (I 14). Particular critique has been articulated against versionsand visions of the EU which were formulated by US-American scholars like JeremyRifkin (Rifkin 2004), “where the EU is represented as the lucky happiness andproject for future, where they project their wishes into, what cannot be realizedwithin America. They think the EU will realize these visions. The EU Commissionis happy about this and propagate that on the web page. … This big hope in a world’sstate, to create a world’s state, is part of that Protestant area” (I 14).

The fact that Slovenia has held the EU presidency for the first half of 2008, hasbeen ambiguously viewed by sociologists; some appreciated the “historically newpossibility” to acquire and accumulate some first-hand experience as a new memberwithin the EU (I 17). Others considered the Slovene EU presidency rather as an“Eurosong”, a kind of pretence, ”this many state’s game with many politicians andwith much costs of public money” (I 18). Furthermore, it has been underlined thatSlovenia as relatively autonomous part of Yugoslavia already has made the expe-rience of adjustment towards Belgrade administration, therefore this situationwould be not really new for Slovenia. However, this Slovene sociologist hoped thatafter “the permanent Eurosong till end of June 2008” there will happen a politicalchange in the government in fall, like it happened in Austria before, namely afterits EU presidency in 2006 (I 18). Indeed, the elections in September 2008 werewon by the socialist party.

Considering the EU as “a structural answer to globalization” (I 11) then partic-ularly leads one to sceptically review power relations in favour of political elitesand leaders instead of workers and the broader population (I 1, I 11) which also donot converge in their perception of the European Union EU bureaucracies by so-ciologists are perceived as immensely powerful so that actual reforms can be easilyprevented by them; the EU bureaucracy is seen as an in-efficient and non-innova-tive one, rather as an instrument of domination in the sense of Max Weber (I 1).All across Europe social inequalities and differences between higher and lowerincome have increased. Sociology as regarded by sociologists is capable of raisingimportant questions in how these inequalities are generated, which interest groups

161

are part of this process in order to decrease them. It has been expounded how hasthe role of social actors changed, since EU integration has weakened the power ofnational trade unions, and transition into flexible labour markets has resulted intoless employees organized in trade unions (I 1).

The role of the EU in the globalization process has been viewed rather scepticallyin the sense that it is not clear whether particularly the EU does determine theseprocesses of globalization. It might be the case that the EU as a network is deep-ening or recognizing the influences of the globalization, but sometimes also de-creasing it (I 18). These influences considered as “rather soft” are visible in thatSlovenia has adapted to the diversity of norms produced by the EU in the phase ofharmonization of a slow accession; this had an impact on all areas of social life (I18). Particularly this refers to the rural population and farmers where the processof privatization has been massively changed and accelerated since the 1990 s (I 18).Europe clearly is interpreted as contributing to the enhancing of social borders andinequalities between social groups, in the sense that those already rich become evenricher; whereas in Slovenia till the 1990 s there has not been any really rich groupof people in society (I 18). Within the minds of a part of the Slovene populationnow there is said to exist “a kind of reckoning with communism” where everythinghas to be refunded (I 18). Furthermore it has been emphasized that inflation is ratherhigh in Slovenia (I 11), and the prices for food and other goods were continuouslyrisen by becoming part of the monetary union (I 16).

There has been experienced more competition and more demanding challengesof work now among other EU members than it was the case in former Yugoslavstate, where it was possible “to sell everything to the south” (I 17) because Sloveniahas been the most developed sub-republic in terms of living and quality stan-dards. “If you now produce something material or some idea, this idea has to betested against the high standards of the best in the EU. This is becoming for somepeople really a challenge that they will not be able to manage. They will ratherleave it to future generations or stay within their work inherited from Yugoslavia”(I 17), while this kind of standard of living has been perceived as “not somethingthat comes from Brussels but something that you have to produce on your ownground at home” (I 17). In addition, sometimes the Slovene population is said toexpect more from the EU than it actually receives: When there had been the terribleflood some years ago in Austria as well as in Slovenia, there has been said to occura damage of 800 million Euro in Slovenia, and people expected to be supported bythe EU; the European Commission agreed to support the Slovenian state, but onlywith one percent of the actual damage, so people were said to get really disappointed(I 17). In addition, sociologists questioned whether the European Union has builton its social dimension, apart from economic success: “This is the so-called struc-tural adjustment of the European sclerotic countries to the general development.

162

And the main problem I see is that you may have an economic success in this sense,but you also need some kind of social success” (I 11).

As part of what can be perceived as a social lag in contrast to economic devel-opment, frequently has been criticized the so-called EU’s democracy deficit, sincecentral constitutions and legislations are defined by the European Council and theCommission, which are not elected boards. All nation states have to ratify theselaws, and then a model of democracy by referenda is not adequate anymore (I 1).The democracy deficit has been considered as a problem of citizens’ participation,where one has to give freedom and time, financial resources and a specific know-ledge to people (I 19). This prompts the question whether it is an adequate claimor an illusion to project old postulates of democracies onto Brussels. It should alsobe realized that the very meaning of democracy is at stake, as either grass rootsdemocracy, parliamentary democracy or domination by experts (I 19). At generallevel, a challenge for the EU would be “how to develop the democratic right on thesupranational level” (I 17) which has been actually perceived as a challenge forpolitical sociology too to develop new ideas and political mechanisms that couldexpress a wider European consensus.

Furthermore, nationalism and xenophobia are said to be still a problem withinthe EU, when in spring 2008 sociologists considered the recognition of indepen-dence of the Republic of Kosovo by EU member states (I 15). Nationalism andxenophobia were viewed to be also virulent in Slovenia as new emerging state’ssovereignty to be given at least to some extent away in favour of the EU; EUmembership provides for the “first practical tool” leading all of us to the experienceof interculturality by practice (I 17). Others have been critical against a furtherenlargement of the EU and the question of its outer frontiers, since there is antici-pated a point where EU enlargement should not go further: It has been argued, ifthe EU grows too fast it will not be able to function, and time is needed for adjust-ment (I 15).

Regarding the question whether their everyday life as a scientist has changedvery much by the EU accessions, sociologists replied that this might be rather anissue of generations within the scientific community. At least Austrian represen-tatives of the “project generation” convincingly underlined their strong interna-tional orientation towards the European researchers’ community as the relevantpeer-group, for there are said to be very few research projects outside Europe (I 2).There are European project calls, conferences, and professional associations, bul-letins and email-lists as valuable media of communication, and there were clearlyperceived numerous researchers interested in a stronger internationalization (I 2).Slovene sociologists underlined that “people feel part of Europe” in their wish tocompare their work and lives to other Europeans and are interested in improvingtheir work and lives, want better chances and a wider territory for studying and

163

looking for a job (I 3). Indeed they recognized “a kind of multiculturalism that wasnot very typical for average Slovenian life before” (I 3). Some people, however,argued that as far as they are concerned there has been no strong impact of the EUaccessions on daily routines, because of having been on scholarships in Germanyand Great Britain before, and therefore were well equipped with a great deal ofinternational contacts (I 6). Nevertheless, these sociologists emphasized that nowa-days the institutional and structural opportunities for trans-national co-operationare far more complex, “more normal and organic” than ever before (I 17). Thisincludes also the possibility to teach in trans-national contexts: For instance, onesociologist from Ljubljana University teaching post-graduate students at BolognaUniversity, Italy, about the EU, national identities and globalization (I 17). Espe-cially people from the pioneering generation, who had experienced the transfor-mations set by EU accessions relatively late within their life, articulated the wishand hope that the EU will change possibilities for their children and grandchildren,while getting prepared for this development in learning English (I 18).

Institutions, Practices, Narratives: In Which Way Can We Speak of AnEuropeanization of Sociology?

When considering the view of sociologists, let us first begin with some counter-arguments which do deny the hypothesis that there can be identified something likean European dimension or even Europeanization of sociology. These sociologistsunderlined that a) national traditions of sociology still prevail; b) that in Europe theproblem of communication because of very heterogeneous languages is virulent;c) regarding European integration processes, these eventually have been alteredmostly by economic investments of enterprises, not so much by European institu-tions or sociological scholars themselves; d) and the dominance of US research isseen as much more important than a proposed Europeanization of sociology. Letus first take a look on these counter-arguments towards Europeanization of sciencestep by step.

The question whether there is any European dimension in sociology has beenperceived as a rather difficult one, because the sociological tradition is still andalways oriented very much towards the nation state; sociology indeed has been ananswer to a problematic situation that emerged in the context of a nation state (I19). Sociologists considered it as a main problem of sociology that its core subject,societies, are still conceptualized as nation states in theory; it has been criticizedfor several times that it is no common knowledge that the nation state’s view onsocieties itself is at stake. This might be a specifically sociological view, sincesocial psychologists or philosophers do discuss more on an international level,

2.5.2

164

because they also have other frameworks of reference than societies; political so-ciologists do, at least, discuss inter-stately relations; in contrast to it, sociologistswould not have an comparable inter-stately unit of analysis (I 20). However, em-pirically it would be much more informative to compare regions of let’s say un-employment and not only entire countries: Furthermore, large-scale research likeALLBUS (Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfragen der Sozialwissenschaften) and IS-SP provide for empirical data mostly available only at national level and not at aregional one, with the one exception of EUROSTAT (I 20). Frequently sociologistsregretted that knowledge and information about national traditions of sociologywithin Europe is still rather low (I 20).

In addition, the heterogeneity of different language communities is seen as a realhindrance of establishing a common communication culture all across Europe. Al-though English is the lingua franca of scientific discourse, scholarly discussionsstill orient themselves towards language communities (I 20). The dominance ofEnglish language is considered to result in high costs for a national culture: “Aus-trians always had that option to get lost of their Austrian identity in favour of aGerman one or nowadays in favour of an Anglo-Saxon one” (I 7). One hindrancefor non-native speakers, furthermore, has been observed in that it is harder to writea sociological text in English, for in contrast to the natural sciences in sociologythere is the knowledge claim that literary style is not totally irrelevant (I 20). It hasbeen estimated that only about 10 per cent of Austrian sociologists try to publishin English; besides, it was mentioned that the proportion of English papers in themuch bigger community of Germany is not inevitably higher (I 20).

As part of the counter-arguments mentioned, there has been underlined that theintegration process in fact has been initiated by Western economic enterprises ac-tive in the East and that in this respect we are dealing not so much with achievementsof EU institutions themselves (I 1). In quite a similar way it has been argued thatthe European project is regarded as an “old-fashioned” political project: One so-ciologist set the issue in a system-theoretic framework, arguing, that a highly au-tonomous subsystem is really allowed to be autonomous in this respect and doesnot try to impose the logic of one political system to the logics of other fields (I 6).The limitations to Europe are sometimes politically motivated, and politicians wereperceived as rather “dictating the priorities of topics” to be dealt with; scientistswere said to adapt to that situation and “have accepted this game”, where politiciansmake decisions concerning political science, however, that fact has been viewedwith some scepticism (I 6). Furthermore, it is observed that the language of socialscience has been “polluted by this political language”, as said to be empty and withno content, reminding the respective sociologist of debates of the early 1980 s intime of self-management in Yugoslavia (I 6).

165

Moreover, in some way American sociology has been regarded to be more im-portant for Austrian sociology than, for instance, French or Spanish sociology (I19). Similarly, it has been underlined by sociologists that, for several reasons intimes of globalization within research it is of no use to limit oneself only to Europeas a too narrow unit of analysis (I 6): Because when one really wanted to work well,he or she would still go to the United States, try to stay there or collaborate withresearchers from there. There has been drawn an analogy to economic development,where the EU integration is not of much impact on the textile industry, but certainlyglobalization and global actors like enterprises active in India and China (I 6).

What could be regarded as an European dimension of sociology? Well, as men-tioned by sociologists that depends on which differences one draws: European so-ciology has been considered to be more theory-oriented than American sociology,theoreticians like Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Jürgen Habermas are in asense important, and in American sociology one does not find that in the same way(I 20). Furthermore, from a Slovene point of view European integration is said tohave much improved theoretical knowledge within sociology generally (I 3). Onthe other hand, it has often been argued, American sociology can cover every nicheof research very well, because it is a much larger community: In contrast, withinEurope one has the problem to find competent researchers specialized in particularfields (I 1, I 7). Furthermore, in Europe one has different languages to communicate,and national communities are often small so that it is impossible to take the highprofessional standard and quality into account that is common, on average, inAmerica. That has been said to be not valid for mass products, where Europe isproductive too, but in America there are elite universities, where some scholarsthen define what is regarded as innovative and progressive within their field (I 7).It seemed to be, however, that in contrast to the natural sciences, in the socialsciences national communities are still of some relative importance (I 19). Evenrather big communities like the German sociological community, it has been ar-gued, are surprisingly little oriented towards international habits, journals, and cri-teria; the German community has been seen as not as self-confident as in formertimes, it has lost in theoretical terms and did not gain much in other fields (I 7).

However, Europe has been said to be still a rather “orchid topic” within the scopeof sociological areas which is mainly in interest and research focus of politicalscientists at least in Austria (I 20). Moreover, when we identify European jour-nals as publication organs at an European level, they were said not to represent theentirety of Europe but rather specific ongoing debates (I 20). However, in a positiveperspective there has been mentioned the journal European Societies as really doc-umenting a discussion about the European question, in the sense of variationswithin Europe (I 20). Nevertheless, an European dimension of sociology mightrather be the case in specific fields of work, in the sense of relatively clearly char-

166

acterized “applied sociologies” like the sociology of welfare systems, sociology ofhealth, and so on: Specializations within a rather small national community domean, it has been argued, that one encounters research partners and colleaguesrather on an European level, not inevitably on a national one (I 1, I 20). Besides, ithas been criticized that the General Directorate Research does promote projectssaid to be rather irrelevant, although many papers are produced but of no generalimportance: In other areas like labour market research, however, there were saidto be produced papers of real specific relevance also mutually perceived and builtupon a common context of discussion (I 20). There one could observe that the sameproblem of unemployment is treated in regionally very different ways, and one canbuild on the experience of learning from each other (I 20).

After having outlined the main counter-arguments against the assumption of anEuropean dimension of sociology, let us now point to those contributions who doshare the view ‑ or outline a vision ‑ of an emerging European sociology, at leastas a potentiality or future prospective. Regarding this issue there are several pos-itions possible, imaginable rather as a continuum of positions than a clear dichoto-my, which might be seen as more or less deeply inclined to sociology as an Euro-pean project. For our purposes, let us first discuss those who underline the impor-tance of the social and institutional organization of science within an Europeanframework, in the form of trans-national scientific co-operations. Second, let usconsider closer those perspectives which more radically argue that even in content,or in cognitive terms, it might be possible to conceive an European dimension ofsociology, as in new practices and standards of research applied, exchange ofknowledge and experience by best practice models, and a peculiar cognitive chal-lenge of comparative sociology. Third, we will identify those anwers of sociologiststhat take Europe and the European Union mainly as a historically grown entity whatreflexively should enable sociologists to historically reflect the meaning of Europe,its possible “others”, and the historical and current status of sociology within thisframework as well.

Many sociologists frequently emphasized that “in Europe we have been at anytime, purely by the advantages or disadvantages of one’s geographical location…We have been, also in former times, in the middle of Europe, even before 1995” (I7). However, most of them have argued that the EU enforces a definite impact onthe promotion of research at an institutional level, regarding the institutional formof doing science, but not so much the content (I 19). In this modest perspective, itis mainly the new possibility of joint projects in scientific and regional co-opera-tions, where this dimension is supported by way of consortia where several researchpartners from different countries participate in. What has been observed as reallyhaving changed is that international networking is much better and stronger thanbefore, and it was positively appreciated that Austrian sociologists take part in

167

international institutions like the ESA. But it is still not clear that the existence ofthe ESA is a result of the European integration; Slovene and Austrian sociologistshave started activities for founding the ESA already in the early 1990 s, clearlybefore the EU accessions (I 1, I 12). Besides, it has been speculated that possiblythe EU leads to a disintegration of national traditions of sociology, but does notprovide for a substitution at European level (I 14). On the one hand, science cultureswere said to have emerged out of historical developments of aristocracy, bour-geoisie, and on the other, international organizations dictating a specific kind ofthinking like benchmarking (I 14).

Another point of view is that one could speak of an Europeanization of sociol-ogy’s professional standards, at least among Austrian researchers, within the last20 years, due to indicators of scientific culture in general. For example, when inthe 1970 s one has sent a paper to a colleague it often was the case that answerstook a long time, if any (I 7). However, nowadays Austrian sociology has been saidto have adapted to that situation within the last two decades and developed a pro-fessional culture similar to other countries in Western Europe, which has improvedby enforced institutional competition as well as networking and co-operation, on adaily basis evident in quick contacts per email, relatively prompt feedbacks, andgenerally accepted proposal deadlines (I 7). Nevertheless, the EU provides for moreco-operation of scientists, in organizational terms, also for more motivation to un-dertake trans-national activities. Evaluation procedures at European level wereviewed as more impersonal and objective than before, since three referees have tocome to a consensus due to specific criteria; nation states do formally have someinfluence on the process, but in fact were said to intervene rather seldom (I 14).One open question is the quality of referees, for whom there has been a relativelybalanced proportion, for instance, by gender and age, but there are no official re-strictions for registering as a referee (I 14). Advocacy research and applied re-search, in the sense of a clear usability for the EU, has been perceived as a severerestriction. Sceptical critique was articulated against how the EU seems to interveneinto the content of scientific activities, how methods are used and how a specificform of science policy is favoured. Then the EU could possibly document thatparticular research topics were promoted and funded, but does not document whathas been done with all that information; it has simply been doubted that the EUGeneral Directorates then read the project reports, as unlikely as Austrian ministries(I 14).

When we now consider some views of sociologists who actually do support theidea of an European dimension of sociology, then this perspective is developed dueto several cognitive aspects. For instance, it has been argued that within the mergeof trans-national contacts mediating knowledge and experience of researchers shallbe organized as an exchange of best practice models in research important to be

168

identified by sociologists (I 5). As one example it has been stressed that expertsfrom Slovenia have got much information by lectures about Austrian intermediarystructures between science, technology and industry, like the Technology Parks inGraz or in Villach/Beljak, on how they are organized and how scientific researchinstitutions as the IFZ in Graz are well-connected with local groups and institutionslike municipalities (I 5). On the other hand, it is taken as a challenge to apply thistrans-national knowledge to the situation in Slovenia by expertise in the imple-mentation of European Structure Funds used for innovation policies (I 5).

Moreover, several sociologists have underlined the importance of cross-nationalcomparative sociology for today: “Comparative sociology is now on price. … Inpast times we were more active towards historical explanations of the current sit-uation within the same context. Now it is more important to compare systems andthe outcome of systems including different contexts they have. … So we put a moresystemic way of thinking when you compare nations” (I 11). Generally spoken,doing comparative sociology is inevitable to be able to recognize the peculiaritiesof one’s own structures, preventing oneself from an over- or under-estimation ofmany determinants of different situations as well as critically reflecting the com-monalities in perception of members of the same society (I 7). Examples of cross-national comparative sociology given are the European Value Study or the Euro-pean Social Survey, providing empirical evidence which till now was not at disposalespecially from Eastern European countries. Cross-cultural comparisons were saidto be a real consequence of EU accessions, globalization, and international co-operation of scientists developed quite intensively in the last few years: In this pointof view, there might be tendencies in the direction of an European sociology in thesense of “more integration, more co-operation, more common projects, more ex-change of ideas” (I 13). A direct impact of the EU accessions on certain topicsmight be to include the “European point of view”, some comparative sociologyprojects, scientific literature and results from other European countries into thesociological curriculum (I 3).

Besides, researchers insisted on the regional dimension of European socialstructure as well as of sociological research, comparing some regional (as Scandi-navian, Mediterranean, East European, Anglo-Saxon) clusters in Europe, which,however, were considered to do not converge in an European model (I 11). Ratherit has been regarded as more productive to think in terms of clusters of differentmentalities in Europe than about European mentality (I 11). When we develop thatidea further, regions indeed could be depicted as a new level of sociological ana-lysis, as we have for several times argued before. In addition, that prompts thequestion whether regions are constitutive for identity-formation of its population:In the viewpoint of an Austrian sociologist (I 7), mentalities are mostly regionallycharacterized, especially when these regions were necessary to survive; however,

169

one disadvantage of the concept of region is seen in covering many social and ethniccleavages of more importance than administrative issues determining regions. There-discovery of the region is linked to supra-national integration and formation ofbroader power monopoles; with the fact that nation states are only partiallysovereign ones, there are created centrifugal forces, as can be seen in the exampleof Scotland or former Yugoslav territories (I 7). This has been clearly consideredas a dialectical development when there are formatted units of higher order (I 7).Furthermore, the EU looks for an audience at regional level as receivers of sub-ventions for developmental policies, which might contribute to regional identitiestoo (I 7). The ethnic aspect in regarding different historically grown, cultural men-talities, as emotional structures, is underlined in the formation of modern societies,not diminished by economic growth and mass consumption (I 7).

Rather in the same sense, some researchers perceived Central and Eastern Eu-rope as a usable frame of reference of their sociological thinking. When consideringcountries like Slovenia, Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Italyand Germany, there has been recognized that we are dealing with common culturalinstitutions and an intellectual space from the 19th century onwards. In this areapeople freely travelled around and spread ideas, although at least Slovene socialsciences were, sometimes in contrast to those in other countries, largely Marxistdominated (I 16). Other sociologists went even further in their ability to identifyan European dimension of sociology in speaking about both aspects: a historicalone and also from a contemporary point of view. Historically, sociology was tillthe middle of the 20th century practically entirely “European”; classic sociologists,as Auguste Comte, Emile Durkheim, Herbert Spencer, and Max Weber constructeda new scientific discipline, till the worldwide extension of functionalism and itsprevalence till the end of 1980 s (I 12). In the last two decades, after the criticismof positivist, functionalist as well as other streams in sociology, as symbolic inter-actionism, System Theory, etc., sociology was again said to be more “European”(I 12). This orientation and designation has been connected with the very researchobject, and various investigations showed the difference between societies in theUnited States and Europe; of course in the latter there are also significant differ-ences, particularly regarding the welfare system and the model of market manage-ment (I 12). The establishment of the European Sociological Association has beenappreciated as one of the visible signs of the existence of an “European” specificity,where several of the sociologists interviewed took part in since the early 1990 s (I1, I 12). The hope of those is “that the common life in the EU will not progressaccording to the model experienced (by hegemony and pressure of ‘big’ nations)in the history, either the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg monarchy or the federal Yu-goslav state” (I 12).

170

Nevertheless, some scholars regard the heritage of European sociology in thetradition and developments of Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, but alsoMarxist Theory, as it has been influential especially in Germany (I 9, I 19): Twentyor thirty years ago the history of sociological ideas has found a broad resonance inthe United States, furthermore representatives of the Critical Theory have been,after their emigration from Germany, active at US universities and had some in-fluence in the US, but also in France (I 9). This impact has been, nowadays, de-scribed as “a merely latent one, at the moment” (I 9), especially because CriticalTheory currently is treated rather “like of museum quality” (I 9), as if it were im-portant only for a certain period of time. However, at second sight Critical Theory’sparadigms and leading perspectives were considered as important till nowadays,as working on central concepts. For this, it has been argued, it should also be takeninto account what Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse havewritten in contrast to that what is regarded as Critical Theory today, but also thatJürgen Habermas himself in his early writings has been certainly influenced by theFrankfurt School (I 9) .

When asked about their wishes for future sociology within the EuropeanUnion, sociologists specifically from Slovenia often replied in articulating the needfor an European newspaper as a common media of communication at Europeanlevel (I 17) and the idea of an European-wide e-journal in sociology (I 15) with theadvantage of more rapid publication possibilities than in traditional professionalmagazines. Furthermore, it was suggested that economics should support intellec-tual exchange and mobility of students and teachers not only because of immediatecommercial interest but also for wider intellectual endeavours, new knowledgeabout each other and cross-cultural encounters of relevant actors (I 17). For therealization of rather similar aims the need for more interdisciplinary studies hasbeen emphasized (I 19), and there has been articulated the interest in a student’sexchange at doctoral level in form of a common post-graduate study of severaluniversities (I 20). In addition, sociologists mentioned that there is a growing needin sound sociological research on stratification and inequalities as well as cross-national comparisons and comparative sociology (I 1, I 11, I 13, I 16), demographicchanges (I 11), values and religion (I 15), the sociology of science and technology(I 19), the sociology of education and work (I 9), and nationalism, citizenship andEuropean identities as well (I 17). In general, it frequently has been emphasizedthe growing importance of trans-national regional development and cross-culturalcontacts of sociologist in Slovenia and Austria. In subsequent chapters we willconsider, how sociologists in practice have already experienced institutional formsof sociological co-operation and partnership at an EU level and which best-practice-models can be identified in this regard. This might inspire future activities of so-ciologists in the two countries as well.

171

The Challenge of Trans-national Co-operation

Getting a Sense for Co-operating Trans-nationally

To reflect experiences with trans-national co-operations we first turn to some ratherinformal contacts between the neighbouring countries which have been reportedby sociologists. We then focus on some examples of trans-national co-operationwithin the institutional framework of research projects mostly funded by the EU.Finally, factors are outlined, which, in the viewpoint of sociologists, do actuallyhinder or promote a deeper trans-national co-operation within the scientific com-munity and we then suggest a dynamic “trajectory” model of scientific co-opera-tion.

One purpose of this chapter is to document various trans-national collaborationswhich have already existed before the EU accessions of the respective countries ona rather informal and non-institutionalized way, but which often did not result inany organizational co-operation. Being so close, partnerships and collaborationnetworks among sociologists are maybe easy to be organized, also because of spa-tial proximity of the two neighbour states; however, as was regretted by one Aus-trian sociologist active in trans-national collaboration with neighbours sincedecades, one simply does not remember these incidents, when they are only rarelydocumented (I 14). It could be, however, that the EU impact on trans-national co-operation might increase the consciousness about the need to document it: Whatabout the actual collaboration in projects, what about the kind of partnership in-volved? What are legal and financial instruments to achieve co-operation, andwhich factors do contribute to a successful trans-national co-operation of scien-tists?

Sociologists were asked whether in their point of view the EU accessions of thetwo states have really increased and deepened trans-national co-operations amongsociologists. Those from the pioneering generation did often appreciate the largenumber of international contacts which have already existed before (I 18, I 9). Alsoin the perspective of second generation’s sociologists, these not necessarily in-creased with the EU accession (I 1). They often regretted that there are not so muchtrans-national contacts between the neighbouring countries when compared withother international co-operations: “It is astonishing that we do not know each otheras neighbours very well, however, we have contacts with people relatively far awayin English-speaking countries” (I 1). Only sociologists from the “project genera-tion” were unambiguous in their accounts that Europeanization of sociology defi-nitely has promoted trans-national co-operation.

Many sociologists do prefer informal contacts among colleagues although theyare eventually not so much funded but they also lack the disadvantages of heavy

2.6

2.6.1

172

bureaucratic work like in the context of huge EU funded projects. These informalcontacts were estimated as being more productive and more exciting, while, one isforced to get funds for that kind of work by other projects (I 19). However, somesociologists underlined that since the EU accessions informal forms of trans-na-tional co-operation have been more and more promoted and increased. “Such con-tacts and friendships now are of course much easier to establish than before. Thisis really a new feeling. …Specific things now are really easier than before. On theother hand, one cannot emphasise peculiarities, a specific closeness to the neigh-bour country” (I 8). Younger sociologists reported that changed circumstances ofdoing research as a result of the EU accessions clearly positively affect more trans-national contacts by fellowship programmes, in the context of common conferencemeetings or research projects (I 2).

Sociologists from the pioneering generation remembered that there has been alively co-operation with European sociologists from France, Great Britain, and theUnited States, starting already within the 1960 s addressing the idea of self-admin-istration in the former Yugoslav state, where several sociologists from all overEurope and the US were interested in. However, these co-operations were thensteadily decreasing (I 18). For some Austrian sociologists, there had been valuablecontacts with scholars of the former Yugoslav state, as regarding a civil societyproject in the 1980 s; for several times this sociologist has been at the InteruniversityCentre in Dubrovnik, getting into contact with several persons from the famousYugoslav Praxis Group and German Critical Theory too (I 7). Further, within the1980 s there has been mentioned an Austrian co-operation to Central and EeasternEuropean countries in the context of “Networking Austria” (Vernetztes Österre-ich) initiated from the former Minister of Education and Science Erhard Busek (I14). In the current international summer school at Graz University there are alsosome sociologists involved, researchers from CEE countries like Croatia do takepart in, and there were said to be developed joint projects, themes and proceduresof common interest (I 4). From Slovene sociologists active in Maribor and Ljubl-jana there were reported former contacts and co-operations with departments inKlagenfurt, Graz, Linz, and Vienna, which in some cases unfortunately were fin-ished later on (I 5, I 16).

In the 1980 s too, there were some meetings between sociologists who plannedto establish an Alps-Adriatic sociological association with sociologists from Slove-nia, Italy, and Austrian Styria and Carinthia (I 1, I 14). It was regretted that theseattempts were not really successful, maybe because there have been not enoughsubstantial contacts or there were too less sociologists from an Austrian side par-ticipating. Some people, from both countries, have thought of confirming contactsof the national sociological associations SSD with the ÖGS, but were never in theposition for doing so (I 5, I 14): “I would immediately put more power and forces

173

into that direction; because the Slovene community is small and open and it is veryquickly possible to organize a meeting with another small community, of ratherlocal character. It would be important to put more effort and energy into thesemeetings, maybe also to other European neighbours like Croatia” (I 5). This soci-ologist made also clear that he would be highly interested in taking part in an EUproject like that he knew from Graz IAS-STS summer school, which will be elab-orated further below, “because who shall communicate in these neighbouringcountries, if not scientists” (I 5). Among the average population there might besome mental reservations, prejudice and stereotypes for trans-national co-opera-tion, however, it was argued, among sociologists that would not be the case (I 5).

Sociologists from Ljubljana and Graz highly involved in some internationallarge-scale projects like the International Social Survey Programme ISSP, theEuropean Value Survey, the World Value Survey or the European Social Survey,are very well connected among each other; actual personal relationships are seenas the most important basis for organizing such common research activities (I 1, I18). The Slovene researcher underlined that these co-operations were influentialboth for the inner situation of sociology in Slovenia and for the positioning ofSlovene sociological research within the wider international community: Tillnowadays there are a lot of good contacts of the Slovene Public Opinion Pollproject located in Ljubljana to numerous research institutes in Vienna (I 18).

From several sociologists there was reported a student’s seminar co-operationbetween scholars from Graz University and from Ljubljana University, for lectureexchange and a joint seminar (I 1, I 6, I 7). The seminar co-operation was held onthe topic of “Comparing Modern Societies” and took place in the early 2000 s; theinternational student seminar was held once a year, once in Ljubljana, once in Graz.It was organized in informal ways, “really self-organized … it worked well, it wasvery good, I think just because of this feeling we organized that just because wewanted to do that” (I 6). Regarding co-operation, the central importance of mutualinclination has been definitely stressed. However, “when European Union came itwas difficult actually to put this seminar in a certain slot, and we stopped then.Really because we were not motivated anymore, the structure was getting old” (I6). Another reason for stopping that seminar was that the group has not been suc-cessful to obtain money from EU funds. However, both sides regretted that studentsas participants were mainly from Slovenia (I 6, 7). The same idea has been alsoapplied by Ljubljana University to contacts with students from Zagreb Universityand with younger teachers too, because with older ones there have been contactsbroken, some of them went to Belgrade because of Serbian origin (I 6). Reportedwere also occasional teaching exchanges of professors between Graz and MariborUniversity, where sociologists mutually invite each other for holding lectures inthe neighbouring country (I 1, I 5, I 15) or contacts to institutes apart from sociol-

174

ogy, as the Innovation Research Institute and the Regional Research Institute inMaribor (I 2).

Four Examples of Collaborative Research

Going beyond some loose trans-national contacts of sociologists, which mainlyevolved on an informal basis, in the following we examine forms of co-operationwhich already existed or still exist among sociologists, albeit on a more institu-tionalized basis. These examples might be regarded as a kind of “invisible colleges”(Price 1963; Crane 1972) of sociology in the neighbour countries. They are en-folding as scientific research and teaching networks around specific topics andresearch questions which were successful in building up an at least temporarilyinstitutional basis in common research tasks, organizational management of co-operation, financing possibilities, and in common publication systems. Further-more, we can make a distinction between rather long-lasting projects and short-term ones, which do not exceed more than two or three years. Anyway, more in-formation about these successful practices of doing trans-national research andteaching is urgently needed, since there is a growing interest in mutual knowled-ge and information which forms of co-operation among neighbours do exist andunder which institutional structures and cognitive conditions they were built up.Moreover, it is of interest which kind of partnership has been developed. So wecan get an insight in the lively variety of sociological co-operation in the region,which might also inspire future efforts to enrich the intellectual landscape in adeeper scientific communication. In this regard, one should keep in mind that in-novation does not automatically mean that the wheel has to be reinvented againand again. Rather, when interpreted as a contextual and processual one, originalityand innovation might emerge from transmitting and adapting already proved ex-amples to changing circumstances in this regional context.

For these purposes we have chosen five examples which show different insti-tutional backgrounds, topics and time-lines, however, mostly directly connected toEU financial possibilities. All of these mostly EU funded projects have evolvedaround specific research interests which were perceived as common ones and werein need for sociological competencies to find various solutions in encounteringsocial problems. They also show different practical solutions to overcome what hasbeen perceived as the central issues of national societies by trans-national forms ofco-operation. The fact that in our sample there are more activities mentioned whichwere co-ordinated by Austrian institutes depends on their earlier membership inthe European Union; until recently they were better equipped with chances to usethese structures as a possibility for organizing trans-national research of sociolo-

2.6.2

175

gists. However, as research on the participation in EU projects has shown (Hönig2009), Slovene sociologists quickly began to use those structural opportunities too.The description and discussion of the following examples is based on conversationswith sociologists involved there as well as on co-operations’ outcomes like publi-cations available.

Project ResearchArea Partner Countries Dura-

tionCoordina-

tion Funding Common-ality

FORMProject

Sociology ofeducation

A, YU, D, PL, S,GB, NL

1975 ‑1989

Vienna Cen-tre, Klagen-furt Univer-

sity

AustrianScience

Fund, Aus-trian Min-

istry

Research

ISSPProject

Cross-nation-al survey re-

search

A, SLO,more than 40 other

nations

Since1984

ZUMA,NORC,

SCPR, etc.

each re-search orga-nization byown costs

Research

IAS-STSConfer-ences

Science andtechnology

studies

A, SLO, further EUcountries with focus

on CEE

Since2001 IFZ Graz INTERREG

IIIAConfer-ences

ANOVA-SOFIEProject

History of so-ciology, pub-lic intellectu-

als

A, D, PL, IR, S, TR,GB

2004 ‑2006

Graz Uni-versity, Dpt.of Sociolo-

gy

6th RFP Research

DiversityManage-

mentSummerSchool

Political soci-ology, inter-

nationalrelations

SLO, A, I, HU, LT 2007 ‑2009

LjubljanaUniversityFF Dpt. ofSociology

ERASMUS Education

Table 4: Examples of sociologists’ trans-national co-operation in research projects

The FORM Project

If one is interested in scientific institutions and how by institutions there can bedeveloped relations of scientific research, then the Vienna Centre can clearly beconsidered as a good practice model: The Vienna Centre, former European Centrefor Coordination and Documentation in the Social Sciences, has worked as a kindof bridge institution co-ordinating research activities between Austria and Centraland Eastern European countries like former Yugoslavia; founded in 1963, it hasbeen an institution of the International Social Science Council and the UNESCO(I 14). The idea has been to contribute to peace formation between East and WestEurope, and its staff was equally distributed from all of the countries involved (I14). In these times there were two projects co-ordinated: Students of DevelopingCountries at European Universities, with partners from Yugoslavia, Poland,

176

France and Austria, and Life Histories and Conceptions of Lives of Graduates, withpartners from seven countries, Yugoslavia too (I 9). Both were financed especiallyby Germany, by the Austrian Ministry of Science and by the Austrian ScienceFund.

The Vienna Centre has picked up the recommendation of a researcher in Kon-stanz to develop an international project about "University Graduates: Their Train-ing and Conception of Life" in the early 1970 s (Framheim 1984). Inspired fromthe French word formation, the project was known under the acronym FORM,which hints to the processes of forming (oneself) as a student of university educa-tion; the research question dealt with the processes and effects of socialization andselection of universities in their preconditions, course and long-term conse-quences (Framheim 1984). The main research interest focused on the long-termsignificance of mediating, stabilizing or changing students' conceptions and atti-tudes during their study life and their inter-cultural variability or similarity: In detailthere have been analysed the development of moral and ethical standards and socialidentities of students, their opinions about science, university and academics, theirperspectives in professional life, politics, and society (Framheim 1984: 10 p.).

The Vienna Centre looked for interest in these research questions among otherEuropean countries, which enabled them to realize inter-cultural comparative so-ciology (ibid.). The main research group of the FORM project consisted of co-operations between research teams in Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Yugoslaviaand Austria: All of these countries actually took part from the first stage of researchonwards; furthermore, in the second phase of research, teams from Sweden andGreat Britain joined the project; initially it was intended to integrate researchersfrom former Czechoslovakia and Hungary too, which, however, could not be re-alized (Framheim 1984: 11 p.).

The FORM project was undertaken on the one hand with a clear commitment tointer-culturally comparative sociology, in order to analyze which impact differentbackgrounds in tradition, ideology and organization of higher education and societydo have on the process and outcome of academic socialization (Framheim 1984:13). It should be tested the hypothesis whether in countries which differ in theirhistory, social structure and political culture, nevertheless there are commonalitiesin educational outcomes because of functional equivalences of higher educationand social status of academics (Framheim 1984: 13 p.). In addition, it has under-taken a panel research to analyze socialization processes of first-year students byaccompanying them during their study and undertaking a survey at several stagesof their university education: Between 1977 and 1984 there have been undertakenfour panels every two years; the sample included about more than 4.000 studentsin the first panel and about 2.000 students in the last panel in all of the five partic-ipating countries (ibid.). Them were handed out a questionnaire by surface mail or

177

within their regular courses, more than 50 per cent agreed to take part in the study;from Austrian side research was undertaken among students of Vienna Universi-ty, Vienna University of Technology, and Vienna University of Economics (ibid.).In Yugoslavia research has been realized among students of Ljubljana University:therefore in the research publications there is explicitly mentioned that the Yu-goslav study is restricted to the supra-national republic of Slovenia (ibid.).26

When we now consider aspects of the international co-operation of researchpartners within the FORM project, one might think of forms of organizing co-operation in internationally comparative studies as outlined by Stein Rokkan(Rokkan1972, 1999) in his widely known typology for characterizing social sci-entific comparative sociology; actually the FORM project team has drawn on thisresource (Framheim 1984). Rokkan makes a distinction between four phases ofresearch: conception, data gathering, evaluation and interpretation, and he askswhether these are undertaken within a national framework or in the form of aninternational co-operation. So Rokkan differs between an extremely nationally fo-cused research which only internationally gathers data, as the one pole of a con-tinuum, and a full internationalized research organization in all phases of research,as the other pole. This latter type of decentralized and co-operative research orga-nization was clearly intended by the Vienna Centre, while it has been underlinedthat this form in the sense of equal opportunities also includes a "moral" quality ofresearch (Framheim 1984: 29). While the actors of the FORM project indicatedthat the conception has been developed in a national framework of research, allother phases of research due to them have been developed in international co-op-eration with project partners. The research team summarized: "Seen from thegeneric context, both from personal and infra-structural equipment of the Konstanzresearch area there has been seen a certain asymmetry in participation from thevery beginning, which inevitably might have led to some frictions. However, andseen in general, the advantages and chances of the research area have been suc-cessfully used and those impulses and pre-studies have been integrated in a decen-tralized process of discussion and co-operation" (Framheim 1984: 29, transl.added).

Twice a year there have conference meetings taken place among the researchpartners, one annually in the West, one in the East (I 14). One participating Austriansociologist enthusiastically tells about the hospitality of the Eastern project part-ners, especially in Slovenia at the seaside in Piran, in Škofja Loka, or in Poland:“We have been treated like diplomats, in Warszaw“ (I 14). Meetings took place in

26 Detailed results of the research project are available in Framheim, G., Langer, J., Ed. (1984).Student und Studium im interkulturellen Vergleich: Student Worlds in Europe. Klagenfurt /Celovec.

178

old castles with servants equipped with white gloves, providing for marvellousdinners in a time where food was rather scarce in Poland (I 14). It was also men-tioned that in these times travelling to Slovenia and Poland has been a very secureendeavour, where it was even possible to sleep in the fields over night (I 14).

The FORM project has existed till the end of the communist regime in 1989.Then it suffered a kind of inward implosion, for the Vienna Centre from one dayto the other suddenly was closed down, “as if a spying institution has been closeddown. I do not say that there has been a centre for spying activities, but all possiblethings have happened there” (I 14). Trans-national activities must have been reallyfar-reaching and fruitful both in respect to building up relationships of mutualtrust and intercultural and professional competencies: One product of the co-op-eration has been a common history textbook for pupils, created by German as wellas by Polish researchers together (I 14). The project partners planned to write acommon final report, however, this has not been realized because of the immediateproject’s end: “The political structure in which the project has developed suddenlyvanished. After 1989 there has been no need for a co-ordinative centre in Viennato develop such a project. Furthermore, the co-operation partners from Poland weregone because all of them were communists. In Slovenia this has not been the case.But all of the partners have undergone a re-orientation after 1989, then there waswar in Yugoslavia, Slovenia, the building up of new structures, and the project wasclosed” (I 14). Searching for some reasons for this abrupt end of the commonproject, the sociologist mentioned that the former tension between the two systemsin East and West paradoxically enabled rich forms of co-operations which weresimply seen as unnecessary after 1989 (I 14).

The FORM project is an extremely fruitful example of trans-national collabo-ration among the neighbour states which took place before their EU accessions. Itmight also show how it is possible to overcome severe macro-social hindrances tocommon research like diverging political and economic system of the participatingcountries. Dialectically seen, these different systems do enable and enrich the veryintellectual endeavour of a lively trans-national research. Moreover, it documentsthe important requirement of a stable institutional basis like the Vienna Centre forco-ordinating and documenting the activities of all research partners.

The International Social Survey Programme (ISSP)

The International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) is an annual programme ofcross-national co-operation in the field of surveys on diverse research topics whichare anticipated to be relevant to all participating countries; to the individual nationalstudies it adds a cross-national perspective, bringing together pre-existing social

179

science projects (Haller et al. 2009) 27. Initially, the ISSP evolved from a collabo-ration between two German research institutes, the ALLBUS (AllgemeineBevölkerungsumfragen der Sozialwissenschaften), and the ZUMA (Zentrum fürUmfragen, Methoden, und Analysen) in Mannheim with the NORC (NationalOpinion Research Center) in Chicago; in 1983, the SCPR (Social and CommunityPlanning Research), London, and the Research School of Social Sciences of theAustralian National University joined the ISSP (ibid). In 1984 they agreed to “1)jointly develop topical modules dealing with important areas of social sciences, 2)field the modules as a fifteen-minute supplement to the regular national survey (ora special survey if necessary), 3) include an extensive common core of backgroundvariables, and 4) make the data available to the social science community as soonas possible” (ibid.). Nowadays, the merging of national into cross-national data isperformed by the Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung at Cologne Uni-versity in collaboration with the Analisis Sociologicos, Economicos y Politicos inSpain (ibid.). In finance, there are no central funds, but each research organizationfunds all of its own costs (ibid.). For participating institutions, this is often expe-rienced as a hindrance difficult to overcome for each of the national organizations(I 18).

Since 1984, ISSP has grown to 48 nations, where also institutions from Sloveniaand Austria take part in28. Slovenia is represented by the Public Opinion and MassCommunications Research Centre (CJMMK) of the Faculty of Social Sciences atLjubljana University led by Niko Toš; it also carries out the Slovene Public OpinionPoll project on an annual basis, which is mostly financed by the Ministry of Scienceand other sponsors in the cultural sphere, public administration and the media(ibid.). The Public Opinion and Mass Communications Research Centre is alsoinvolved in other international projects, including the World Value Survey, theEastbarometer Survey, the European Social Survey, and others (ibid.). In February2012, its staff included twelve members, most of them research assistants. Austriais represented by the Institute for Sociology at Graz University, in detail by thedepartment “Macro-sociological Analyses and Methods of Empirical Social Re-search”; this department has been established in 1985 at Graz University and hasa staff of four full-time sociologists; the department is also responsible for theAustrian Social Science Survey (ibid.).

ISSP’s specificities in the field of cross-national research are that the collabo-ration between the institutions is continual and routine, that it integrates cross-national research into each of the national research agendas, and that the cross-national perspective is combined with a cross-time one (ibid.). That means, sub-commitees develop the annual topics for ISSP which are valid for several years of

27 www.issp.org (Feb 25, 2012)28 www.issp.org (Feb 25, 2012)

180

investigation for then being pre-tested in various countries, while the final ques-tionnaire is adopted by the annual plenary meeting of the ISSP (ibid.). The method-ological work is co-ordinated by a committee and consists of different areas ofcross-cultural methods concerned with issues of equivalence: in translation, inmode effects, in demographic comparability, in non-response, and in questionnairedesign (ibid.). In organizational structure, the ISSP consists of member countries,the secretariat, the archive, subgroups, drafting groups for modules, and method-ology research groups (ibid.).

From 1984 onwards there have been investigated central topics like social in-equalities, religion, the role of government, work organizations, national identity,citizenship, family and changing gender roles, social relations and support systems,environment, health, leisure time and sports, social networks, etc. (ibid.). In mostof these fields the annual research has been replicated several years later, so that,for instance, the role of government or social inequalities have been researched forfour times up till now (ibid.).

IAS-STS Annual Conferences: Critical Issues in Science and Technology Studies

As a model for a successful cross-border co-operation in the field of science andtechnology studies one has to mention the project of the IAS-STS annual confer-ence, which since 2001 is continuously taking place in Graz. The Institute of Ad-vanced Studies in Science, Technology, and Society is located at the IFZ instituteand is oriented towards interdisciplinary analyses of the relationship of science,technology and society; it undertakes technology assessment and investigations inthe development and application of socially and environmentally sound technolo-gies29.

On an annual basis it undertakes a conference for researchers dealing with fourmain topics: 1. gender, technology, and environment; 2. ethical, legal and socialaspects of human genetics and biotechnology; 3. technology studies and sustain-ability; and 4. information and communication technologies; the conference is as-sembled as a range of lectures, courses and workshops dealing with the fields ofresearch mentioned and covers a wide scope of various national and internationalco-operations (ibid.). Invited are all current and former fellows of the Institute andother scientists in science and technology studies, in order to meet with fellows ofthe IFZ and to participate in the conference (ibid.). For example, the list of about50 participants at the IAS-STS conference in 2008 included participants from CEEcountries like Slovenia and Hungary, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, but also

29 http://www.ifz.tugraz.at/ias/IAS-STS/The-Institute (Feb 25, 2012)

181

from Great Britain, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, and Canada (ibid.). The con-tributions of participants are continuously published in the form of annual year-books in English (Bammè et al. 2001). Slovene partners of the project are the Centrefor Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies of the University of Maribor,the Scientific Institute for Regional Development at the University of Maribor, andthe Slovenian Science Foundation Ljubljana (Amt der Steiermärkischen Lan-desregierung FA 16A 2003). The conference is financially supported by the Com-munity Initiative INTERREG IIIA of the EU, which explicitly promotes contacts,common activities and knowledge exchange between at least two partners fromtwo different countries in the common border region.

International research fellows employed at the IFZ work on technology-basedresearch questions, in part during their dissertation studies or as post-docs; thescholarships for these fellowships are financed by the Federal Province of Styriaand the City of Graz (I 2). Topics to be dealt with are, for instance, regional tech-nology politics, sustainable development, promotion of technology for girls andwomen, and modern innovation management. By sociological researchers it hasbeen underlined that the IAS-STS annual conference might not so much enablecommon research projects but rather various and dense international contacts topersons and institutions of the neighbouring countries (I 2). The inter-linkage ofthe IAS-STS international summer school and conference with the regular oppor-tunity of fellowships seems to be rather advantageous for both parts of the project.Each year about a ten to twenty international researchers are given the opportunityfor taking part in a fellowship programme (as the Central and Eastern EuropeanScholarships programme MOEL), extending from at least one month as a VisitingScholar up to nine months as a Research Fellow (I 2). Furthermore, the excellentresearch infrastructure of the co-ordinating institution has been underlined. As oneSlovene colleague, attending the conference since years, enthusiastically put it:“This institute in Graz is, in my opinion, the most important group also in Europeanperspective, which covers general modern development of science, social aspectsof bio-technology, technology and innovation. …It is of great importance for meto join every year that fantastic meeting well-organized by colleagues in Graz wherepeople come to from all over the world, from Australia, America, Europe, fromEastern and Western Europe, from Scandinavia. This is really a good centre and itis possible to organize the PhD study there, and there meets a group of experts toa certain topic. It is particularly my scientific interest every year” (I 5).

182

The ANOVASOFIE Project

ANOVASOFIE is the acronym of the project “Analysing and Overcoming the So-ciological Fragmentation in Europe”, which has been promoted within the 6th Re-search Framework of the European Union and was undertaken from 2004 till 2006:Coordinated by the Department of Sociology at Graz University, Austria, it con-sisted of a consortium of in total eight research partners from varying Europeancountries, Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Poland, Sweden, andTurkey (ANOVASOFIE 2006). The aim of the project was, on the one hand, ananalytical one in order to find out possible reasons and causes of the fragmentationof European sociology focusing on the study of sociologists engaged as publicintellectuals in the transmittance of sociological knowledge; on the other hand, apragmatic aim has been to create a virtual library30. There have been undertakenin total five meetings and conferences in the participating countries and numerouspublications evolved out of the project.

Three dimensions are mentioned that in an un-intended way further the frag-mentation of sociology in Europe (ANOVASOFIE 2006): First, language profi-ciency is seen as the most important factor not only in the communication amongscientists but also in understanding the “subjects” of the very research sociologistsdo as specific for the social sciences and the humanities: “Language barriers limitboth the European and the sociological integration process” (ANOVASOFIE 2006:11). A second reason is seen in the fact that within sociology national communi-ties still differ remarkably in their focus on certain kinds of social problems, whileexisting in “relative isolation” both regarding the way they do sociology as well asthe topics they deal with (ibid.). Third, it is underlined the fact that within sociologyas a discipline different paradigms do coexist side by side sometimes even for along time which do not simply substitute each other in scientific progress(ANOVASOFIE 2006: 6). All these aspects do contribute to what is perceived asthe heterogeneous and largely des-integrated nature of sociological thought(ANOVASOFIE 2006: 51pp.)

A specific focus of the project is put on the relationship of internationalizationand domination among unequal partners as one of the effects of internationaliza-tion, and it is suggested that “(o)ur case study of Austrian sociology demonstratedthat the relatively low rank of Austrian sociology resulted in weak coherence andself-esteem and a strong orientation towards Germany (without being able to for-mulate and to defend its own standards successfully). To internationalize in thiscase means that the dominator absorbs the lower ranked sociology of the weakcountry, which means Germanization” (ANOVASOFIE 2006: 42, italics in origi-

30 This is available at www.anovasofie.net (Feb 25, 2012)

183

nal). As another example of this intricate relationship of internationalization by,let’s call it colonization, Ireland is mentioned, where sociologists oriented them-selves both towards the US and towards Great Britain (ibid.). Regarding interna-tionalization of sociology, there are considered more or less un-intended conse-quences, namely in new forms of domination, and the transcending of nationallanguage communities possibly resulting in misunderstanding of social phenome-na: “There is the peril of Europeanization as unintended forms of Germanification,Franconization or Americanization. …. In today’s world internationalization ofEuropean sociology does not lead to Europeanizing sociology. It rather leads toAmericanization” (ANOVASOFIE 2006: 43).

Here it should be appreciated that international and intra-national relationshipsof sociologists are of course subject to asymmetrical power relations and domina-tion and there are always questions of status hierarchies between different “loca-tions of sociological knowledge production” (ANOVASOFIE 2006: 43). However,it seems not totally clear that the conclusions drawn are really obvious. As weremember from the interviews with Austrian and Slovene sociologists, empiricalresults obtained from the interviews indicate rather a different conclusion. Slovenesociologists report an emancipation process of the Slovene language communityfrom the German (and Austrian) one, in favour of a more Anglo-Saxon orientation.It might be argued, of course, that this could be perceived as an outcome of that“Americanization” process addressed above. However, Austrian sociologists aswell talk about an emancipation process from Germany, which has been madepossible by the broad and various promotions of international contacts by EUfunded projects. This enables them, in their self-conception, at least in part to tran-scend the relationship perceived as implicating a hierarchy and dependence unsat-isfying for Austrians, in favour of successful contacts to other European partners(I 7).

The Summer School “Managing Diversity”

The Summer School “Managing Diversity” shall be given in the following as agood practice model of study exchange at a post-graduate or doctorate level in thefield of the social sciences.31 The project partnership involves a co-operation offive European universities: Ljubljana University (Slovenia), Vyautas Magnus Uni-versity (Lithuania), Bologna University (Italy), Berzsenyi Daniel College (Hun-gary), and Karl-Franzens University Graz (Austria), Department of Public Law. Insummer 2008 it has been organized and co-ordinated by the Department of Soci-

31 This section is based on a participant observation as one of the attending students at LjubljanaUniversity for two weeks in July 2008.

184

ology at the Faculty of Arts, Ljubljana University. Before, it took place in Kaunas,Lithuania. The Summer School is a three-year-programme supported by the ERAS-MUS Life-Long-Learning mobility programme for students, 75 per cent of all costsare funded, while 25 per cent are supported by the Faculty of Arts of LjubljanaUniversity (FF) as the coordinating institution. Students from universities involvedin the programme can apply for taking part in the summer course for once, whilea scientific board decides upon their participation. In summer 2008, 35 studentsfrom about twenty different nations all across Europe and beyond have taken partin the Summer School’s lectures, round tables and individual discussions of severalpapers. Mostly post-graduate students from international relations and Europeanstudies, but also from political sciences, law, and sociology were among them. Aspart of a regular Master curriculum, attending the Summer School provides for 6ECTS points, in case of actively participating in the programme and writing anessay about a self-chosen topic in the field, there is also an award for the mostexcellent one. Teaching staff is recruited from the respective universities active inthe partnership. The course aims at a proficient and multinational teaching of spe-cific topics “which otherwise might not be taught at all” (from the programme) andat supporting trans-national collaboration of students and professors in multi-na-tional groups as well. In content, the Summer School addresses the plurality anddiversity of modern societies, main subjects of the courses are located in the fieldof political theory and ideologies, history, comparative government, legal instru-ments, new minorities, international relations, and regional development policy.

Students can learn to manage diversity in social group interaction among col-leagues as well as exercising language skills. They get an inter-disciplinary per-spective of the topics under scrutiny, and develop their ideas in an internationalscientific environment of scholars of excellence from the social sciences. Further-more, it provides students with an appreciation of trans-national networking amongeach other as well as with teachers and researchers of Central and Eastern Europeanuniversities, and offers them a knowledge abut different autochthonous and ethnicminorities in the region. This concerns the Roma minority, the Slovenes in Trieste/Trst, Italy, and the Italians in Koper/Capodistria, Slovenia. In the context of theSummer School managing diversity has been considered specifically in relation tothe regime-change after 1989 and the break-up of Yugoslavia since then. This hasbeen plausible in regard to the nationalities of the Summer School’s participants,coming from post-communist states like Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Georgia, andLithuania, and particularly from post-Yugoslav territories.

185

Criteria and a Trajectory Model of Successful Co-operation

Sociologists well-experienced in establishing various trans-national co-operationswere also asked which factors, from their point of view, do actually promote orhinder successful forms of scientific collaboration among partners from differentnational scientific communities. They have mentioned rather numerous conditionswhich might affect the quality of research co-operations. Roughly speaking, theycan be divided in more “hard” factors as institutional opportunities like financialor time resources in one’s daily routines, and in more “soft” factors like cognitiveexperiences in establishing a profound relationship of trust among research partnersor the experience of similarities in one’s socio-cultural background and profes-sional interest. While the former ones might fruitfully be explained with the conceptof “structural opportunities” (Merton 1996), the so-called soft, intrinsic or cognitivefactors are less clear. We have to admit that the distinction between so-called “hard”and “soft” facts is an only gradual one; in practice they are not easy to distinguish.Furthermore, it should be recognized that the factors mentioned do address differentlevels of social action and sociological analysis.

Concerning micro-factors, as probably the most important and anyway the firststep in research collaboration there has to exist a common research interest in thetopic as well as in co-operation itself. “If there are qualified people, teams whohave money, financial means, if the communication is on a good level, it is also tobe expected that new knowledge will be generated and all participants will profitfrom such projects. So actually I do not see obstacles for such a co-operation. Peoplemust show some interest for this, this is the first step.” (I 13)

What has been interesting in regard to the inter-cultural dimension of trans-national cooperation was a certain kind of dialectical relationship in dealing withone’s own and the neighbour’s cultural background. It was mentioned that “interestin an unfamiliar world” (I 14) is one of the crucial motivations to get inclined totrans-national co-operations. Curiosity in the “otherness” of one’s world has forseveral historical reasons probably been stronger during the times of the ColdWar while nowadays the mutual “exotic factor” among neighbours is low. Soci-ologists reported that when they went to Great Britain they experienced only littleinterest in their country at large within the international scientific community, ascompared to other post-Yugoslav territories: At least within the Anglo-Saxonworld, Balkan states are perceived as causing more problems and therefore areconsidered as being more exciting than Slovenia which did not invent any spec-tacular problems in the run of the European integration process. “Because talkingabout Serbia, Kosovo now, it is really an issue, talking about Slovenia not thatmuch” (I 16). Austrian sociologists report in a similar sense that in neighbouringcountries like Slovenia people are more internationally oriented, they might be

2.6.3

186

interested more in going to the UK than to Austria: In this view, Austria is onepartner among many others, and it might be a disadvantage for neighbours whenthey mutually are not perceived as being so “exotic” (I 2, I 4).

However, these collaborations are not easy to be integrated into the normal anddaily routines of one’s work, especially when busy in rather inflexible universitystructures and time-schedules: “Always peculiar incidents are needed for such co-operations, it is no routine work” (I 7). It also requires institutional resources andpractical competencies in organizing such innovative events like common trans-national meetings or student’s seminars.

Micro-factors Meso-factors Macro-factors

Interest: Common professionalinterest in specific research topicand in co-operation itself

Language proficiency: Managingforeign language; establishingcommon communication culture

Time: Available time resources indaily working routines and inone’s biographical life-time atlarge

Information: Mutual knowledgeand information about partners’activities; knowing better aboutone’s own personality

Cohort, hierarchy: Similar work-ing habits and view of hierarchydue to membership in similar co-hort and/or hierarchical position

Money: Available financial re-sources for common activi-ties,with less bureaucratic ef-forts tobe gained

Trust: Mutual acquaintance andestablished trust relationship; tak-ing responsibility and reliabilityfor continuous co-operation

Mobility: Available travel op-portunities;fitting the prevalent mobilitymodel, as absence from familyobligation in caring for others

Politics: Clear political will forco-operation in national sciencepolicy;connected with a state’s ability touse one’s own resources

Motivation: “Exoticness” ofEuropean neighbourhoods, inter-est in “unfamiliar world”; creatingpeculiar occasions far from rou-tine work

Competency: Research compe-tencies due to same discipline’sor/and paradigm’s background;coherence in research process andproduct

Culture, history: Sense of sharingsimilar socio-historic backgroundand cultural orientation

Table 5: Factors for successful trans-national co-operation mentioned by sociolo-gists

Getting to know each other, to come into contact and learn to communicate togetheras well as the willingness to take responsibility for caring for these research rela-tionships, should not be regarded as being self-evident. In remembering incidentsof meeting and working together, it seems to be the case that specific situations,like that of critique or embarrassment, are rather well remembered by former projectpartners. And some of these situations do really result in positive or negative con-tinuous collaboration; it seems to be also a matter of mutual trust relationships aswell as of mutual knowledge. For instance, some people negated that by the EUaccession the concrete trans-national co-operation has increased or improved: Itwas argued that in reverse, by the background of an international organization likethe Vienna Centre, the “reliability of colleagues” (I 9) was better, even before theEU accession. Persons involved were said to have not really taken responsibility

187

for building up common research relationships. It has been suggested, this mightbe a result of the fact that everyone co-operating does this as voluntary work, andnot as the main job, but rather as additional effort (I 9).

Several people mentioned that much more mutual information is needed in whatcolleagues in the neighbouring country actually do, in their routine work and ininternational research projects and publications as well. Some few stated that forsuccessful partnerships more knowledge is needed also about oneself: “I would saythat I think only recently I recognized that to understand myself is also importantto understand neighbouring countries in the history or whatever. It’s a history whichwe share” (I 11). This Slovene sociologist, working on structural comparisons insociology, regrets that he for a long time has not dealt with social psychology as aneighbouring discipline, since it is the most closest to self and to action, and it isalso said to be important to understand neighbours: “I somehow under-estimatedpsychology for years. But now I feel that the most soft thing is the hardest thing tounderstand“ (I 11).

Regarding mobility, in contrast to former times of the Eastern Bloc where peoplein certain nation states like Poland were officially forbidden to travel around, thisis nearly unimaginable nowadays where mobility among EU citizens is stronglypropagated. In these times it was especially one’s status as a member of a researchcommunity, or sometimes a political affiliate too, which enabled one to travelaround in foreign countries (I 14). While we should keep in mind that at Yugoslavtimes it was generally possible for citizens to travel around, sometimes the financialresources to do so were not really available (I 12). Furthermore, it was consideredthat still nowadays the prevalent mobility model among scientists presupposesfreedom from family obligations and caring relationships for children and the el-derly, so that in fact often women are excluded to gain from these formal mobilityopportunities (I 12).

As one central factor of trans-national co-operation there has often been men-tioned foreign language proficiency, from which a common communication systemand publication opportunities might then enfold. It has been underlined by sociol-ogists that not so much spatial proximity than a common communication culturein scientific terms (I 5). Language might be a hindrance, because almost no Austriansociologist is capable of Slovene language, and not so many Slovenes do talk Ger-man, so one is definitely dependent on one’s proficiency in English (I 7). Thisproblem might be specifically strong in sociology and the social sciences and hu-manities in general, since on the one hand, intellectual style and academic literacyplay a much more important role than in the natural sciences. In this sense it issimply more difficult for sociologists to show eloquence in a foreign language (I20). On the other hand, sociology is rooted in the ordinary language of its societymembers with whom sociologists share a common language and whom they try to

188

understand. Not only do language competencies support an adequate perception ofthe subjects of one’s research (I 14). Moreover, sociology is said to be responsiblefor communicating its findings to other members of its societies in their respectivenational languages, given it does not want to get irrelevant within their everydayworld (I 1, I 11). Furthermore, English language is seen as a major obstacle byteaching sociologists, especially because students do not know sufficiently anyforeign language to follow studies; however, in the sense of joint study pro-grammes, English is seen as most important (I 15).

Sometimes one might observe varying research cultures in different nations.This can also be observed at scientific conferences where, for instance, Slovenesare said to be very scientifical and easily adapt their contributions to American orAnglo-Saxon structures of scientific papers (I 14). However, there are also said tobe “differences between the former Yugoslav states. In this sense, Slovenes arealways the first, are eager to be the first, to be the most innovative and also to meetall formal criteria, to adjust to the situation, to a scientific authority” (I 14). Thisresearcher has mentioned hindering factors in the transfer of knowledge, wherenevertheless all research partners have been interested in; some of the partners ofa common research project have been pedagogues instead of sociologists, whichdid not make collaboration easier (I 14). However, differences between Slovenesand Austrians have not been very big in that respect, instead there has been a rathersimilar scientific culture: “They were like us, I think” (I 14). Other hindrances haverather been immanent to the project, as the articulation of hypotheses has been tooimprecise or there have been experienced theoretical deficits in comparing the data(I 14). This co-operation is sometimes said to be not so easy to handle, becausethere are different knowledge claims and accumulations of human capital amongall of the researchers, regarding to their own professional interest in specific fields(I 4).

One of the most important factors for a really good contact of sociologists is thesame field of specialization in research, which often results into joint publica-tions. Furthermore, distance to the anticipated centre or theoretical mainstream ofone’s discipline seems to require more international contacts and networking: Asociologist specialized in gender studies who located herself “at the edge of soci-ology, in a kind of interdisciplinary field” (I 16) where scholars are often not basedat university, but outside at some private institutions, has noted this specifically.Of further importance for co-operating successfully is the membership in the samegeneration of researchers, what might make the link to a certain intellectualparadigm easier (I 2). On a more pragmatic level, the membership in a certaincohort often indicates also a similar position in the academic hierarchy and the factof sharing similar theoretical background and research paradigm as well: An Aus-trian research institute had come into contact with a stratum of old professors from

189

Russia, working since decades at university, without a personal change in 1989,who were said to have differed from the Austrians in their research culture verymuch (I 2). The researcher underlined, one shall consider that in the transformationsof 1989 it was not very attractive for young researchers to develop a perspectivewithin the sciences, they were more interested in management work because ofbetter earnings: So Central and East European countries, the researcher summa-rized, do often have severe problems with personnel capacities in research whichmakes it more difficult to find trans-national research partners of the same age inthese countries (I 2).

Some of these macro-factors for successful co-operation seem to be rather evi-dent. Since trans-national co-operation often are not included in the daily routinesof an average researcher, there are, first, time-resources needed to afford doing that“extra job” (I 16). Especially university professors argued that for them it is ratherdifficult to, apart from their teaching, administrative and research obligations, findenough time for the time-consuming task of searching for new trans-national part-ners, of continuously building up and caring for such research relationships: Thatwould be better, they suggested, if they had the opportunity to delegate these tasksto assistants or junior researchers of an entire research team called into life withthe aim of trans-national research (I 1). It could be the case that researchers frominstitutes outside university are better equipped with personnel in this regard, sincethey simply are more dependent on resources in contractual (and often EU funded)research that rather favours research teams instead of individual researchers (I 2).

Furthermore, a sociologist underlined the fact that the interest, energy and timeresources for international co-operation might change during one’s individual life-time. “I would say this is age. When you are younger you have a lot of energy anda lot of desire to see new people, new cases, at least with me it was so. But whenyou are feeling the different limited time energy and resources to share the attentionamong them, then you pay more attention to what to do where and how and howlong. So I would say. There is a kind of time which has very different dimensions,at least three. One is period, you live in a period of technological uphill, bifurcation,this is the larger period. Cohort, I belong now to the above 50 cohort. And this isalso age. Cohort and age is collected into one” (I 11). Some described their interestin international co-operations as depending on the life-time or specific phases oflife, in scholarships, summer schools and attendance of conferences when being arather young PhD student. Nowadays this sociologist prefers focusing on personalcommunication with few colleagues instead of rather time-consuming huge col-laborative networks (I 11). This sociologist also mentioned that with the years inhis contacts he came closer to the neighbouring countries, as an effect of age,whereas when he started with international contacts, he was oriented towardscountries rather far away (I 11).

190

Financial incentives and resources are among the most frequently mentionedfactors for successfully building up new co-operations. It was claimed that moneyshould be easier and more quickly accessible than now, where much of bureau-cratically exhaustive application work is needed to gain funds for meeting togetheron a trans-national level. Sociologists suggested that at regional level municipalitiesand provincial governments could easily sponsor such forms of intellectual ex-change (I 1). Beside this, it was clearly appreciated that at the level of EU fundedresearch projects there is the requirement for collaboration with some other partnersin different EU member states, for “this is a demand which pushes all to find part-ners in other countries” (I 16). However, collaborative experiences in internationallarge-scale projects financed by the EU sometimes resulted in the feeling that, onthe one hand, there are “people eager to do research and others just to obtain somemoney” who can be found even within the same research group (I 6). For somepeople searching for money is indeed said to be more important than the researchitself, and “they just think how to obtain money. They use all possible strategiesbecause you have to be clever too to use all this complicated EU bureaucracy andyou get money and then you do something. But in this case you do much lesssuccessful, you just waste money” (I 6). In other words, the ability to apply forfunds does not automatically result in more promising outcomes or productive andeffective research work.

Regarding time matters, one should not forget that in former times of the ColdWar between East and West, it has been not self-evident that research co-operationswere on the agenda. When asked about certain conditions that furthered the FORMproject reported above, one Austrian researcher argued that “Cold War has not beentoo cold anymore in those times” (I 14): This has been visible in the very fact thatthere existed a Vienna Centre, as well as that is was possible to undertake intensiveco-operations between Germany and Poland, as in the production of a commonhistory textbook. Furthermore, the German Ostpolitik has been influential, a betterpolitical relationship between Germany and Poland, when the German ChancellorWilly Brandt has emphasised the responsibility of Germans for persecutions,crimes and massacres against the Polish population during World War II (I 14).

Another crucial factor of successful trans-national co-operation addressed is thepolitical will of one’s country, especially the national science policy in promotinginternational co-operation, and the ability of a country to use its own resources.From the viewpoint of a Slovene researcher, Austria is perceived as putting a lotof funds in the last fifteen years into social science research: “If there are resourcesavailable to transform this political will into mechanisms for facilitating co-oper-ation, you then have a kind of higher level of co-operation” (I 11). It is argued thatthis political will exists in Austria, a country good in the light of political energyefforts to cover this co-operation, but comparably low in Slovenia: “So what Slove-

191

nia in the sense of understanding the wider context of Europe does not still use, isits own resources. It is not inner ability to discover what is going on around. Theyare using European resources, Austrian resources, or journalism, but not our cu-mulation (of knowledge, note) and our curiosity to facilitate this research. So forSlovenia we are just adjusting to new resources to discover wider context. This is,structural opportunities are not similar for both parts of. …Slovenian sociology isnow at a turning point from national description and history to international com-parative sociology. .. But still we have a help from structural funds from abroad,without them we are dead. We have only personal individual tourism then. …Todeepen the knowledge you need the comparative sociology, but still Slovenianpoliticians are not putting resources into this, we are using foreign resources. Sowe are followers, we are not setting the priorities, we are using the funds and arefollowing structural opportunities. We are not expanding in our minds, we are ex-panding by chance” (I 11). This quotation from an interview has been given in fulldetail because it shows the still missing efforts from national science policies tomeet the requirements of trans-national co-operation in researcher’s communities.In this respect, Austrian science policy sometimes might not really be betterequipped than the Slovene one, when one remembers experiences of researchersthat it is quite hard to obtain national financial resources to be able to undertakeinternationally comparative large-scale projects (I 18). However, it shows a stillpersisting structural inequality in opportunity for researchers of both countries.

Apart from this, it is clearly appreciated by Austrians as well as by Slovenes thatthere is something like cultural closeness and similar socio-historical backgroundamong neighbours, which enables researchers much more to successful co-opera-tion (I 2, I 5, I 14), when compared to researchers within the CEE area. The senseof a same socio-historical and cultural background is seen as a promoting factorfor co-operations so that researchers might say about each other’s way of doingresearch: “They were like us” (I 14). In this sense sociologists from both statesrecognized theat their respective country has always been “in between East andWest” (I 2). This might be one reason that both feel well equipped for fulfilling abridge function among researcher’s communities in East and West, and to positiononeself as an institute within this field (I 2, I 6). A need for international co-oper-ation is increasingly and strongly felt by many researchers from other countries ofthe world (I 2).

Subsequently we will draw on these criteria or factors of successful trans-na-tional co-operation mentioned by sociologists when we will sketch a dynamicmodel of typical trajectories of trans-national collaboration among sociologists inthe neighbouring countries. Considering these situations and factors as relevantwithin the process of establishing and caring for trans-national co-operation, we

192

can think of a trajectory32 model (Glaser/Strauss 1970; Strauss 1985) of scientifictrans-national collaboration. The term seems to be adequate here, since we wouldlike to reconstruct the inherent logic of a typical social process of “how to begin toco-operate trans-nationally” as well as the various perspectives of actors involvedin that process. The different parameters have explicitly been grounded in the in-terviews with sociologists well-experienced in scientific trans-national collabora-tions. Although, in describing suggested parameters of trans-national collaboration,they did only implicitly indicate some decisive situations of interaction, phases ordifferent stages of such a process, we would like to conceptually link these param-eters with typical phases in our consideration of the trajectory of trans-nationalcollaboration.

To add something conceptually significant to these observations, we might con-sider these micro-, meso-, and macro-parameters as being linked to typical situa-tions or phases of an emerging trans-national co-operation: Evolving out of somethreads of initial personal contacts, developing more or less continuous communi-cation, then, if successful, it institutionalizes itself, for instance, in a joint researchproject’s woven texture. From our own experiential data in EU advisory work withtrans-national co-operation we would like to suggest that usually or on average itneeds about six months to build a stable trust relationship between new partnersformerly unfamiliar with each other, starting from an initial meeting at a conferencein a phase 1 of co-presence, then establishing a kind of temporarily limited firstjoint project out of continuous communication in phase 2. In a further phase 3 ofinstitutionalized co-operation it would then be necessary, if not already cared for,to mobilize required resources to give that relationship a sound institutional basisof co-operation, as financial resources, political will, and available time.

This experience and fact of successfully institutionalized trans-national co-op-eration, might, in further processes at large, then contribute to a higher level ofintegration, evolving in a new opportunity structure for co-presence of actors, aspart of a sustainable trajectory, for instance, imaginable with a spiral movement oftrans-national co-operation. To be added to this, also parameters of the partnershipitself, like an equal structural opportunity of partnership, might be crucial, even ifwe, or indeed because we, consider the diversity and variety of perspectives in-volved as significant. Possibly perceived similarities and discrepancies of theproject partners involved, as in more or less common or different historical, insti-tutional, cognitive and cultural background, might be successfully be dealt with inthe framework of a project partnership with equal structural opportunities for both.

32 Initially the sociological concept was coined in the 1960 s and 1970 s by Barney Glaser andAnselm Strauss in the context of sociological research on dying processes and chronic illness(Glaser/Strauss 1970). In his later analyses of the social organization of medicine (1985)particularly Anselm Strauss has elaborated the trajectory model further.

193

Europeanization of Sociology: Synthesis of Results

Up till now we have reported several empirical results from our comparative ana-lysis about the development of sociology in the neighbour countries Slovenia andAustria. Our central research question has been focused on finding factors or pa-rameters of a possibly causal relationship of their EU accessions on the formationof the discipline in the respective context. In the following, we aim at particularaspects concerning the method of investigation and the theoretical integration ofempirical results as well andprovide for relevant background information onmethodological considerations which also means giving some insight into the pro-cess of theory generation itself. First, we link theoretical reflections and empiricalresults tighter to the applied method of investigation, the Grounded Theory ap-proach, in outlining its central characteristics and showing how we applied it. Sec-ond, we consider empirical results obtained from various data sources, achievinga theoretical integration at a higher level of abstraction by indicating the so-calledaxial coding paradigm. We take several theses under closer investigation and reflectkey concepts’ connections to the core category under consideration here, the pro-cess of “Europeanization” of sociology. Finally, we give some recommendationsfor future research, namely on scientific developments within the social context ofthe European Union.

Theory Generation: The Legacy of Grounded Theory

Generally spoken, what is theory in sociology good for? According to BarneyGlaser and Anselm Strauss (1967; 1998: 13), sociological theory provides not onlyfor an adequate conceptual understanding of social action, but also for its expla-nation and prognosis. Moreover, it supports theoretical progress in sociology as adiscipline; it might be useful for application in practice, and could conceptuallyfocus investigations on particular fields of action. Since we had an analytical inter-est in a particular field, where social research on the EU impact on sociology is stillrather rare, we decided on the Grounded Theory approach (Glaser/Strauss 1967,

3

3.1

195

1970, 1998; Strauss 1987; Strauss/Corbin 1990; Corbin/Strauss 2008)33 whichlegacy lies in the explicit intention to generate theory conceptually grounded indata provided by empirical social research. Evolving from our research question,theoretical interest was especially in the reconstruction of conditions and contextsof an assumed Europeanization of sociology, of strategies to deal with Euro-peanization as enacted by sociologists and consequences of action as well. In ad-dition, the idea of social processes and change as an effect of the EU accessions ofthe two member states investigated here, has been significant for the study. In allof these areas of sociological analysis the chosen methodological approach seemsto provide useful tools of conceptualization as a specific strength of GroundedTheory.

Theoretically anchored in the philosophical traditions of pragmatism and sym-bolic interactionism, Grounded Theory initially has been articulated against amainly logico-deductive type of theory and theory verification (Glaser/Strauss1998: 21pp.). The latter one is roughly oriented towards corresponding models ofthe natural sciences, as manifest in a quantitative paradigm of large-scale mea-surement, and the predominance of structural functionalism in US sociology inthese times. In contrast to it, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss emphasize theprocedural character of theory-building as inextricably linked to its adequacy andusefulness (Glaser/Strauss 1998: 15). They also insist that criteria of evaluatingtheory like logical consistency and clarity, density, scope and integration, signifi-cantly depend on the process of generating theory itself (Glaser/Strauss 1998: 15).Furthermore, they have developed own criteria of theory generation as a particularset of social research’s systematic procedures of gathering, coding, and analyzingdata. Anselm Strauss once has described Grounded Theory’s central characteris-tics, as 1. theoretical sampling, 2. the constant comparative analysis of phenomenain a variety of contexts, and 3. the axial coding paradigm, linking conditions tostrategies and consequences of social action (Legewie 2004). Subsequently weapply these characteristics to our research, relying on some evaluation criteria ofGrounded Theory in the empirical grounding of the study (Strauss/Corbin 1990;Corbin/Strauss 2008: 297pp.).

The importance of theoretical sampling (Glaser/Strauss 1998: 53pp.) lies in theparallel processes of collecting, coding and analyzing data, resulting into decisions

33 Different aspects of Grounded Theory have been published in several editions of the authors’publications. In Glaser/Strauss (1967) there is outlined the central intention of theory gen-eration, theoretical sampling, the constant comparative analysis, the relationship of materialand formal theory, and the use of various sources of qualitative and quantitative data fortheory generation. In Strauss (1987) and in Strauss/Corbin (1990) one can find a detaileddiscussion of the conditional matrix, the concepts of open, axial and selective coding, remarkson the centrality of process, and considerations of evaluation criteria for Grounded Theory.Extensive empirical examples are given in Strauss (1987) and in Corbin/Strauss (2008).

196

for which data to search for in next steps of investigation; this becomes manifest,for instance, in looking for comparable social groups of potential interview partnersrelevant for the research question. These social groups shall be chosen not only inregard to the universal set, but also concerning the conceptual level of the theoryintended; furthermore, the process of data gathering is controlled by the generatedtheory step by step (Glaser/Strauss 1998: 53). So, relying on some questions raisedby Corbin and Strauss (2008: 297pp., 307pp.) and applying them to our research,how has been chosen the initial sample and because of which reasons? On the basisof which categories there was undertaken theoretical sampling and how did theo-retical formations lead to data gathering?

In our research, key concepts were a) the scientific discipline of sociology, b) asystematic comparison of two scientific communities in the respective nationstates, and c) the anticipated Europeanization process of sociology within institu-tional frameworks of EU policies of science, higher education and research. Sub-sequently we will explicate these key concepts step by step.

When talking about the development of sociology as a scientific discipline, wehave decided to investigate this process in its institutional, cognitive and historicaldimensions, since, due to Wolf Lepenies, all of them make up the particular identityof sociology (Lepenies 1981). Following Edward Shils (Shils 1975), we have spo-ken of a scientific discipline, if a) it is taught in academic institutions named afterthe discipline; b) their members publish their contributions in publication organsknown as those of the discipline, and c) public funding opportunities for researchare available, while all of these discipline’s indicators provide it with a social anda cognitive structure. Shils defines institutionalization as a mental activity wherepersons are busy in a relatively close interaction (Shils 1975: 72).

Relating to the cognitive dimension of sociology, we have taken into accountthat within its development “fractal distinctions” (Abbott 2001) like those betweenpositivist and interpretive sociology, or quantitative and qualitative social research,enfold within a time-span of approximately 30 years in a rather circular movementof knowledge accumulation. Moreover, regarding sociology as a “perspective”(Berger 1994), we followed Gerald Mozetič in considering the “translation func-tion” of sociology (Mozetič 2001): Then the discipline legitimizes itself due to aspecific unknown or implicit knowledge characteristic of our society, “mediatingnew insights resulting from taking a look on an already known phenomenon”(Mozetič 2001: 229, transl. added).

In drawing on a typology of comparative research outlined by Melvin Kohn(Kohn 1989 b), we have interpreted the nation state not so much as an object, butrather as a context of our comparative analysis on the formation of sociology inSlovenia and Austria. Moreover, it has been depicted as part of European Union’slarger institutional framework, when we investigated the possible impact of these

197

two states’ accessions to the European Union on the formation of sociology in thesecountries. Regarding the possible European dimension of sociology, we have con-sidered member states’ transformative processes as from transition to accession tothe European Union and its anticipated consequences as well. Since the adequateconceptual devices seem to be not very clear, pragmatically we then decided to talkmainly about “EU accession as a good working definition of successful transition”(Barr 2005 b: 21), indicating that member states were judged to be in compliancewith the Copenhagen Criteria and with a critical mass of the Acquis Communautaire(ibid.).

These key concepts have led our search for various sources of data as follows.According to Glaser and Strauss (1998: 165pp.), Grounded Theory generally is notlimited to the analysis of qualitative data. It can also be fruitfully applied to varioustypes of data sources like statistical material, scientific studies, experiential know-ledge drawn from researcher’s previous personal or professional experience, andother non-scientific literature and documents. We would like to show, how in detailthis consideration of key concepts of empirical research has led us to decide aboutthe sample and use a variety of empirical methods of social research. In the entireresearch design of the PhD thesis (Hönig 2009 a), empirical results from the inter-views have been complemented with documentary analyses of EU strategies ofhigher education and research policies, the analysis of five university departments’study curricula, and collective strategies of a national professional association.Applying quantitative methods, an investigation of EU electronic data basesshowed the distribution of Slovene and Austrian participation in European Re-search Framework Programmes. A quantitative bibliometric analysis of two soci-ological journals within the time-span of 22 years gave results regarding the dis-tribution of research topics and theoretical paradigms in the two countries. Becauseof limited space, in the context of the book only the qualitative interviews havebeen subject to publication. However, recognize that the broad variety of differentdata sources included in the entire research design, might have enriched divergentperspectives of the theory’s conceptual grounds reflected in the book.

Considering the concept of the sociological discipline has led us to take severalintellectual centres of sociology in the region into account and to integrate them inour qualitative sample. Particularly, we reconsidered the key significance of de-partments in their role within the development of sociology as a discipline whichcan also be interpreted as “invisible colleges” (Price 1968) or “network configu-rations” (Mullins 1981), and are pragmatically defined, albeit meaningful units forinvestigating developments within sociology at large (Abbott 1999). In interview-ing sociologists, a possibly high variety has been intended, as well as a particularlystrong practical knowledge in and about trans-national co-operations in research,significantly with the respective neighbouring country. As previous interviews

198

have shown, sociologists’ cohort has been regarded as remarkably relevant foranalysis, so that cohort membership due to three distinct generations has been takeninto account too. Although it was no explicit criterion of theoretical sampling, therecan be mentioned something about sociologists’ gender membership, all of thefemales interviewed (4 out of 21 in total) were employed in Slovenia and none ofthem in Austria. Thus, in sum 21 sociologists from three research institutes outsideuniversity, from five university departments, and two persons from two universityoffices, all of them located in the two neighbour countries, were interviewed.34

Theoretical sampling has been also involved in deciding about some institutionalexamples of trans-national co-operation among sociologists, mostly funded by EUfunds and organized as research projects. Referring to some of its properties anddimensions, we have been interested in a variety in subject orientation, researchtopics, forms of financing, time duration, and in organizational and institutionalbackgrounds at different departments and research institutes in Slovenia and Aus-tria as co-ordinators of these trans-national research projects.

Due to Strauss (1987: 19) in Grounded Theory the research process is regardedas a constant shift between parallel tasks, which are temporary and relational elem-ents of a triad operation: collecting, coding, and interpreting data. Data collectionquickly leads to coding, which itself results into memo writing, that is, to interpretthe data in short research notes. In general, coding can be considered as a multi-step procedure of data analysis; it is a process of “extracting concepts from rawdata and developing them in terms of their properties and dimensions” (Strauss/Corbin 2008: 159). The coding process, due to Strauss (1987: 55 p.) leads to andfollows upon generative questions, fractures the data in forcing interpretation tohigher levels of abstraction, moves towards discovering core categories and inte-gration of analysis and yields conceptual density, that is, the relationship of codesand their development. Regarding codes, a further distinction is drawn between“in-vivo”-codes used by the interview partners themselves and provisional socio-logical categories; in case of our research, where the interviewed persons are ac-tually sociologists, this distinction should not be over-emphasized.

First let us consider the distinction between codes, concepts, and categories(Strauss/Corbin 2008: 159): Concepts stand for ideas contained in the data, theyare labels or names, interpretations as the product of analysis; categories are higher-level concepts, sometimes referred to as themes, which represent relevant phe-nomena and enable the reduction and combining of data; dimensions give speci-ficity and range to concepts, properties are characteristics that define and describeconcepts. Organizing a category into its properties and dimensions provides for thevarying availabilities or presences of a categorical case within several contexts.

34 Detailed data on the sample of sociologists interviewed are given in section 2.2.

199

In Grounded Theory there are reflected three steps of coding: open coding –sometimes itself differentiated in initial and in focused coding (Charmaz 2001,2006) ‑, axial coding, and selective coding (Strauss 1987: 55pp.; Strauss/Corbin1990: 43pp.). Open coding is regarded as the process of fracturing, investigating,comparing and conceptualizing data, by naming relevant units or parts of data witha provisional label or concept. One might begin with open coding of a first interviewline-by-line or paragraph by paragraph. By asking questions and comparing datafor similarities and differences between incidents of a concept, they can be de-veloped due to their dimensions and properties.

Axial coding intends to get towards a new combination of concepts by followinga particular coding paradigm, which contains conditions and context, strategies andconsequences of action. The so-called axial coding paradigm (Strauss 1987, ;Strauss/Corbin 1990) can be roughly described as follows: Causal conditions doresult in a social phenomenon also affected by intervening conditions and varioussocial contexts. Social actors, in developing interactions and strategies, are dealingwith the social phenomenon under investigation, leading to consequences of actionas well. These consequences might again become contextual parameters and in-tervening conditions, when the social phenomenon under investigation is subjectto societal change. Within these complex relations of concepts, all addressing dif-ferent parameters of social action, the task of social research is to keep them ana-lytically distinct and achieve their theoretical integration as well. Selective coding(Strauss/Corbin 1990: 94pp.) denotes the process of relating concepts systemati-cally to the core category, in showing its conditions and contexts, strategies andconsequences of action. In doing so, it might be possible to write an analytical story-line of the entire study, or to detect and develop how this line of reasoning runs likea thread through the piece of work.

Concerning our research, key issues of the so-called axial coding paradigm arepresent in the construction of Chapter 2, as, for instance, contextual and interveningconditions, strategies of sociologists, and reflecting process, parameters, and ex-amples of trans-national co-operation as emerging consequences of action. In re-gard to the core concept of Europeanization, we will not only draw on related socialscientific discourses, but, on the basis of our empirical investigation, also reflectconditions and contexts, strategies and consequences of sociology’s Europeaniza-tion as key dimension in a subsequent part of this chapter as well.

One of the key elements of Grounded Theory is its constant comparative analysisof investigating social phenomena across various contexts. Glaser and Strauss con-sider comparative analysis as a strategic method for theory generation in principlebeing applicable to social units of different sizes (Glaser/Strauss 1998: 107pp.).Although Grounded Theory has been mainly successfully applied to micro- andmeso-sized processes, in our point of view it might become relevant for compara-

200

tive sociology undertaken with a cross-national perspective. Glaser and Straussdescribe the constant comparative method in four phases of the research process(Glaser/Strauss 1998: 111pp.): in the comparison of each category’s availabilityand existence in the data, in the integration of categories and its properties, in thelimitation of theory, and in formulating theory. The systematic method of constantcomparisons of cases within the data material inevitably leads one to theoreticalproperties of a category, which is illustrated by empirical evidence grounded indata.

Of analytical significance is, moreover, Grounded Theory’s concept of the con-ditional or consequential matrix (Strauss/Corbin 1990: 132pp.) which denotes, inthe context of our research, different analytical levels of sociology’s developmentaffected by the EU accessions of Slovenia and Austria. Pragmatically we canimagine this model with the metaphor of an onion, where we continuously peel offless general levels of analysis, working ourselves through a macro- to a micro-dimension of social life. Then this prompts the questions: Do we regard effects onan international, global or European level, manifest in the Bologna Process Dec-laration or Research Framework Programmes? Do we analyze sociology’s positionwithin the concert of scientific disciplines at large? Do we focus on the institutionallandscape of research in and outside academia, or do we analyze the universitysystem at national level? Do we regard EU effects on the level of single sociologicaldepartments or on the level of research projects as good-practice models? Or dowe deal with individual biographies, daily life and interaction among sociologistspossibly affected by the EU accessions? Indeed, these different analytical levelsinvolved can be regarded as so-called “intervening conditions” (Strauss/Corbin1990: 75) on the EU accessions’ impact on the development of the discipline. Fol-lowing Strauss and Corbin, by intervening conditions we mean structural condi-tions affecting action and strategies regarding a specific phenomenon, as a broaderstructural context of a phenomenon in an enabling or restricting way, like time andspace, culture and socio-economic status, career, history and individual biography.Readers of empirical results given in Chapter 2 will easily recognize that the levelsof this matrix are enfolding in a specific structure of the chapter as an entirety.However, we have also outlined several effects of higher-level social processes onlower ones, as the impact of EU transformations on sociologists’ biographies oftransformation or the effect of institutional landscape’s conditions on sociologists’experiences with EU funded projects. In the following we will discuss how theseanalytic levels and the axial coding paradigm are related to the core category ofEuropeanization of sociology, particularly in trying to highlight some theoreticalinsights in the relevant social process under investigation and in theory genera-tion as well.

201

Theoretical Insights in the Europeanization of Sociology

As part of our main research question we have been interested in possible factorsof the impact of the EU accessions on the development of sociology in Sloveniaand Austria. Here, assumed effects of the EU accessions have guided our searchfor, let’s call it, a possible “EU dimension” of sociology, apart from its profoundinternational and also national dimension, designating a particular national scien-tific community of sociologists. In the context of our interviews with sociologiststhis has simply led us to ask them whether, and if yes, in which way they perceivesuch an EU dimension, and whether they observe significant effects of the EUaccessions on sociology. Admittedly, these initial questions might have reflectedEU rhetorics and language use, since in research programmes there is frequentlyasked for explicating a possible European dimension to be referred to as relevant– while in fact it is not always clear what this is about. Let’s provisionally assumethat the required European dimension of sociology’s research projects might besomething of interest and concern for those who decide about the acceptance ofproject applications, or, more generally, when sociologists convincingly can artic-ulate its significance for topics of EU concern. Since the related terms of Europeantransition and transformation, EU integration and enlargement, do not provide forclear conceptual devices, we pragmatically assumed EU accession as “a goodworking definition for successful transition” (Barr 2005 b: 21).

It was only after a while that the term of “Europeanization” has come to ourmind, and, frankly said, with some ambivalence. First, it seems to be a rather cloudyconcept when compared with directly asking about the possible EU impact on so-ciology in its regional framework. Second, in some way it reminds us of the term“Americanization” that seems to be analytically rather shadowy too. Actually par-ticular institutional frameworks and funding structures of US science, also orientedtowards Europe, can provide for much more detailed information (Fleck 2011).However, in the process of analyzing the available data we step by step came tothe decision to keep the term of Europeanization in mind. One of its advantages isthat the concept might be fruitfully applied to sociological analysis and discourse,at least when taken under closer consideration.

The term “Europeanization” has been coined in political science and is underdebate among European political scientists for about ten years now (Radaelli 2000,2004; Olsen 2002; Vink 2002; Featherstone/Radaelli 2003; Holzinger et al. 2005;Knill 2005; Schimmelfennig et al. 2005; Börzel/Risse 2006; Goetz 2006; Axt et al.2007). Europeanization has, furthermore, been an issue in thinking about specificcountries and its respective status-quo of implementation of EU policies, as, forinstance, in Austria and Slovenia (Falkner 2001; Gwiazda 2202; Lindstrom 2002;Neisser/Puntscher-Riekmann 2002). In the disciplinary context of sociology, Eu-

3.2

202

ropeanization has been a rather implicit issue of concern in early comparative so-ciology within Europe (Hradil/Immerfall 1997). However, only recently the con-cept has been used in regarding national societies (Bach 2000, 2003, 2008), socialstructures (Schäfers 1999), social inequalities (Heidenreich 2006), but also, atmeta-theoretical level, the usage of the concept (Jacquot/Woll 2003) and the needfor an adequate social theory on it (Delanty/Rumford 2005) have been discussed.

In the conceptual framework of Maurizio Bach (Bach 2000 b), we can distin-guish between macro-sociological approaches which are mainly concerned with,on the one hand, institutional analysis of supra-national structures provided by theEU, and on the other hand, an analysis of territories (as, for instance, in case ofborder regions) re-defined in the process of European integration. While the firstperspective focuses on the mutual relationship of institutional differentiation atEuropean supra-national level and social change at large, the second one is inter-ested in the restructuring of social and political territories in Europe as part andeffect of a general process of European integration. Europeanization in this senseis interpreted as a “continuously decreasing relevance of political and legal rulesthat are autonoumusly defined within a given nation state, independent of andwithout taking supra-national political ideas, aims and legal norms of the EuropeanUnion into account; in contrast to that, national governments are more and morebound to and constrained by collective decisions at European supra-national level”(Bach 2000 b: 11, transl. added).

Both meanings of the term seem to be capable to being applied to social sciencestoo, first in understanding the institutional conditions, conflicts and societal con-sequences of ongoing European integration as a dynamic process in the sciencesthemselves, and second in identifying restructuring processes of political and so-cietal territories beyond the nation state as already intended by the so-called Euro-pean Research Area. When we focus on the role and intertwinement of new supra-national structures and institutions as product of European integration, we refer toEuropean Union’s science policies as outlined in the Research Framework Pro-grammes and in the Bologna Declaration, and its impact at national, regional, andlocal level of teaching and research. It is this meaning of the term, which seems tobe highly useful for our interest in the impact of the EU accessions on the devel-opment of the sciences and particularly of sociology at national and regional leveltoo. As we have tried to show above, the institutional intertwinement of nationaland supra-national structures of science policy has also transformed the opportunitystructure of national and regional actors and has resulted in shifting power rela-tions between different scientific communities and knowledge producing institu-tions within the territory of Europe. On a more regional level we observed thesechanging strategic contexts, for instance, among the competition of public and pri-vate university institutes of different kind or in relation to research institutes outside

203

academia. Moreover, the societal and social scientific effects of institutional changethrough Europeanization has been at least partially become visible in new topicsand issues of sociological concern which are enforced by EU science policies, asmanifest in EU funded research projects, sociological publications or at least par-tially even in study curricula of sociology.

Significantly, research has shown that when talking about Europeanization ofscience, we should be aware of several dialectical developments which coinciden-tally shape social processes at different levels: Then, Europeanization at the sametime is accompanied by regionalization of European tasks and challenges, sensi-tizing for regional population’s requirements and needs as new actors in the field.The homogenizing effects of globalization on the one hand, might be encompassedby a higher awareness of differentiation among nation states and regions, on theother. And internationalization of social scientific research is said to simultaneouslylead to a decreasing internal cohesion of national sociological communities, as thiswas indicated in interviews with sociologists in two nation states.

Conditions and Contexts of Europeanization

Relating concepts to the core category is part of the selective coding procedurewhich will be outlined in the following. Contextualizing the impact of the EU ac-cessions on sociology then leads us to draw a distinction between different analyt-ical levels of context from micro- to macro-dimensions, causal, and interveningconditions.

Conceptually, our research has been oriented towards a comparative approachof sociological communities in the respective neighbour countries, searching forsimilarities and differences between them, while the institutional contexts of soci-ology’s Europeanization can be defined at different spatial and subject level. Spa-tially, we have considered local intellectual centres of sociology in the region,namely single departments within and outside academia. At regional level, ourinterest was in identifying its particular history and strengths, also taking nationaltraditions of sociology, scientific communities, professional associations and jour-nals of national scope into account. However, Europeanization of sociology itselfis bound to and only one part of the processes of internationalization within thescientific community, which might relativize the significance of the EU’s actualimpact. At subject level, we have considered other key determinants of sociology’sdevelopment, namely the prevalence of language communities in Europe, differentpolitical and economic developments of national societies, and socio-cultural andhistorical backgrounds among European neighbours too.

3.2.1

204

In contextualizing the Europeanization of sociology, as causal conditions of theEU accessions there can unambiguously be defined the results of the respectivereferenda in Austria and Slovenia. On March 23rd 2003, 90 per cent of the Slovenepopulation voted for a membership in the European Union; the overall turnout hadbeen 60 per cent; parallel data for the neighbour country show that in Austria, onJune 12th 1994 66 per cent of the population voted for the EU accession of Austria,the overall turnout had been 82 per cent.35 The neighbour countries respectivelynational societies then had to be in compliance with accession requirements likethe Copenhagen Criteria and the Acquis communautaire. Referring to a possibleEuropeanization of sociology, we have identified significant European institutionalframeworks in higher education like the Bologna Declaration and in research likethe enacted definition of the European Research Area and European ResearchFramework Programmes. Intervening conditions of sociology’s Europeanizationhave been regarded, due to the idea of the conditional matrix at different institu-tional levels as mentioned above: sociologists’ biographies of transformation andcohort membership, the level of a single research EU funded project or respectivelocal department as rather low institutionalized contexts of sociology, the universitysystem and institutional landscape of science policy at national level, and the Euro-pean Research Area and the European Area of Higher Education with its respectivestrategies and programmes at European level of institutionalization.

Positions and Strategies to Deal With Europeanization

Up till now we have considered intervening conditions and contextual parametersof the EU accessions’ impact on sociology. What about its effects on the socialactors themselves, namely sociologists as knowledge experts, their strategies,moods and attitudes of coping with these transformations? Our interest is orientedtowards identifying sociologists’ reactions to organizational and intellectualchange, their self-conceptions, cognitive positions and strategies possibly relatedto these36. For our purposes, we have considered different kinds of strategies ofsociologists interviewed. These referred either to 1) institutional conditions of so-ciology, 2) main cognitive tasks of sociology, or 3) a general orientation towardsthe European Union and a possible Europeanization of sociology.

First, regarding institutional conditions of sociology we have drawn a distinctionbetween actors’ prevalent strategies to handle particular institutional environments,

3.2.2

35 Respective data were taken from the European Election Database, http://extweb3.nsd.uib.no/civicactivecms/opencms/civicactive/en/Data/election/ref/ (Feb 25, 2012)

36 For an example considering strategies referring to the transformations of 1989 in the naturalsciences, see Weingart (1998).

205

as manifest in the institutional landscape of universities and non-academic researchinstitutes. Second, referring to main cognitive tasks of sociology, research andteaching, we have drawn a distinction between publication strategies and projectstrategies as those affecting core research activities; in addition, we considered acontinuum of sociologists’ actual positions of critique and appreciation of theBologna Reform Process implementation in teaching. Third, we explored differentpositions and strategies in dealing with what has been perceived (or not perceived)as an Europeanization of sociology as such in its institutional, cognitive, and his-torical dimensions. Let us now consider these different strategies and how they arelinked to specific conditions of sociological activities in detail.

Regarding the institutional landscape of diverse sociological institutions in andoutside university, the question arises: Whether and how do significant institutionalconditions affect sociologists’ self-conceptions, their strategies in dealing with in-stitutional requirements, and general attitudes towards EU project experiences withEU politics of agenda setting and advocacy research? These might be taken intoaccount as special cases of intervening conditions, where one’s institutional pos-ition in the intellectual landscape of research is considered as having an impact oncognitive strategies of actors towards EU projects.

In organizational terms, research institutes are characterized by a high share oftertiary party funds, encompassed with a rather strong dependence on these subsi-dies of research, while universities as institutions are still mainly publicly funded.However, recently this fact is subject to change. While the main task of researchinstitutes is clearly research with only rudimentary offers in courses and workshopsfor students, universities face a double obligation towards research and teachingactivities, with sometimes rather high teaching loads of its staff. The infrastructuretowards the organization of project teams, also the possibilities to travel to confer-ences and care for research communication within the scientific community, arerather advantageous for research institutes. University structures, on the other hand,are only recently organized towards specific project teams, sometimes the stafffaces difficulties in going abroad for research intentions. The project culture ofresearch institutes has been described as a rather problem- and trans-disciplinarilyoriented one, which meets parallel requirements of EU policies of agenda setting.In universities, research tasks are more oriented towards its discipline and estab-lished research topics and problems within the disciplinary stock of knowledge.While there has not been reported any uncertainty regarding the need for tertiaryfunded projects by research institutes’ staff, some sociologists employed at uni-versities told about the need for respective consciousness-raising activities amongtheir colleagues, at least in Slovenia.

Of course, these institutional conditions of doing research are themselves subjectto change; interestingly, how sociologists perceived and interpreted this institu-

206

tional and organizational change in knowledge production, was itself subject tovariance, at least partially dependent on their position in the institutional landscape.As mentioned before, one of the most prominent accounts of organizational changein science has already been indicated in 1994 by Michael Gibbons et al., who coinedthe term of “Mode 2” of knowledge production (Gibbons et al. 1994) or a generalchange towards “post-academic science” (Bammè 2004). This leads the staff ofresearch institutes to localize themselves mainly in this new mode of knowledgeproduction and to emphasize that the former clear divergence of research in andoutside the academy begins to diminish. At individual level particularly youngersociologists from the “project generation” underline that there might be structuralopportunities to shift to university because of anticipated cohort change. Universitystaff does perceive this organizational change as follows: They underline that oldhierarchies at universities actually diminished not only by cohort change within thelast decades but also by the new organization of knowledge production aroundcertain short-time projects at the departments themselves. Furthermore, depart-ments have to face new financial pressure and restrictions not only by enacteduniversity reforms, but due to intellectual capital report obligations or an enforcedinternationalization pressure towards required publications abroad for promotionand postdoctoral lecturing qualifications.

207

Social and cognitive factors Type of institution

Factors Institutional dimension Research institute University department

Social con-ditions ofinstitution

Financial structure, fund-ing

Mainlytertiary party funds Mainly public subsidies

Main task of institution Research Research and teaching

Prevalent mode of know-ledge production

Problem-oriented,trans-disciplinary, hetero-geneous

Discipline-oriented in stock ofknowledge and topics

Prevalent organizationalform of research

Research projects of re-search groups

Research of individual re-searcher

Consciousness about needof research projects Reported as mostly high Reported as sometimes low

Cognitivestrategiesof actors

Actors’ conceptualizationof change in knowledgeproduction

Clear boundaries within in-stitutional landscape di-minish; new structural op-portunities for researchersdue to cohort change

Old hierarchies at universitiesdiminish;new financial pressure on uni-versities due to intellectual cap-ital report obligations and en-forced internationalization

Actors’ self-conceptionsand practices of distinction

Research institutes as inno-vators and strong playerswithin the EU; universitiesas followers sometimes notvery interested in EU re-search

Universities as prevailing hold-ers of scientific excel-lence;research institutes as semi-sci-entific applied re-search withlow academic reputation

Actors’ ambivalence con-cerning norms and valuesof research in reward sys-tem of science

No sociological ambiva-lence reported

Ambivalence: Reputation of EUprojects high within universityorganization; reputation low inacademic knowledge claims

General attitude towardsEuropeanization of scienceand research

Mainly appreciationSociological ambivalence bet-ween appreciation and scepti-cism

Table 6: Social conditions of sociological knowledge production and its impact onactors’ cognitive strategies to deal with Europeanization, per type of institution

According to sociologists’s accounts, it can be assumed that these systematicallydiffering institutional conditions of doing research highly affect the self-concep-tions (Weingart 1998) of sociologists complemented with their practices of dis-tinction (Bourdieu 1979) within the institutional landscape at large. Recognize thatAndrew Abbott once has emphasized professions’ and disciplines’ diverse nego-tiations of jurisdictions and knowledge claims as part of the division of labourbetween them within the process of enhanced professionalism (Abbott 1988). Wecan add the observation that this is also of relevance for different forms of institu-tions in the institutional landscape (as non-academic research institutes, establishedpublic universities and university departments, and more or less private universi-ties) within one discipline. So representatives of research institutes present them-

208

selves as “innovators and strong players within the EU” oriented towards valuesof flexibility, innovation, and usability, in competing for available funds. However,they characterize universities as mere “followers” to themselves, which are said tobe sometimes not really interested in EU research programmes at all. On the otherhand, university staff tends to present itself as the prevailing holders of scientificexcellence and academic intellectuality. They point out that research institutes be-cause of their high usability orientation can only be regarded as producing semi-scientific applied research with a rather low academic reputation of their productscompared to those of universities. Regarding this, in the interviews seldom some-thing was told about universities’ relationship to the newer Austrian universities ofapplied sciences. However, it can be assumed that a similar self-conception as trueholders of scientific excellence with a much higher appreciation of pure researchis being emphasised and prevails against a perceived stronger teaching- and us-ability-orientation of the latter. Actually this has been indicated by sociologistshaving profound experiences in both institutional settings (Prisching 2001,2005).

In addition, probably resting on this delicate relationship of knowledge claimsregarding production of pure science under structural conditions of strong scientificcompetition for resources, knowledge products and organizational forms of doingresearch, we can think of Merton’s observation of particular ambivalences for sci-entists within the scientific reward system at large (Merton 1996)37. Several con-versations with sociologists have indicated a kind of “inner conflict”. While re-searchers at non-academic institutions tend towards a more or less unambiguousappreciation of EU research programmes, we have suggested that this is not so clearin case of university staff, reporting some ambivalence – or a more differentiatedperspective – between appreciation of and scepticism towards EU research. Thisis visible on the one hand, as a clear reputation of accepted EU proposals andprojects by the nearest colleagues in the same department. On the other hand, arather sceptical understatement of this reputation has been suggested because ofthe general orientation of EU project’s research towards usability and applied sci-ence. This is contrasted with pure science and abstract knowledge for which uni-versities are still held to be the proper institutions of knowledge production withinthe institutional landscape of research at large. Concluding from these observations,there is suggested a systematic relationship of different forms of institutionaliza-tion within research’s landscape with the displayed forms of self-conceptions,

37 Initially, Merton has discussed this ambivalence of scientists as an “inner conflict” causedby divergent social norms of scientific originality on the one hand, as manifest in the com-petition for public appreciation of innovations and serendipities, and on the other hand, fordisinterestedness and modesty of individual researchers, emphasizing the fact of limitationsin their knowledge claims and scientific achievements. Due to Merton, both norms are con-stitutive for the reward system in scientific communities.

209

practices of distinction, and ambivalence in the reputation system. All of them canbe considered as part of actors’ cognitive strategies in dealing with these socialconditions of research within an EU framework as outlined in Table 6.

When we take cognitive tasks of sociologists like teaching or research into ac-count, we can consider their strategies in dealing with Europeanization and its ef-fects in the field of concern. Regarding teaching, the EU impact on it at least aschanging study curricula and the Bologna Process implementation is rather clear,and we subsequently will see that sociologists enfold various positions and attitudestowards it. In the area of research, sociologists’ knowledge products like researchprojects and publications have been addressed and their way of managing what isperceived as enabling possibilities, as new opportunities by EU funds, but alsoinstitutionally restricting ones. In case of Austrian universities there is the currentrequirement to legitimize one’s research towards so-called intellectual capital re-ports, where university’s and departments’ budgets are measured against theamount of successfully acquired tertiary funded projects. Restricting institutionalconditions are also active for Slovene researchers, as a pressure of recently enforcedinternationalization of publication activities as preconditions for promotion andpostdoctoral lecturing qualification.

Irrespective of whether we take a more institutionally oriented Mertonian insti-tutionalist sociology of science or its constructivist counterpart into account, intrying to understand the key role of publications and projects, we can consider thefollowing as crucial (Zuckerman 1988: 558): the role of competition, recognitionand credit in scientific community; prestige and reputation for authority in field ofknowledge claims; publication’s important role in scientific activities; and some-times an actual disjunction between scientific action and knowledge offered inpapers. Referring to strategies of publishing articles under conditions of an enforcedinternationalization requirement, we can make a distinction between the strategiesof authors, of journals’ editors of more or less national scope, and the strategies ofthose who decide whether a national journal is being accepted at the ISI Web ofScience list to be then equipped with impact factors for acquiring internationalrecognition. Let us consider those step by step.

Authors of publications will generally try to publish their papers in journals withhigh impact factors, to be perceived at an international level, due to the rewardsystem valid in the discipline at large. They therefore will prefer journals of inter-national scope to the national ones. This actually leads editors of national jour-nals to sometimes complain about a possibly lower quality of the latter, comparedto international ones. Moreover, authors explicate their publication strategies intrying to increase articles’ chance of being accepted by an international editor’sboard: to specialize in content in a particular subject field, to undertake more em-pirical than theoretical research, to publish in English and to make reference to-

210

wards mostly internationally acknowledged literature. All this can be attributed toindividual’s strategic action; to a perceived individualization and fragmentation ofpublication activities editors of national journals add a potentially collective vision.They might try to sociologically narrow accepted topics of their journals, or, incontrast to it, broaden its scope in an inter-disciplinarily inspired way, for instance,by widening book review sections, for being able to contribute to a much widerpublic discourse in the social sciences. For ensuring quality matters, they mightalso develop a rule for supporting originally published articles instead of acceptingEnglish ones, which might have been rejected by an international journal before,except the author is a foreign one; this actually is the case in the SloveneDružboslovne razprave.

Moreover, national journals themselves encounter particular restrictions, evenwhen their articles are of high quality. Experiences of scientists have shown thatwhen trying to have accepted a journal due to ISI Web of Science criteria of inter-national recognition, it is almost indispensable to publish in English, aside fromnational language, and to be equipped with an international editor’s board. Journalsof mostly national scope seem to face new obstacles because of rational strategiesof individual authors to orient more towards international journals. This is espe-cially relevant when there is high institutional pressure for making a scientific ca-reer. They potentially might also discuss that issue among other national jour-nals’ editors, develop their journals further, at least for teaching reasons, and couldin future come to collective trans-national strategies in reacting against these re-strictions.

Project strategies of actors usually evolve out of actual experiences with EUfunded research projects and policies of agenda setting, first as possible moods andattitudes oriented towards critique or appreciation of EU framework, and second,as strategic activities of participating in it as well. These will now be outlined stepby step.

When we have asked sociologists about their experiences with EU policies ofagenda setting and advocacy research, we have got answers referring to severaldimensions of projects, like its cognitive subject orientation or its institutional or-ganization. They replied to EU’s proposed effects on the national research systemor the evaluation procedures of EU funded research, or to an enhanced profession-alism of sociology as discipline by research projects. Roughly speaking, we canstructure these answers as follows (see Table 7):

211

Dimensions ofresearch evaluation Criteria of “irrationality” Criteria of “rationality”

Research topics

advocacy research problem-orientation

apologetics, popularism trans-disciplinarity

lacking topics of disciplinary rel-evance certain selectivity of topics

Research organizationbureaucracy flexibility

Ineffectiveness effectiveness

Research policy: impact of EU re-search policy on national researchsystem

low influence of EU enforcement by EU

Clientelism research orientation

no public recognition of research public recognition of research ex-ists

low internal potential of nationalresearch system

ability of national research sys-tem to use one’s resources

Research evaluation: Evaluationprocedures of EU research funds

Matthew effect objectivity

high risk, low chance scientific excellence

Research quality: estimation ofEuropeanization of sociology’senhanced professionalism

practices of distinction increase of quality standards

US dominance prevails EU as relevant community

Table 7: Repertoires of evaluation in assigning criteria of “irrationality” versus“rationality” of Europeanization of science

Which factors actually govern the attitudes towards EU projects – mainly criticizingor appreciating EU policies of research? Does it depend on cohort membership orgeneration of sociologists? Well, sometimes younger people tend to appreciate EUpolicies more, older generations are more sceptical regarding anticipated advan-tages or strengths of EU research policies. Furthermore, does it depend on theinstitutional background or the position within the institutional landscape, roughlydistinguishing between departments of universities and research institutions out-side academia? Again, research institutes outside university tend to appreciate EUpolicies more than university personnel. It can be speculated that this might alsobe an effect of the ambivalence experienced by research staff and their possiblymeaningful practices of drawing distinctions to so-called “semi”-academic re-search institutes. Third, does the amount of critique or appreciation depend on theamount of actual experience with EU projects? Well, not necessarily. A personrather un-experienced in EU projects can be highly critical against it, since theactual experience of being unsuccessful in an application procedure providesenough grounds not only for personal frustration, but also for reasonable critique.Otherwise, sociologists successful in evaluation procedures of EU funded research– or sometimes even active within them as a peer reviewer – might find reasons forarticulating their scepticism because of their given familiarity with the concerns

212

under investigation or because of their insider-knowledge in EU practices them-selves. What can surely be said as resulting from our research is that the amountof critique or appreciation definitely does not depend on the background of anynational community, although Slovenia and Austria only recently share similarformal conditions of applying for EU projects.

More generally, in strategically reasoning whether they should apply for an EUfunded project or not, sociologists in principle do also have the option to exit, thatmeans to search for other funding possibilities. However, probably there are highcosts of dispensing reputation and international recognition by a public audienceof European-wide scope. On the other hand, for taking part in what is perceived as“EU business”, they might develop project strategies to adapt to anticipated ex-pectations in content: This can result in a clear orientation towards certain EUprogrammes due to one’s competencies. Or this might mean mainstreaming one’sresearch intentions, letting un-proofed research topics and approaches aside infavour of a more established research design where one in principle knows in ad-vance about possible results and does not run the risk of failing in content. Theserisk-minimizing strategies caused by very strict evaluation procedures, as an un-intended consequence might result in more predictable, even opportunistic andapologetic research, instead of a really promising and innovative one. Furthermore,adaptation to EU’s call policy, normative EU guidelines as the Lisbon Strategy’senforced “employability” objective and highly required usability in sense of policyrelevant advocacy research, might make it rational for actors to develop “as if”-strategies of action. Then sociologists act due to an anticipated EU rhetoric of “howto create more jobs”, sometimes referring to temporarily fashionable up-swingconcepts. They enact this although they are not really convinced by this conceptionof politically relevant social engineering, and they also run at cost of less reputa-tion in academic terms of “pure” science. Institutionally seen, sociologists use pos-sibilities to take part in and keep up-dated with what is perceived as a “risky game”and “popular sport” of EU proposal writing. They articulate the need for alwayslooking for co-operations with colleagues abroad, always dedicating a certainamount of their work for looking for new funding possibilities. Or they decide totake part in evaluation in the position of a juror themselves, then being probablybetter equipped with relevant insider-knowledge.

Referring to teaching as a core activity of sociologists, we detected their cogni-tive positions and strategies regarding the implementation of a key frameworkprogramme of European higher education, namely the Bologna Reform Process.These have been visible in a respective focus group discussion, where there havebeen discussed different ways of handling this new situation for Alps-Adriatic re-gion’s universities. As one result we have seen a continuum of actual positions orattitudes towards the implementation of the Bologna Reform Process, differentiated

213

into several dimensions of critique and appreciation of it. One pole of the continuumdenotes a “radical” critical position, followed by a more “modest” one. On the otherhand, acceptance has been visible in a clear appreciation of exchange possibilitiesby the ERASMUS mobility programme, and, finally, in thinking even of possiblejoint study programmes as “the closest form of co-operation between universi-ties“ (from one interview). Recognize that here we refer to different dimensions ofcritique (radical vs. modest), to various properties as goals and objectives on theone hand, and to means and practices of implementation on the other.

To begin with, the radical position is articulating profound critique against thevery objectives of the Bologna Process like the enforced “employability” of Euro-pean students. Rather, it is sceptically argued, this objective is not adequately re-flected in the context of current precarious work and self-employment possibilities.Furthermore, representatives of this position highly criticize these objectives in thelight of observed tendencies of economization, marketing and exploiting of Euro-pean higher education. This is contrasted by an unambiguous appreciation of oldHumboldt’ ideas of education (Bildung), as the unity of teaching and research.

The rather modest stream of critique, however, is led by a general acceptanceof Bologna Process’s goals; moreover, these are seen as a chance for an actuallydesired university reform process in the respective countries. Actual means andpractices of implementation are, however, subject to critique of what is perceivedas a misinterpretation and insufficient implementation of the Bologna Reform Pro-cess. Particularly, there is articulated critique against, as follows: the lacking inte-gration of relevant social actors like students, university staff and employers, in-sufficient financial resources for implementation, non-existent quality control, thelacking compatibility of change parameters, and an inadequate department policyin single cases of implementation.

When we now turn to approaches characterized by a general appreciation of theBologna Reform Process, we can observe a third position highly welcoming theso-called ERASMUS mobility programme because it promotes more possibilitiesfor students’ and teachers’ exchange within the European Higher Education Area.Sociologists positively perceive the opportunity of attracting high quality teachersand students by international exchange programmes as providing for a stimulatinginternational climate at the respective department. Moreover, they emphasize thatparticularly for the study of sociology intercultural topics and a sense of cross-national comparisons are highly relevant. On the other hand, its actual implemen-tation is subject to critique, for instance, because of only randomly organized andinsufficient offers in English courses, which – due to law restrictions at least inSlovenia – have always to be complemented by a course in the respective nationallanguage on the same topic. Lacking compatibility of programmes, absent quality

214

control and high additional financial costs for students are perceived as rather re-stricting actual practices of exchange.

On the most appreciating pole of the respective continuum of positions we canidentify current efforts to establish a joint study programme in sociology, as a ratherhighly institutionalized form of co-operation among universities. Sociologists for-mulate their interest in offering courses on global sociology and European sociol-ogy at an advanced level, accompanied by specialized competencies of respectivesociological departments taking part in the programme. Sociology is regarded asproviding for key competencies in developing the academic site of trans-regionaland innovative knowledge, needed by students and potential employers, suppliedby qualified teaching staff at the respective universities. Although not realized uptill now, different actors have already formulated their interest in such a joint pro-gramme vision and the need for developing structures and resources for its real-ization. In this case it seems reasonable to take also the task into account how toteach international competencies to students (Tiryakian 1990).

We should be aware of, however, the fact that we are dealing with gradual dif-ferences in positions, which are not mutually exclusive ones. So, for instance, es-tablishing a joint study programme might be perceived as a good opportunity forcreating university co-operation due to particular goals and intentions of highereducation, and even rather “radical” critics of the Bologna Reform Process mightengage themselves in.

In the interviews, we simply asked sociologists whether they perceive, beneatha national and international dimension, a possible European dimension of sociol-ogy, and if yes, how they would describe this. While from time to time there hasbeen articulated scepticism on the usefulness and adequacy of considering anEuropean dimension of sociology at all, bringing some counter-arguments to thefore, most of sociologists interviewed could actually relate to an anticipated EUdimension in institutional, cognitive, and historical terms. In addition, they havegiven practical recommendations for strengthening this EU dimension of sociologyin future (for details see section 2.6.). Moreover, following Merton (1996) we havesuggested a general orientation of individual sociologists towards a “local” or a“cosmopolitan” orientation, as visible in realizing publication opportunities in so-ciological journals or in seeking for potential project partners of regional and trans-national scope. In interviews there has been indicated that, given the changinginstitutional landscape of teaching and research, there are new structural opportu-nities even for locally oriented persons: In detail, parts of Slovene staff of estab-lished public universities observe that newer public institutions support local ori-entations of their younger students in offering them local job opportunities, whothen will try to avoid more competitive, more risky and more demanding conditionsof an internationally characterized scientific environment.

215

Some Consequences of Europeanization

Throughout this book we have been occupied with various consequences of actionand interaction of sociologists under the conditions of a current EU framework ofresearch and teaching. In a rough definition, we can make a distinction betweenintended effects, but also un-intended consequences of a shifting framework ofsocial conditions for sociology. Of course, results have shown that some generalobjectives of the EU, as promoting scientific trans-national collaboration in variousfields of interest, have in practice often met its initial intentions, evolving intoseveral European research projects of regional sociological actors. However, byempirical research we have examined that those objectives and goals, strategiesand measurements formulated in EU declarations and framework programmes, in-deed are identified by sociologists as rather resulting into non-intended conse-quences. For instance, sceptically it has been considered that by research frame-work programmes innovation is often hindered in favour of risk-minimizing strate-gies of scientific actors to mainstream their research interest and approach, thenresulting into rather predictable results. In teaching, it has been criticized that theobjectives of the Bologna Reform Process to enable student’s mobility across Eu-rope are often not realized because of the very curricula or insufficient personnelinfrastructure or missing English-courses in place. In fact, in our interviews it hasbeen shown that each argument for appreciating “more rational” ‑ as more objective‑ criteria of EU research policies, are foiled by a respective counter-argument orcritical stance to what are perceived as rather “irrational” outcomes of the veryprocedure.

There has also become visible how sociology as a scientific discipline is actuallyshaped by the EU impact, and which enabling consequences are recognized, likemore incentives and opportunities for trans-national research and a generally higherlevel of professionalism. Also constraining effects have been mentioned like thedecrease of internal cohesion within the sociological national community, in itsprofessional associations or journals of national scope, while sociology’s Euro-peanization seems to have only little to offer to substitute these national commu-nities. Often it has also been critically mentioned that concepts of social sciencesat European levels, as they are manifest in the EU call policy, are mostly influencedby images of the natural sciences and technology and are considered as significantlyinadequate to meet particular requirements and core competencies of the socialsciences. Moreover, critics of internationalization pressures enacted at local andregional institutional level have pointed out the central role of ordinary languagesfor sociology, in which it is profoundly rooted. They have suggested that nationallanguage proficiency can never be substituted by an ability to talk mainly to col-

3.2.3

216

leagues in a foreign language not shared by members of those societies in whichsociologists actually live.

In the following, three types of consequences of sociology’s Europeanizationare taken into account. First, we reflect in which way configurations or relations ofpower within the sociological community at macro-level can be regarded as havingchanged due to an anticipated EU impact on that system. Then we do not only takethe relationship between anticipated centres and peripheries of knowledge produc-ing institutions within the European Research Area into account, but also think ofstrategies to influence these configurations, as reflected in the concept of “tangen-tial coalitions” (Mlinar1995). Second, on a micro-dimension of the society, thereare raised questions regarding cognitive and emotional components of interactionand co-operation among sociologists with different national background. Third,factors of successful trans-national co-operation itself come into play, evolving ina dynamic “trajectory” model of co-operation for achieving higher level forms ofscientific collaboration.

One of the core assumptions here is to expect at least a gradual process of Eu-ropeanization of sociology by the EU accessions of the member states Slovenia andAustria. This assumption is foiled by the daily experience of a strong US dominancewithin sociology and a relatively strong orientation of European sociologists to-wards it. However, there is empirical evidence for assuming that Europeanizationindeed does have an impact on persisting power relationships within the sociolog-ical community in the sense of at least partially changing it. This is indicated, forinstance, in what is perceived by Austrian sociologists as an emancipation pro-cess from “big brother” Germany, or in a stronger orientation of sociology inSlovenia towards the Anglo-Saxon context.

For this we have thought about European neighbourhoods within Europe whichare significant for the sociological community in the relevant regional context.Therefore, what are important scientific communities which influence the way oflooking at each other, and sometimes work as background assumptions in charac-terizing one’s own community in contrast to it, for the respective regional context?For this, we have identified the Anglo-Saxon context (roughly spoken, the US andUK) as relevant for Austrian as well as for Slovene sociologists, the German-speaking context as particularly of significance for Austrian sociology, and thepost-Yugoslav context as mainly recognized by the sociological community inSlovenia.

Following Johan Galtung (Galtung 1981), centres of intellectual knowledgeproduction in the Anglo-Saxon context can be identified with well-known eliteuniversities at the East and West coast of the US and with “Oxbridge” in the UKand in the German context some universities like Konstanz, Heidelberg, Tübingen,and others. Recall that in the context of this book we have mainly identified centres

217

of sociology at regional level, evolving around the university departments of Graz,Klagenfurt, Ljubljana and Maribor. We can add to this, that for Austria, of course,Vienna represents such a centre of intellectuality, which has only hardly been con-sidered in the context of this regionally focused study, and for Slovenia Ljubljanaclearly can be regarded as a centre. From our point of view unfortunately we arenot sure which post-Yugoslav centres can be identified, maybe Zagreb, Belgrade,and Sarajevo. We have not developed the discussion of centres and peripheries inan European context further here, but would like to point to some publications inthis regard (Stolte-Heiskanen 1987; Rokkan 1999; Goetz 2006).

Is, due to the hypothesis of a change in institutional conditions of sociology bythe EU, the process of Europeanization of science capable of influencing thesepower relations within the sociological community, at least partially? In which wayare anticipated international and European “centres” and “peripheries” in powerrelations re-defined by the process of Europeanization? As interviews with soci-ologists indicate, Europeanization is reshaping the relationship to close neighboursin a wider context of Europe, the way of perceiving each other and strategies todeal with Europeanization as well, visible also as an impact on new power config-urations among intellectual centres of knowledge production. When sociologistscharacterized national traditions of sociology, they often addressed former andcurrent power relations among each other. Then Europeanization sometimes meansto come closer to an Anglo-Saxon context instead of a German context which ishistorically prevailing at least from an Austrian standpoint. What about the Slovenepoint of view? Well, while the rather close neighbour of Austria is still of someimportance, however, as a rather one-sided relationship or influence, this Austriancontext might not be so interesting anymore, when considering the Anglo-Saxonone. Also post-Yugoslav territories, with whom Slovenian sociologists at leastpartially share similar historical experiences and language competencies, becomemore and more relevant.

With these power relations, also parallel and often dialectic processes were ad-dressed which can loosely be linked to the process of sociology’s Europeanizationitself. So, a former homogenization in mutual perceptions (“red spots” and “seeingblack-and –white”, see Chapter 2) has diminished in favour of more differentiatedviews of neighbours getting to know each other and communicating increasingly.What has been interpreted as a clear dominance of “the West” now has developedin the sense of a more diverse, more individualized and also a more democraticsystem. However, parallel with this there are also observable enforced scientificcompetition among new colleagues within European frameworks which results alsoin an enhanced professionalism of the entire discipline, and probably in more de-pendence on that international context within Europe and beyond. Former experi-ences of, so to say, intellectual colonization, have been perceived as a kind of

218

indigenization by others (“we were treated by them like domorodci, indigenous”,see Chapter 2), but recently challenged emancipation processes and strategies ofAustrian as well as Slovene sociologists, when compared to Anglo-Saxon or Ger-man contexts.

In addition, we have underlined that structural opportunities are still not the samebut rather asymmetrical for both Slovene and Austrian research institutes. Withinthe EU framework an adequate pressure on the respective national research systemseems currently to be still insufficient from a Slovene point of view. Moreover, wehave recognized the idea of “tangential coalitions” (Mlinar 1995) as an opportunityspecifically for peripheral units to strengthen their position in regard to an antici-pated centre. This might be helpful in imagining and evaluating trans-national co-operations, as the knowledge exchange in good-practice models among sociolo-gists, as a promise that regions might transcend their peripheral positions towardsan explicit European orientation. Sociologists from both national contexts, in ad-dition, do mention new opportunities in what is perceived as a growing need andtheir increasing ability to fulfil a “bridge function” between scientific communitiesin the East and the West. This is of special significance for Slovene researchers, aseminent in the relationship to Post-Yugoslav territories and South East Europe,because they often bring central resources like language proficiency and an at leastpartially shared history with them.

Peripheries of intellectual knowledge production are a territorial concept, and,regarding its relationship to the nation state and the supranational structure of theEuropean Union one might think of it as a “lower” positioned unit in the hierarchyof territories: Here we will address, first, the always local and regional relevanceof global or (supra)national processes, and also the possibility of a regional pe-riphery of having an impact on the “higher” levels; second, the according thesis ofa “territorial de-hierarchization” (Mlinar 1995) within the emerging EuropeanUnion, as Zdravko Mlinar puts it. These assumptions reframe the well-known du-alism in thinking of the changes of present hierarchical territorial organizationswithin national societies and in a more complex global context (Mlinar 1995:162).

Strategies of de-hierarchization can be interpreted due to four modes or proces-ses (Mlinar 1995: 164pp.): de-hierarchization as cross-level power-sharing, as by-passing the intermediaries, as tangential coalition, and as dissociation by exit fromthe periphery. Particularly important for understanding coalitions within the com-mon border region is the case of tangential coalition: “When peripheral units pur-posely intensify their lateral inter-linkages in order to overcome their subordinateposition in relation to the centre, they form tangential coalitions” (Mlinar 1995:170). The concept of tangential coalition is in sharp contrast to the typical hier-archical organizations within and between nation-states, which can be depicted as

219

a communication radiation “from the core to the peripheries” (Mlinar 1995: 170),and it overcomes the separation between the peripheral units resulting either fromtheir objective conditions like infrastructure, or state of technology, or from set uparrangements by the centre through the principle of divide and impera (ibid.). Mli-nar argues that “European integration itself is a form of tangential coalition”, as aresponse to global intrusions, particularly by the United States and Japan (Mlinar1995: 170). Tangential coalition can also be described as “a mechanism used bylower level units to transcend their subordinate position, and as an antidote to theprinciple of divide et impera (…). By pooling their (human) resources theystrengthen their cause and thus – in the situation presented – increase the possibilityof direct access to the highest (European) level of decision-making” (Mlinar 1995:169).

Moreover, within this framework, the option of “exit” is available as an expla-nation of Slovenia’s shift from being part of the former Yugoslav state to becomea small nation in itself: This strategy to exit was depicted by Slovenia’s actors asan “escape from a subordinate, peripheral position” (Mlinar 1995: 173), from re-strictions of central government, from the realization that “it was trapped in a ‘per-manent minority’ position” (Mlinar 1995: 173). Slovenia might also have experi-enced a form of “dual periphery”, since it was seen as the “periphery of a less-developed European periphery” (Mlinar 1995: 174) or in a dilemma of “in-bet-ween-ness” between West and East like Hungary (Balla 1991) or like Austria too,albeit with different historical reasons. Due to the increasing integration of Europe,the nation state is no longer of that importance than before, since it has, on the onehand, delegated central competencies and rights to the European Union. On theother hand, as calling for more democracy from “bottom-up”, social groups artic-ulate resistance against the nation state, and against a possible European centralism.In this sense, trans-national European regions provide for possible alternatives tothe nation state. This is specifically true for the respective border region in CentralEurope, where long-lasting historical conflicts have left borders separating people,infrastructure, economics, and labour markets. In this sense, regions might be ableto overcome these separations caused by the emergence of nation states. However,the vision of neighbourhood shall not neglect the fact that first we have to deal withactual differences and conflicts of the neighbour states to then get a sense of itscommonalities too.

From the interviews with sociologists there is visible the necessity and require-ment of managing an increasing internationalization pressure as in acquiring moreinternational projects and publications within the scientific community. This re-quires adaptation and adjustment with regard to new institutional constraints byindividual scientists. Sometimes in the interviews it was underlined, that it is in-dispensably necessary to get a clear knowledge about oneself as precondition to be

220

then able to understand neighbours with whom one shares a history. Furthermore,sociologists reported the significance of specific emotions in trans-national co-operation. This is manifest, for instance, when Slovene sociologists recognize ex-plicitly feelings of embarrassment and politeness when German-speaking sociol-ogists use the German language, which historically still is perceived as a languageof domination. In reverse, Slovene sociologists describe this as ambivalence bet-ween the desire to show that they are actually able to talk German on the one hand,and on the other hand, the feeling of servility, when they use the language of theirneighbours. “And this results into the fact, that all of us speak more English andless German than it in fact would be possible”, resumed a Slovene sociologist.

In which way, therefore, emotional and cognitive structures are important in theprocess of trans-national co-operation between neighbours? How could these feel-ings be explained in regard to rationality and rationalization, power relations anddivisions of labour within the scientific endeavour? Is it possible, regarding theinter-linkage of social structures in the Europeanization of science with emotionaland cognitive structures of scientists to speak about a development from externalto internal forces in the sense of Norbert Elias (Elias 2007)? Unfortunately, scien-tists themselves rather rarely refer to their own cognitive and emotional learningexperiences involved in trans-national co-operations. Exploring these questionsand initial ideas further would probably extend beyond the scope of this study, butcan be suggested as a relevant issue for future research.

One of the most important consequences of the Europeanization on sociology,which has also been in the heart of our research interest, are trans-national co-operations, their institutional forms, their parameters of success and social proces-ses. So we have asked sociologists well-experienced in establishing and caring forcollaborations with their colleagues from different national communities, whichfactors, from their point of view, actually support or hinder successful forms ofscientific collaboration. When we take these factors under closer consideration,they seem to be related to different situations of lower or higher institutionalizationof trans-national co-operation: At the micro-dimension of social life we find oc-casions of co-presence which might be rather informal and peculiar, as meetingsor conferences, apart from routine work. At a meso-level we might think of com-municative situations, where both foreign language competency and cognitive pro-ficiency due to a certain research paradigm are at stake; this could qualify, forinstance, for a team engaged in a research project. Trans-national co-operation willbecome more institutionalized, as, for instance, in a long-term project, when thereare enough structural opportunities for its emergence, like a clear political will,availability of time and financial resources. All the latter can also be regarded asparts of structural opportunities for co-operation. The existence of a permanent and

221

stable co-ordinating organization rather supports the successful running of long-term projects too, as experience shows.

Conclusions

The starting point of this study has been the assumption of a possible causal rela-tionship between the EU accessions of Slovenia and Austria as nation states andits impact on the formation of sociology as a discipline, and the attempt to identifypossible parameters of this process of Europeanization of sociology in Sloveniaand Austria. As science of its society, sociology deals with deep societal transfor-mations and historical changes, but is also subject to them as very precondition ofits institutional and intellectual activities as well. The recent emergence of Euro-pean Union’s accessions of the neighbouring countries Slovenia and Austria hasled those two to become closer within a current European framework. A regionallylimited investigation of sociology in the neighbouring countries, comparing rather“old” and “new” members of the European Union, might provide for much moredetailed knowledge concerning relevant social structures of sociology and know-ledge resources of actors involved.

Conceptually we have developed a sociology of knowledge to apply this as aperspective to the new constellation that we find since the EU accessions in theneighbouring countries, with an interest in the changing institutional, cognitive andhistorical dimensions of sociology as a discipline under current European condi-tions. Research on a so-called Europeanization of sociology, a term explicitly re-ferring to effects of EU policies and structures at local, regional, and national level,are only in its beginning. We have drawn on discourses of Europeanization ofnational societies as a challenge for sociology to transcend its historically grownemphasis of national frameworks towards a comparative endeavour.

Our methodological framework of reference has been oriented towards themethodology of comparative sociology. The research design has been guided by acombination of methods, while in the context of the book there has been applied acase study approach and results from qualitative research techniques of gathering,coding and analyzing data have been presented. In particular, 21 semi-structuredinterviews with sociologists and university administrative personnel in two stateshave been undertaken, including the cases of five university departments and threeresearch institutes outside university. We have complemented the interviews witha focus group discussion with experts on the topic of implementing the BolognaReform Process at the respective universities as well as with data from ethnographicparticipatory observation in some institutional examples of trans-national co-op-eration among sociologists in the region. Data have been organized and critically

3.3.

222

interpreted due to the Grounded Theory approach, explicitly aiming at theory gen-eration in the respective field of interest.

Taking various contexts of sociology’s Europeanization in the two states intoaccount, we have differentiated local, regional, national and international dimen-sions of it, and considered the role of language communities, politics and the econ-omy, as well as socio-historical backgrounds. Causal conditions of Europeaniza-tion have been identified at several dimensions of the EU research and higher ed-ucation policy. Intervening conditions have been subject to an investigation at thelevel of biographies of transformation, distinguishing three generations of sociol-ogists, the social organization of EU funded research at a single project level, theinstitutional level of a department and the university system at national level, andthe Bologna Reform Process and mobility programmes at European level. Positionsand strategies of sociologists to deal with Europeanization referred to institutionalconditions, addressing the increasing competition within the institutional landscapebetween the academic world and research institutes outside university, and to cog-nitive tasks of sociology in teaching and research, and pointed to a possible Euro-peanization of sociology in institutional, cognitive and historical terms as outlinedby sociologists in the interviews. Consequences of Europeanization addressed areflection of European neighbourhoods, in particular shifting power configurationsbetween intellectual centres and peripheries of sociological research within theEuropean Research Area, and factors for successful trans-national co-operation inthe sense of an explorative dynamic model of a “trajectory” of trans-national co-operation.

As part of the results, it could be found that within an European institutionalcontext, sociology is presumably working under new restrictions, but may alsoencounter enabling opportunities of promoted trans-national co-operations andcontribute to a stock of knowledge more and more known as an European sociol-ogy. Dialectically seen, Europeanization of national societies and sociology at thesame time contributes to a regionalization of European tasks sensitizing for needsand requirements of the regional and local actors in the field. Globalization is en-compassed by an increased differentiation among nation states and regions, andinternationalization of sociological research often results in a decreasing internalcohesion of national sociological communities.

Throughout this book we have formulated and dealt with several hypotheses onthe subject of interest, also concerning conceptual relations between central cat-egories of our research, and have confronted them with conceptual insights of thesociology of knowledge and of science. In the following we would like to brieflyreflect these assumptions and summarize in which way we have found empiricalevidence for these or not, taking possible discrepancies into account too.

223

In contextualizing sociological knowledge production as “epistemic cultures”(Knorr-Cetina 1999) in European neighbourhoods, we have assumed that in thehistorical formation of sociology as a scientific discipline it is possible to identifynot only peculiar national traditions of sociological thought. Moreover, we can alsotalk about national sub-structures of knowledge production at institutional level,linked to larger social processes, historical and cultural contexts. While as part ofnational sub-structures of the scientific community the existence of divergent in-stitutional structures of science policy and particular preferences in theoreticalparadigms and research topics might be rather uncontroversial, not so much isknown about sociologists’ characterization of it within an explicitly European con-text. Results have shown that sociologists’ accounts of their respective nationaltraditions and sub-structures of sociology are influenced by way of perceiving,comparing and recognizing each other in European neighbourhoods; in these con-texts also other close neighbours within Europe are relevant. European neighbour-hoods are interpreted as those scientific communities within Europe that sociolo-gists refer to as relevant ones in characterizing their own community, often indi-cated by use of the same vernacular language, spatial proximity, or an at leastpartially common history. European neighbourhoods work as a kind of backgroundknowledge or background assumption in perceiving oneself and others, while theyare subject to historical change shifting by Europeanization of sociology too. Aspossible effects linked to that process, eventually homogenized mutual percep-tions have largely diminished and more differentiated recognitions of each othertook place within the last two decades.

Concerning national sub-structures of the scientific community, there are moreor less implicit power configurations in sociological communities addressed, whichare structured due to anticipated relations of centres and peripheries in the EuropeanResearch Area and beyond, and are themselves subject to change. While Austriansociologists tend to emphasize commonalities of scientific community, Slovenesociologists often underlined the asymmetry in structural opportunities of researchinstitutions and individual resaerchers as well. This might partially be influencedby older historical reasons, but seems to be strongly related to different temporalcontextes of being a member of the European Union. Moreover, in interviews withsociologists, strategies of emancipation and of “tangential coalitions” (Mlinar1995 b) of peripheral units of sociology within the peripheries of the EuropeanResearch Area have been explicitly articulated.

Addressing the relationship of empirics and theory formation, we have foundthat there is a well-established empirical sociology active in the neighbour countrieswhile their connotations differ according to specific national or even local socio-logical traditions. As rather well-known examples in this regard we have particu-larly described the “Slovene Public Opinion Poll” project and the Austrian Study

224

“The Unemployed of Marienthal”. Considering the paradigmatic role of “fractaldistinctions” (Abbott 2001) for the development of the discipline in general, wehave pointed out that these must be seen in the light of important national traditionsand sometimes are empirically also bridged or relativized as a possible outcome ofthe discipline’s maturation as an entirety.

In regard to topics of sociological research, we have presupposed the existence ofcore and marginal ones within an anticipated (not only) cognitive hierarchy in thereward system of sociology. Social inequalities as a topic can still be assumed asrather located at the disciplinary centre of concern, however, is itself subject toparadigmatic change. Sztompka (Sztompka 2002) assumes that researchers fromCentral and East European countries seem to be very well equipped for conceptu-alizing change and for doing research on persisting social inequalities. The signif-icance of political sociology, the sociology of transformations and the sociologyof European integration in Slovene sociology could be verified not only in ourbibliometric analysis (Hönig 2008) but also in several interviews with sociologists.This might have also deeper roots in sociologists’ first-hand experiences in polit-ical, economic, and social transformations of Slovene society, where there is alsoan urgent need for sociological explanations, which in itself is much more articu-lated than in the neighbour country. In contrast to that, sociology in Austria doesnot very much deal with topics of European integration, at least in quantitativeterms, but is particularly strong in the history of sociology and sociology of sci-ence and technology.

Has the Europeanization of sociology had any effects concerning particularproblems and topics of sociological research? And what about the relationship toother disciplines in the social sciences, like political science, economics, and cul-tural studies? Sciologists’ accounts have shown that sociological reflections of in-equalities, as a core topic within the disciplinary stock of knowledge, have changedwithin the last decades towards a “cultural turn” of sociological explanation. Therehas been identified a tendency towards a cultural structuring of sociology, as asubstitution of former dominant structural sociological explanations of social in-equality by a stronger emphasis of differences represented as cultural diversity.Moreover, enhanced professionalism in sociology is associated with a strongerorientation towards economic constraints, as an “economization” both of institu-tional conditions and cognitive contents of sociological activities. This is indicated,for instance, when the so-called Lisbon Strategy is anticipated as a normativeframework for EU research funds by sociologists. In some way these developmentstowards culturalization and economization of sociology can be explained as im-manent cognitive ones in sociology, as by the historical coincidence with the riseof cultural studies or with the up-swing of Rational Choice Theory. However, it isreasonable to assume that Europeanization of societies and of sociology accelerated

225

that process, as by the collapse of the post-socialist countries in 1989. Moreover,the EU actually seems to support, in its policies of higher education and research,this process and its interpretation by normatively promoting “employability” ofstudents and usability of research. A parallel culturalization is at least partly ex-plainable by promoting a stronger competition not only among sociology and othersocial sciences, but also between social sciences, the humanities and cultural stud-ies, as this is clearly indicated by European Research Framework Programmes. Byparticipatory observation we observed that the way cultural diversity is dealt withitself is different in Austria and Slovenia. While the former seems mainly to reflectits relationship to old or autochthonous and new minorities like migrants, the latterfinds itself in a position to articulate its relationship to South East European coun-tries like the post-Yugoslav territories.

As far as theoretical paradigms and theory formation in sociology are concerned,we experience a paradigmatic change from critical thinking to a multi-paradigmaticsituation with an increased cognitive variety and heterogeneity in sociological ap-proaches. Critical Theory is of importance in both national traditions of sociolo-gy, albeit not only with divergent socio-political backgrounds, but also with pos-sibly different cognitive foci and forms. Currently it is characterized as only oneelement of sociological theorizing, not the dominant one anymore. Seen in relationto the disciplinary status-quo of sociology, this cognitive development could alsobe interpreted as an enhanced professionalism, where prevailing modes of more orless economics-oriented thinking have been decreased in favour of a broader varietyof sociological imagination. In Slovenia, since the 1980 s the reception of Luh-mann’s and Bourdieu’s theoretical frameworks has been relatively influential be-cause of several reasons; however, it would be an exaggeration assuming that thesetwo are the most important ones within current sociology in Slovenia at large. Asfar as recent theoretical developments are concerned, in Austria there has not beenan indication of a strong reception of any particular sociological theory, whichmight also depend on deeper socio-historical underpinnings of Austrian’s intellec-tual culture.

Taking a view on the institutionalization of sociology within the institutionallandscape of research, we have assumed that Europeanization might speed up thecompetition both between public and private universities and between universitiesand research institutes in the institutional landscape. The European-wide processesof enhanced autonomy, individualization and privatization of higher education andthe rise of “entrepreneurial science” as well recently have led to a remarkablegrowth of small private universities and departments in Slovenia and to the insti-tutionalization of universities of applied sciences in Austria. Regarding researchinstitutes outside university, these are still more institutionalized in an Austrianframework. In principle, research institutes outside university gain structural op-

226

portunities to become players within the European scientific community, which, tothis extent, they did not have before. We have also considered how cognitive atti-tudes of sociologists towards European research policy partially do depend on theirinstitutional backgrounds. Among university staff appreciations of new researchpossibilities by EU funds and a general Europeanization of science are seen withsome ambivalence linked to the reward system of academic science at large, butalso to differing cognitive tasks and institutional possibilities of doing research,when compared to non-academic institutes.

Considering the role of sociology in the concert of academic disciplines, theimpact of the EU accessions on the development of sociology has been rather topromote interdisciplinary science towards other social sciences and the humani-ties. This required interdisciplinarity and problem-orientation of research, insteadof an anticipated disciplinarily structured stock of established topics and knowled-ge, is manifest, for instance, in the Research Framework Programmes. In the fieldof European studies, sociologists have to compete primarily with political scien-tists, but possibly also with economists, as well as legal and cultural studies.

Besides, there has been indicated a decreasing public recognition of the disci-pline at large since the 1980 s in Austria and since the 1990 s in Slovenia. Accom-panied by current socio-political and economic developments, this depends on ageneral re-evaluation of sociology, possibly not only at European, but at globallevel. It is an interesting but still open question whether Europeanization of soci-ology leads to lower internal cohesion of sociology to politics as employers likeministries, public administration, and political decision-makers. One can speculatethat this largely political and administrative framework at national level has de-creased in relevance, due to an in parallel decreased general importance of thewelfare state and political parties. However, this tendency may be affected andaccelerated by the process of Europeanization too. For undertaking research on thatissue, access to reliable data is rather difficult to obtain, since financial resourcesand agreements for funding research are part of a mainly informal network of sci-entists, administrative personnel, and politicians at different national and regionallevel. In interviews with Slovene sociologists, the interdependence of sociologyand politics has been more explicitly addressed than in conversations with Austrianones. In 2008, both countries have undertaken elections at country-wide level,however this has only been discussed by Slovene sociologists. This might dependon different possible parameters: an interest to explain a political context to a for-eign student, a stronger inter-linkage of sociology with national politics, or a gen-erally high political consciousness of Slovene sociologists.

Roughly spoken, the international and outward-orientation of sociological com-munities in the two neighbouring countries is rather high, especially in the case ofSlovenia, which might depend on a rather small language community, but also on

227

definite institutional requirements for publishing abroad. In a dialectic perspective,the coincidence of increasing Europeanization of sociology with decreasing inter-nal cohesion of sociology’s national communities has strongly been indicated. Inanalogy to a metaphor used by Edgar Grande (Grande 1996) for a shifting institu-tional autonomy of the nation state within the European framework, this dialectialrelationship of decreasing internal cohesion and increasing international orientationof scientific communities within European research policies can be characterizedas a “paradox of weakness”. This regards, for instance, the decreasing importanceof professional associations at national level, but also severely affecting the exis-tence of sociological journals of mainly national scope. Although comparable in-stitutions like the European Sociological Association and professional journals arealso available at European level, they have not been able to simply substitute thecognitively required cohesion of sociologists at national, regional or at even locallevel of single departments. Individual strategies of actors, who often face seriousinstitutional constraints towards a strong outward- or internationalized orientationfor promoting one’s scientific career, then at least partially result in lack of know-ledge, communication and informed critique among close colleagues at home.

Offering some insights into sociologists’ collective biographies of transforma-tion, we have identified their cohort membership as a significant parameter affect-ing attitudes towards the European Union. We have drawn a distinction betweenthree generations of sociologists, also showing possible effects of cohort member-ship and society’s deep transformations on researchers’ scientific career paths, in-stitutional patterns of university education and staff recruitment, organizationalforms and extent of transnational collaborations, and other related phenomena.Typically, younger ones do identify with and appreciate more an European researchcommunity than older ones, who have experienced international contacts also be-fore the EU accessions. There have also been addressed conflicting issues and am-bivalences between these generations, regarding the divergent cognitive assess-ment of international competencies, particular research paradigms, or interest inresearch promoted by EU funds per se. To this we can add the observation thatpartly these evaluations seem to be bound not so much to cohort membership, butdepend on often age-correlating positions within scientific hierarchies, definite in-stitutional backgrounds and the “opportunity structure” (Merton 1996) inside oroutside university.

At the institutional levels of academic departments and the university system inits national framework, the concrete forms of Europeanization of sociology withingiven nation states partly depends on national research policies and what univer-sities and departments put to practice, as for instance, in the course of a reform.Regarding this, we have investigated how the European-wide Bologna ReformProcess has actually been implemented at universities and departments in the re-

228

gion. This has been manifest in a focus group among representatives of universitiesin Slovenia, Italy, and Austria. We have seen that sociologists are capable of de-veloping particular cognitive attitudes towards that implementation process, im-aginable as a continuum of rather radical or modest critique of its goals and meanstowards a clear appreciation of European related programmes like ERASMUS oreven visions of joint teaching programmes in the region.

Sociologists’ attitudes and strategies towards Europeanization of their disciplinehave been examined as their significant reaction towards social and organizationalchange initiated by EU accessions of national societies. The previous assumptionthat general views of the Europeanization process affect sociologists’ actual strate-gies to future prospects has neither been verified nor falsified, probably because ofthe difficulty to actually document it. Rather, it could be outlined and empiricallyverified that irrespective of their general attitudes towards the European Union, intheir scientific daily life they enfold a rich variety of strategic actions dealing withthe Europeanization of sociology in teaching and research. In this respect, we havedrawn a distinction between strategies referring to institutional conditions (in thedepartmental landscape at large and at national level of professional associations)and to cognitive tasks of sociology like teaching and research, the latter orientedtowards publications and research projects as knowledge products of sociologists.In addition, in the context of the interviews we raised the question of the existenceof an European dimension of sociology, where sociologists replied considering atleast institutional, cognitive, and historical dimensions of their discipline’s Euro-peanization.

Moreover, as a particularly important consequence of Europeanization of soci-ology we have dealt with some examples of sociological trans-national co-opera-tions. Our initial assumption that it shall be possible to identify different criteria,factors and parameters supporting the practice of trans-national co-operation, hasled us to link these to typical situations at micro-, meso-, and macro-level of soci-ological analysis. In this sense, we have suggested a dynamic trajectory model oftrans-national co-operation for achieving a higher level of institutional collabora-tion among sociologists, which also might be of interest for future prospects in thisfield of concern.

In research, we have made use of a variety of theoretical and empirical ap-proaches to comparatively investigate our research question. Roughly spoken, weidentify two distinct research streams to which our previous analyses may con-tribute to then be widened, corrected, or complemented by research undertaken infuture. On the one hand, it would be of interest to widen our findings along differentcontexts to deepen the generated conceptual approach and transfer it to other areasof concern. Here other neighbour countries and border regions within the EuropeanUnion come to our mind, which may act as a contextual framework. Of particular

229

concern are those between so-called rather old and young EU member states orthose who do not necessarily share the same socio-historical, cultural, economic,and political backgrounds. Several theses and results of our research could bechecked against these new contexts relevant for a comparative cross-national inter-est in the development of sociology. In addition, our research might become rele-vant for a detailed analysis of intra-sociological differentiations of specializedfields of research, like sociological science studies or the sociology of educationand work. Moreover, it would be useful to undertake a conceptually motivatedcomparison with other neighbour disciplines within the social sciences like politicalsciences, economics, or cultural studies, in order to examine whether and how theyalso encounter the investigated new conditions of EU frameworks for teaching andresearch and how does this contribute to enhanced professionalism of the respectivediscipline. In addition, although our research has been mainly concerned with inparticular European institutions and processes and their impact on sociology, wein principle might compare these findings with other social processes, even beyondEurope, which affect the content and form of sociology at regional, national andinternational level.

Throughout this book, we have mainly developed a material analysis of insti-tutional conditions shaping the development of sociology. However, a secondstream of future research might more systematically deal with generating and en-riching a formal sociological theory of sociology, or, more generally, a sociologyof knowledge that can be integrated with discourses of the Europeanization of re-search. Recall that we have started our analysis with reviewing milestones of thehistory of the sociology of knowledge and have drawn on resources for the soci-ology of science in its structural-functionalist and constructivist variations. Onlyrecently there has been articulated an interest in a sociology of science in Centraland Eastern European countries and in the analysis of the sciences’ Europeaniza-tion from a sociological perspective. Moreover, applying existing discourses ofEuropeanization of national societies to European science policy as a special caseof European policies could deepen and clarify the conceptual approach of Euro-peanization from a sociological perspective as well.

The question whether a common vision among sociologists in neighbour coun-tries really exists still remains an open one. If we interpret “one vision” as a commonparadigm of sociologists in Slovenia and Austria, then the answer clearly is no.This results from several reasons within the respective discipline and the particularnational societies as well: First, it might depend on the fact that sociology is re-garded as a multi-paradigmatic discipline in itself, and indeed it could be of somesignificance for its enhanced professionalism to develop a variety of theoreticaland empirical perspectives regarding its subject of interest. Moreover, the regionunder investigation itself is diversified due to different intellectual centres of so-

230

ciology, as observed in the sample at department level, its distinctive historicaldevelopments, national traditions of sociology and language communities as well,which still prevail at least to some extent. Sometimes, indeed, these paradigmaticdifferences can be found at a single department of sociology due to various researchinterests and approaches of its staff and also differing generations and nationalitiesof sociologists employed.

Besides, when we try to identify a common European identity of sociologists asneighbours, this approach seems to be not so clear. We have seen that other Euro-pean neighbourhoods are still prevalent in its importance, as Germany for Austrianor post-Yugoslav territories for Slovenian national societies. At the same time, wehave articulated our hope that sociologists as members of the sociological scientificcommunity take their very membership as a good starting point to identify them-selves with the discipline. In which way it is possible to speak of an “Europeandimension” or even “European identity” of sociologists? Do they identify them-selves as European sociologists, in which sense, and what is the imagined “other”(Neumann 1999) of that relationship? The US, as US-American author JeremyRifkin once has suggested (Rifkin 2004), do we, instead of this, think of Russia(Neumann 1999) or Japan, do we imagine “the East” (Wolff 1994), “the Islam” or“Orientalism” (Said 1991) as the other? Or do we even consider a highly balka-nization, in more than one sense (Todorova 1997), of sociology and sociologists’identities? Or is, in reverse, searching for an European identity of sociology rathera future prospect of only few representatives of the discipline, which is not realizedat all, which emerges out of very different interests, and which is in no way adequateto the current situation of sociology in Europe? On the other hand, we would liketo remind ourselves of what Johan Galtung points out: As sociologists we have thepotential to develop several intellectual styles and a kind of multilingual appre-hension due to our ability and openness towards the heritage of theoretical andmethodological approaches from several socio-cultural backgrounds (Galtung1990). This might provide some reason for optimism.

When we interpret, however, “vision” as a growing and deepening intellectualnetwork in sociology, we could at least partially appreciate an emerging commonone in the form of actual trans-national co-operations among sociologists, as thiswas discussed in several good-practice models of teaching and research. Moreover,sociologists documented their sense of an Europeanization of sociology referringto new institutionalized possibilities of co-operation, or even identified cognitivetendencies towards an Europeanization of sociology, as manifest in mutual know-ledge exchange and good-practice models, in the challenges of comparative soci-ology, or in attempts to identify Europe as a historically grown entity.

This study has been inspired by the hope to contribute to a mutual understandingof the process of Europeanization of sociology in the neighbour countries Slovenia

231

and Austria and to support the learning context of trans-national co-operationswhere sociologists have begun to act together and to achieve a common analysisof social life under current European conditions. “There is no way back. Shipper,here, at this coast we find our luck” (Prunc 2007).

232

References

Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay into the Division of ExpertLabour. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Abbott, A. (1999). Department and Discipline: Chicago Sociology at one Hundred. Chica-go, University of Chicago Press.

Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago / London, University of Chicago Press.Adam, F., Makarovič, M. (2001). Society in Transition as Reflected by Social Sciences: The

Case of Slovenia. Social Sciences in South-Eastern Europe. International Social ScienceCouncil, N. Genov, Becker, U., (eds.). Paris, GESIS IZ Sozialwissenschaften: 192-222.

Adam, F., Makarovič, M. (2002). Sociology ‑ Slovenia. Three Social Science Disciplines inCentral and Eastern Europe. M. Kaase, Sparschuh, V., Wenninger, A., (eds.). Budapest,GESIS Social Science Information Centre: 536-547.

Adam, F., Podmenik, D. (2005). "Qualitative Research in a Changing Epistemic Commu-nity: The Case of a Small Social Science Community." Forum Qualitative Sozial-forschung 6(3).

Adam, F., Podmenik, D., Krajina, D. (1999). "Qualitative Methods in Sociological Re-search." Anthropological Notebooks 5(1): 78-88.

Aigner, E. (2002). Der Bologna Prozess. Linz, Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner.Albrow, M. (2004). The Global Shift and Its Consequences for Sociology. Advances in

Sociological Knowledge: Over Half a Century. N. Genov, (ed.). Wiesbaden, VS Verlagfür Sozialwissenschaften: 33-50.

Albrow, M., King, E., Ed. (1990). Globalization, Knowledge and Society. London, Sage.Amaral, A., Neave, G., Musselin, C., Maassen, P., Ed. (2009). European Integration and

the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Dordrecht, Springer.Amt der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung FA 16A (2003). Übersicht und Beschreibung

der 83 INTERREG IIIA-Projekte. Graz.ANOVASOFIE (2006). Analysing and Overcoming the Sociological Fragementation in

Europe: Final Report. Graz.Archer, M. (1991). "Sociology for One World ‑ Unity and Diversity." International Soci-

ology: 131-147.Axt, H.-J., Milososki, A., Schwarz, O. (2007). "Europäisierung ‑ ein weites Feld." Politische

Vierteljahresschrift 48(1): 136-149.Babbie, E. (2005). Basics of Social Research. 3rd edition. Belmont, CA, Thomson

Wadsworth.Bach, M. (1992). "Eine leise Revolution durch Verwaltungsverfahren. Bürokratische Inte-

grationsprozesse in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft." Zeitschrift für Soziologie 21:16-30.

Bach, M. (1999). Die Bürokratisierung Europas. Verwaltungseliten, Experten und politischeLegitimation in Europa. Frankfurt a. M., Campus.

Bach, M., Ed. (2000 a). Die Europäisierung nationaler Gesellschaften. Opladen, West-deutscher Verlag.

233

Bach, M. (2000 b). Die Europäisierung der nationalen Gesellschaft? Problemstellungen undPerspektiven einer Soziologie der europäischen Integration. Die Europäisierung na-tionaler Gesellschaften. M. Bach, (ed.). Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag: 11-38.

Bach, M. (2001). Beiträge der Soziologie zur Analyse der europäischen Integration. EineÜbersicht über theoretische Konzepte. Theorien europäischer Integration. W. Loth,Wessels, W. (eds.). Opladen, Leske + Budrich: 147-173.

Bach, M. (2003). "The Europeanization of Cleavages and the Emergence of a EuropeanSocial Space." Journal of European Social Policy 13(1): 50-54.

Bach, M. (2008). Europa ohne Gesellschaft. Politische Soziologie der Europäischen Inte-gration. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Bach, M., Lahusen, C., Vobruba, G., Ed. (2006). Europe in Motion: Social Dynamics andPolitical Institutions in an Enlarging Europe. Berlin, edition sigma.

Bach, M., Sterbling, A., Ed. (2008). Soziale Ungleichheit in der erweiterten EuropäischenUnion. Hamburg, Krämer.

Bailey, J. (1998). Social Europe. London / New York, Longman.Balla, B. (1991). "Mitteleuropa aus der Sicht des ungarischen Dauerdilemmas 'zwischen Ost

und West'." Ungarn-Jahrbuch. Zeitschrift für die Kunde Ungarns und verwandte Gebi-ete 18: 237-251.

Balog, A., Cyba, E. (2001). "Anspruch und Realität: 25 Jahre ÖZS." ÖsterreichischeZeitschrift für Soziologie 26(2): 6-24.

Balog, A., Mozetič, G., Ed. (2004). Soziologie in und aus Wien. Frankfurt am Main, PeterLang.

Bammè, A. (2004). Science Wars: Von der akademischen zur postakademischen Wis-senschaft. Frankfurt a.M., Campus.

Bammè, A., Getzinger, G., Wieser, B., Ed. (2001). Yearbook 2001 of the Institute for Ad-vanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society. Vienna, Profil Verlag.

Barr, N. (2005). From Transition to Accession. Labour Markets and Social Policy in Centraland Eastern Europe: The Accession and Beyond. N. Barr, (Ed.). Washington D.C., Ox-ford University Press: 1-29.

Bartolini, S. (2005). Restructuring Europe. Centre Formation, System Building, and Polit-ical Structuring between the Nations State and the European Union. Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press.

Bauman, Z. (2004). Europe: An Unfinished Adventure. Oxford, Polity Press.Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures

of Disciplines. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.Beck, U., Ed. (1998). Politik der Globalisierung. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.Beck, U., Grande, E. (2004). Das kosmopolitische Europe. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.Beck, U., Sznaider, N. (2006). "Unpacking Cosmopolitanism for the Social Sciences: A

Research Agenda." The British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 1-23.Becker, H. S. (1998). Tricks of the Trade. How to Think About Your Research While You're

Doing It. Chicago / London, University of Chicago Press.Becker, U., Sparschuh, V. (2003). The Eastward Enlargement of the EU: A Challenge for

the Research Orientation of the Social Sciences? Problems and Chances of the East En-largement of the European Union. I. Srubar, (ed). Hamburg, Krämer: 192-207.

234

Benigni-Cokan, H. (2007). Slowenien und Europa: Aspekte kultureller Identität aus pub-lizistischer, essayistischer und belletristischer Sicht anhand ausgewählter Beispiele.Graz, Diploma thesis Graz University.

Benoit, K., Wiesehomeier, N. (2009). Expert Judgments. Methoden der vergleichendenPolitik- und Sozialwissenschaft. S. Pickel, Pickel, G., Lauth, H.-J., Jahn, D., (eds.), Wies-baden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: 497-513.

Berger, P. L. (1994). "Does Sociology Still Make Sense?" Schweizerische Zeitschrift fürSoziologie 20: 3-12.

Berger, P. L., Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York, Dou-bleday.

Bernhard, S. (2011). "Politische Soziologie und europäische Integration." Soziologie 40(1):20-43.

Bernik, I., Rončević, B. (2001). "Differenzierte Rezeption der differenzierten Theorie: ZurRezeption der Luhmannschen Systemtheorie in den Sozialwissenschaften Sloweniens."Družboslovne razprave 17(37-38): 15-27.

Biagioli, M., Ed. (1999). The Science Studies Reader. New York, Routledge.Biegelbauer, P., Ed. (2010). Steuerung von Wissenschaft? Die Governance des österre-

ichischen Innovationssystems. Innsbruck, Studien Verlag.Biegelbauer, P., Borras, S., Ed. (2003). Innovation Policies in Europe and the US: The New

Agenda. Aldershot, Ashgate.Boden, R., Cox, D., Nedeva, M., Barker, M., Ed. (2004). Scrutinizing Science. The Changing

UK Government of Science. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.Börzel, T. A., Risse, T. (2006). Europeanization: The Domestic Impact of European Union

Politics. Handbook of European Union Politics. K. E. Jorgensen, Pollack, M. A., Rosa-mond, B. (eds.). London, Sage: 483-504.

Boudon, R. (1995). "How Can Sociology 'Make Sense' Again?" Schweizerische Zeitschriftfür Soziologie 21: 233-241.

Bourdieu, P. (1975). "The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions ofthe Progress of Reason." Social Science Information 14.

Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction. Critique sociale du judgement. Paris, Minuit.Bourdieu, P. (1984/1988). Homo Academicus. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of Science and Reflexivity. Cambridge, Polity Press.Brady, H. E., Collier, D., Ed. (2004). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared

Standards. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield.Braun, D., Merrien, F.-X., Ed. (1999). Towards a New Model of Governance for Universi-

ties? A Comparative View. London, Kingsley Publishers.Bucar, M., Stanovnik, P. (1999). Some Implications for the Science and Technology System

in a Transition Economy: The Case of Slovenia. Reconstruction or Destruction? Scienceand Technology at Stake in Transition Economies. X. Brundenius, (ed.). Hyderguda:97-125.

Buchinger, E., Felt, U., Ed. (2006). Technik- und Wissenschaftssoziologie in Österreich.Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie Sonderband 8. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag fürSozialwissenschaften.

Čas, B. (1996). Prispevek k zgodovini sociologije na Slovenskem. Kriza socialnih idej. A.Lesnik, et al., (eds.). Ljubljana, Filozofska fakulteta: 459-474.

235

Charmaz, K. (2001). Qualitative Interviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis. Handbookof Interview Research: Context & Method. J. F. Gubrium, Holstein, J. A., (eds.). London,Sage: 675-694.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualita-tive Analysis. London et al., Sage.

Chorvat, I. (2004). Sociology Between Order and Chaos. After Communism: Critical Per-spectives on Society and Sociology. C. Harrington, Salem, A., Zurabishvili, T., (eds.).Oxford et al., Peter Lang: 155-165.

Cicourel, A. V. (1964). Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York, Macmillan.Cohen, R., Kennedy, X. (2001). Global Sociology. Basingstoke, Palgrave.Cole, S. (1992). Making Science: Between Nature and Society. London, Harvard University

Press.Cole, S., Ed. (2001). What's Wrong with Sociology? New Brunswick / London, Transaction

Publishers.Collins, H. M. (1974). "The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks." Science

Studies, 4(2): 165-186.Corbin, J., Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures

of Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd edition. London et al., Sage.Council, E. (1993). "Copenhagen Criteria for Accession." http://europa.eu/scadplus/glos-

sary/accession_criteria_copenhague_en.htm (Feb 25, 2012).Crane, D. (1972). Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities.

London, The University of Chicago Press.Creswell, J., Piano Clark, V. (2006). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.

London, Sage.Cronin, B., Atkins, H.B., Ed. (2000). The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of

Eugene Garfield. Medford, Information Today Publishers.Crothers, C. (2000). Austrian Sociology. A Case Study in the Sociology of the Production

of Social Knowledge. Soziologische und historische Analysen der Sozialwis-senschaften. C. Fleck, (ed.). Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: 267-286.

Crouch, C. (1999). Social Change in Western Europe. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Dahrendorf, R. (1990). Reflections on the Revolutions in Europe. New York, Chatto &

Windus.Darraz, E. F., Lenhardt, G., Reisz, R. D., Stock, M. (2010). Hochschulprivatisierung und

akademische Freiheit. Bielefeld, Transcript.Delanty, G. (2006). "The Cosmopolitan Imagination: Critical Cosmopolitanism and Social

Theory." The British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 25-47.Delanty, G., Rumford, C. (2005). Rethinking Europe: Social Theory and the Implications

of Europeanization. London / New York, Routledge.Delhey, J. (2005). "Das Abenteuer der Europäisierung." Soziologie 34(1): 7-27.Della Porta, D. (2008). Comparative Analysis: Case-oriented versus Variable-oriented Re-

search. Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective.D. Della Porta, Keating, M. (eds.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 198-222.

Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Ed. (2003). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. 2nd edition,London, Sage.

236

Dierkes, M., Biervert, B., Ed. (1992). European Social Science in Transition: Assessmentand Outlook. Frankfurt a. M., Campus.

Dill, D. D., Sporn, B., Ed. (1995). Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and UniversityReform: Through a Glass Darkly. Oxford, Pergamon.

Eigmüller, M., Mau, S., Ed. (2010). Gesellschaftstheorie und Europapolitik. Wiesbaden,VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Eigmüller, M., Vobruba, G., Ed. (2006). Grenzsoziologie. Die politische Strukturierung desRaumes. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Elias, N. (2007). Über den Prozess der Zivilisation. 2 Bde. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.Erno-Knjolhede, E. (2001). Managing Collaborative Research. Unveiling the Micrody-

namics of the European Triple Helix. Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School Press.Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the Rise of Entrepeneurial Science. New York, Routledge.Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., Ed. (1997). Universities and the Global Knowledge Econ-

omy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London, Pinter.Europapolitik, Österreichische Gesellschaft für (2002). Gelebte Nachbarschaft in der Gren-

zregion Österreich ‑ Slowenien. Vienna.Fabris, H., et al. (1973). "Zum Politologenbedarf in Österreich." Österreichische Zeitschrift

für Politikwissenschaft 2(4): 419-452.Falkner, G. (2001). "The Europeanisation of Austria: Misfit, Adaptation and Controversies."

European Integration online Papers 5(13).Favell, A. (2006). The Sociology of EU Politics. Handbook of European Union Politics. K.

E. Jorgensen, Pollack, M. A., Rosamond, B. (eds.). London, Sage: 122-138.Featherstone, K., Radaelli, C. M., Ed. (2003). The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford,

Oxford University Press.Felderer, B., Campbell, D.F.J. (1994). Forschungsfinanzierung in Europa: Trends, Modelle,

Empfehlungen für Österreich. Vienna, Manz.Felt, U., Ed. (2009). Knowing and Living in Academic Research. Convergence and Hetero-

geneity in Research Cultures in the European Context. Prague, Institute of Sociology ofthe Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

Felt, U., Nowotny, H., Taschwer, K. (1995). Wissenschaftsforschung. Eine Einführung.Frankfurt and New York, Campus.

Ferligoi, A., A. Mrvar, Ed. (2000). New Approaches in Applied Statistics. Ljubljana, FDV.Fiala, V. (1974). "Einige Überlegungen zur Berufssituation der Soziologie in Österreich."

Österreichisches Jahrbuch für Soziologie: 42ff.Fink-Hafner, D. (2000). The Case of Slovenia. Transformation Processes in the Yugoslav

Successor States between Marginalization and European Integration. H. Riegler, (ed.).Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft: 11-43.

Fischer-Kowalski, M., Strasser, H. (1973). Selbstbestimmung und Fremdbestimmung derösterreichischen Universitäten. Vienna, Dept. of Sociology of the Institute for AdvancedStudies and Scienctific Research.

Fischer-Kowalski, M., Strasser, H. (1974). Eine soziologische Analyse der Veränderungenim Hochschulsektor seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Vienna.

Fischer-Kowalski, M., Strasser, H. (1975). Zur Struktur und Rezeption des Universitäts-Organisationsgesetzes. Vienna.

237

Fleck, C. (1987). Rückkehr unerwünscht: Zur universitären und politischen Ablehnungs-front gegen Emigranten. Vertriebene Vernunft I. Emigration und Exil österreichischerWissenschaft. F. Stadler, (ed.). Vienna, Jugend & Volk: 182-213.

Fleck, C. (1988). Vertrieben und vergessen. Ein Überblick über die aus Österreich emigri-erten Soziologen. Geschichte der österreichischen Soziologie. Konstitutierung, Entwick-lung und europäische Bezüge. J. Langer, (ed.). Vienna, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik:257-280.

Fleck, C. (1990). Rund um "Marienthal". Von den Anfängen der Soziologie in Österreichbis zu ihrer Vertreibung. Vienna, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik.

Fleck, C. (1994). Contemporary Sociology in Austria. International Handbook of Contem-porary Developments in Sociology. R. P. Mohan, A. S. Wilke, eds., Westport, GreenwoodPress: 7-19.

Fleck, C., Ed. (1996). Wege zur Soziologie nach 1945. Biographische Notizen. Leverkusen,Leske + Budrich.

Fleck, C., Ed. (2000 a). Soziologische und historische Analyse der Sozialwissenschaften.Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie Sonderband 5. Opladen, Westdeutscher Ver-lag.

Fleck, C. (2000 b). Jahoda ‑ Lazarsfeld ‑ Zeisel: Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal.Hauptwerke der Soziologie. D. Kaesler, (ed.). Stuttgart, Alfred Kröner 221-226.

Fleck, C. (2007). "Zur Lage der Soziologie in Österreich." ÖGS Newsletter 33(1): 2-11.Fleck, C. (2008 a). "The Wrong Role Model." Newsletter of the RCHS Research Committee

on the History of Sociology, International Sociological Association, January: 1-5.Fleck, C. (2008 b). "Einzug des Neostalinismus in der Alma Mater?" Der Standard April

11th 2008.Fleck, C. (2011). A Transatlantic History of the Social Sciences: Robber Barons, the Third

Reich, and the Invention of Empirical Social Research. London, Bloomsbury Academic.Fleck, C., Nowotny, H. (1993). A Marginal Discipline in the Making: Austrian Sociology

in a European Context. Sociology in Europe. In Search of Identity. B. Nedelmann, Sz-tompka, P., (eds.). Berlin/ New York, de Gruyter: 99-118.

Fleck, C., Zilian, H.G. (1990). Die verborgenen Kosten der Arbeitslosigkeit. Frankfurt amMain, Athäneum.

Flere, S. (1994). The Development of Sociology as a Contested Science in Post-World WarII Yugoslavia. Eastern Europe in Transformations. The Impact on Sociology. M. Keen,Mucha, J., (eds.). Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press: 11-23.

Flere, S. (2001). Ideology and Sociology: The Study of Stratification in Yugoslav Sociology1960 ‑ 1990. Mirrors and Widows: Essays in the History of Sociology. J. Mucha, Kaesler,D., Winclawski, W., (eds.). Torun, Nicholas Copernicus University Publishers: 53-64.

Flick, U., Kardoff, E., Steinke, I. , Ed. (2000). Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Ham-burg, Rowohlt.

Fligstein, N. (2008). Euro-Clash: The EU, European Identity and the Future of Europe.Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Fochler, M., Müller, A. (2006). Vom Defizit zum Dialog? Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaftund Öffentlichkeit in der europäischen und österreichischen Forschungspolitik. Vienna.

Framheim, G. (1984). Das FORM-Projekt: Ein Forschungsverbund zum Thema Studentenund Studium im internationalen Vergleich. Student und Studium im interkulturellen Ver-

238

gleich: Student Worlds in Europe. G. Framheim, Langer, J., (eds.). Klagenfurt, KärntnerDruck- und Verlagsgesellschaft: 10-30.

Framheim, G., Langer, J., Ed. (1984). Student und Studium im interkulturellen Vergleich:Student Worlds in Europe. Klagenfurt / Celovec.

Fuller, S. (2006). The Philosophy of Science and Technology Studies. New York, Routledge.Galtung, J. (1981). "Structure, Culture and Intellectual Style: An Essay Comparing Saxonic,

Teutonic, Gallic and Nipponic Approaches." Social Science Information 20(6): 817-856.Galtung, J. (1990). Theory Formation in Social Research: A Plea for Pluralism. Comparative

Methodology: Theory and Practice in International Social Research. E. Oyen, (ed.).London, Sage: 96-112.

Gareau, F. H. (1985). "The Multinational Version of Social Science with Emphasis uponthe Discipline of Sociology." Current Sociology 33(3): 1-169.

Gareau, F. H. (1988). "Another Type of Third World Dependency: The Social Sciences."International Sociology 3(2): 171-178.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Gauthier, A. H. (2002). "The Promises of Comparative Research." Schmollers Jahrbuch

122: 5-30.Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. The Inter-

pretation of Cutures. Selected Essays. C. Geertz. New York, Basic Books: 3-30.Genov, N., Ed. (1989 a). National Traditions in Sociology. London, Sage.Genov, N. (1989 b). National Sociologial Traditions and the Internationalization of Sociol-

ogy. National Traditions in Sociology. N. Genov, (ed.). London, Sage: 1-17.Genov, N. (1991). "Internationalization of Sociology." Special Issue of Current Sociology

39(1): 1-19.Genov, N., Ed. (2004 a). Advances in Sociological Knowledge. Over Half a Century. Wies-

baden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Genov, N. (2004 b). Breakthroughs, Fashions and Continuity in Developing Sociological

Knowledge. Advances in Sociological Knowledge: Over Half a Century. N. Genov, (ed.).Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: 11-32.

Genov, N., Becker, U., Ed. (2001). Social Sciences in Southeastern Europe. Paris / Bonn,GESIS IZ Sozialwissenschaften.

George, A., Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sci-ences. Cambridge, MIT Press.

Gerhards, J. (2005). Kulturelle Unterschiede in der Europäischen Union. Ein Vergleichzwischen Mitgliedsländern, Beitrittskandidaten und der Türkei. Wiesbaden, Verlag fürSozialwissenschaften.

Gestrin, F., Melik, V. (1966). Slovenska zgodovina od kinca osemnajstegha stoletja do1918. Ljubljana, Drzava zalozba Slovenije.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (1994). TheNew Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research. London, Sage.

Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. London, Stanford University Press.Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.

Cambridge, University of California Press.Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago,

Chicago University Press.

239

Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for QualitativeResearch. New York, Aldine de Gruyter.

Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1970). Anguish: The Case History of a Dying Trajectory. San Fran-cisco, Sociology Publishers.

Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1998). Grounded Theory: Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Bern,Verlag Hans Huber.

Gläser, J. (2006). Wissenschaftliche Produktionsgemeinschaften. Die soziale Ordnung derForschung. Frankfurt a. M., Campus.

Goertz, G. (2006). Social Science Concepts. A User's Guide. Princeton, Princeton UniversityPress.

Goetz, K. H. (2006). Territory, Temporality, and Clustered Europeanization. IHS. Vien-na.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York, Doubleday.Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997). "Current Issues in Comparative Methodology: A Debate on

Methodological Issues." Comparative Social Research 16: 1-26.Goody, J. (1997). "The East in the West." Archives Europeennes de Sociologie 38(2):

171-184.Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York, Basic Books.Grande, E. (1996). Das Paradox der Schwäche. Forschungspolitik und die Einflußlogik eu-

ropäischer Politikverflechtung. Europäische Integration. M. Jachtenfuchs, Kohler-Koch,B. (eds.). Opladen, Leske + Budrich: 373-400.

Grande, E. (2001 a). Von der Technologie- zur Innovationspolitik. Europäische Forschungs-und Technologiepolitik im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. Politik und Technik. G. Simonis,Martinsen, R., Saretzki, T. (eds.). Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag: 368-387.

Grande, E. (2001 b). "The Erosion of State Capacity and the European Innovation PolicyDilemma. A Comparison of German and EU Information Technology Policies." Re-search Policy 30: 905-921.

Graz, Institut für Soziologie an der Karl-Franzens-Universität (1990). Das Institut für Sozi-ologie an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Geschichte, Mitarbeiter, Lehr- undForschungsschwerpunkte. Graz.

Gwiazda, A. (2002). "Europeanisation in Candidate Countries from Central and EasternEurope." European Political-Economy Infrastructure Consortium EPIC.

Habermas, J. (1990). What Does Socialism Mean Today? The Revolutions of Recuperationand the Need for New Thinking. After the Fall. R. Blackburn, (ed.). New York: 25-46.

Habermas, J. (1998 a). Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State.Habermas, J. (ed.), The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge,MA, MIT Press: 203-226.

Habermas, J. (1998 b). Die postnationale Konstellation. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.Habermas, J. (2008). Ach, Europa. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.Habermas, J. (2011). Zur Verfassung Europas. Ein Essay. Berlin, Suhrkamp.Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamsjam O., Lynch, M., Wajcman, J., Ed. (2008). The Handbook of

Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MIT Press.Haller, M. (1990). "The Challenge for Comparative Sociology in the Transformation of

Europe." International Sociology 5(2): 183-204.

240

Haller, M., Ed. (2000 a). The Making of the European Union: Contributions of the SocialSciences. Berlin / Heidelberg/ New York, Springer.

Haller, M. (2000 b). The Model of Science and Research Policy of the European Union inPerspective. The Making of the European Union. M. Haller, (ed.), Berlin, Springer:363-392.

Haller, M. (2008). European Integration As An Elite Process: The Failure of A Dream?London / New York, Routledge.

Haller, M., Jowell, R., Smith, T. W., Ed. (2009). The International Social Survey Programme1984 ‑ 2009: Charting the Globe. London, Sage.

Haller, M., Knorr, K., Zilian, H.G. (1981). Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung in Österreich:Produktionsbedingungen und Verwertungszusammenhänge. Vienna, Jugend & Volk.

Haraway, D. (1988). "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and thePrivilege of Partial Perspective." Feminist Studies 14: 575-599.

Harding, A., Scott, A., Laske, S., Burtscher, C. , Ed. (2007). Bright Satanic Mills: Univer-sities, regional development, and the knowledge economy. Aldershot, Ashgate.

Heidenreich, M. (2003). "Territoriale Ungleichheiten in der erweiterten EU." KölnerZeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 55(1): 1-28.

Heidenreich, M., Ed. (2006). Die Europäisierung sozialer Ungleichheit. Zur transna-tionalen Klassen- und Sozialstrukturanalyse. Frankfurt a. M., Campus.

Heintz, B. (1993). "Wissenschaft im Kontext. Neuere Entwicklungen der Wis-senschaftssoziologie." Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 45(3):528-552.

Herlitschka, S., Ed. (2010). 'Hinaus aus dem Schrebergarten'. Die Europäisierung derösterreichischen Forschung. Innsbruck, StudienVerlag.

Heschl, F. (2002). Drinnen oder draussen? Die öffentliche österreichische EU-Beitrittsde-batte vor der Volksabstimmung 1994. Wien, Böhlau.

Hessels, L. K., van Lente, H. (2008). "Re-thinking New Knowledge Production: A LiteratureReview and A Research Agenda." Research Policy 37: 740-760.

Hettlage, R., Müller, H. P., Ed. (2006). Die europäische Gesellschaft. Konstanz, UVK Uni-versitätsverlag Konstanz.

Heyt, F. D., Vaskovics, L.A. (1967). "Soziologie und Sozialforschung in Österreich." KölnerZeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie: 94-113.

Hjerppe, R. (1980). An Outline of Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis. Stockholm, Stock-holm Papers in Library and Information Science.

Hochgerner, J., Höglinger, A., Ed. (2000). Forschen in Europa. Soziale Dimensionen eu-ropäischer Forschung. Vienna, Zentrum für Soziale Innovation.

Holl, A., Saipt, O. , Ed. (1974). Österreichisches Jahrbuch für Soziologie 1974. Graz.Holzinger, K., Knill, C., Peters, D., Rittberger, B., Schimmelfelling, F., Wagner, W. (2005).

Die Europäische Union: Theorien und Analysekonzepte. Paderborn, UTB.Hönig, B. (2008). "Social Problems as Reflected by Social Science in Slovenia and Austria."

Social Work & Society Online Magazine July 2008.Hönig, B. (2009 a). Two Neighbours, One Vision? The Impact of the European Union's

Accession on the Development of Sociology in the Common Border Region Slovenia ‑Southern Austria. PhD Thesis. Graz, Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, GrazUniversity, Austria.

241

Hönig, B. (2009 b). Impact of EU Accessions on the Development of Sociology in the Com-mon Border Region Slovenia ‑ Southern Austria. Knowledge Region: Alps-AdriaticChallenges. J. Langer, Pavičič, J., Alfirevič, N. (eds.). Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang:127-142.

Hönig, B. (2010). "European Union's Research Policies and the Social Sciences: LessonsLearnt and Future Prospect for the Western Balkans." European Perspectives ‑ Journalon European Perspectives of the Western Balkans 2(1): 37-58.

Hönig, B. (2012 a). Methoden länderübergreifend komparativer Wissenschaftsforschung.Empirische Forschung in der Sozialen Arbeit. Methoden und methodologische Heraus-forderungen A. Heimgartner, Loch, U., Sting, S. (eds.), Böhlau, LIT: 289-301.

Hönig, B. (2012 b). Experiences and Perspectives of European Higher Education. EU LocalImprints: The Case of South Central Europe. J. Langer, Vlašić, G., Krce Miočić, B. (eds.).Frankfurt a. M., Peter Lang: 83-94.

Horvath, T., Müllner, E. (1992). Zaun-Gespräche. Ein grenzüberschreitender Dialog. Hartan der Grenze. Burgenland und Westungarn. T. Horvath, Müllner, E., (eds.). Vienna,Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik: 153-162.

Hradil, S., Immerfall, S., Ed. (1997). Die westeuropäischen Gesellschaften im Vergleich.Opladen, Leske+Budrich.

Huber, J., Inglehart, R. (1995). "Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locationsin 42 Societies." Party Politics 1(1): 73-111.

Immerfall, S. (2000). Fragestellungen einer Soziologie der europäischen Integration. DieEuropäisierung nationaler Gesellschaften. M. Bach, (ed.), Wiesbaden. WestdeutscherVerlag: 481-503.

Jacquot, S., Woll, C. (2003). "Usage of European Integration ‑ Europeanisation for a Soci-ological Perspective." European Integration online Papers 7(12).

Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P., Zeisel, H. (1933/1975). Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal. Frank-furt am Main, Suhrkamp.

Jansen, D., Ed. (2007). New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. DisciplinaryApproaches, Interfaces and Integration. Dordrecht, Springer.

Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C., Pinch, T., Ed. (1994). Handbook of Science andTechnology Studies. Thousand Oaks/ London/New Delhi, Sage.

Jazbec, M. (2008). Slovenia: The Long March From Belgrade to Brussels. Forces Shapingthe EU. J. Langer, (ed.). Frankfurt a. M., Peter Lang: 241-257.

Jogan, M. (1982). "Entwicklung und aktuelle Situation der Soziologie in Slowenien." Öster-reichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 7(3-4): 94-102.

Jogan, M. (1988). Katholische Soziologie in Slowenien als Produzentin sozialer Harmoniein Österreich (bis 1918). Geschichte der österreichischen Soziologie. Konstitutierung,Entwicklung und europäische Bezüge. J. Langer, (ed.). Vienna, Verlag für Gesellschaft-skritik: 117-132.

Jogan, M. (1994). Modern Slovenian Sociology. Eastern Europe in Transformation. TheImpact on Sociology. M. Keen, Mucha, J., (eds.). Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press:125-130.

Jogan, M. (1995). Na Slovenskem: Od konca 19. do konca 20. stoletja. Zbornik ob 30 letnicislovenskegha sociologskega drustva. A. Kramberger, Kolaric, Z., (eds.). Ljubljana,Slovensko sociologsko drustvo: 51-58.

242

Jogan, M. (2006). My Life As A (Female) Sociologist. Autobiographies of Transformation:Lives in Central and Eastern Europe. M. F. Keen, Mucha, J., (eds.). London / New York,Sage: 21-46.

Johnston, W. M. (1972). The Austrian Mind 1848-1938. Berkeley, University of CaliforniaPress.

Kaase, M., Sparschuh, V., Wenninger, A., Ed. (2002). Three Social Science Disciplines inCentral and Eastern Europe: Handbook on Economics, Political Science and Sociology(1989-2001). Budapest, GESIS Social Science Information Center.

Keen, M., Mucha, J., Ed. (1994). Eastern Europe in Transformation: The Impact on Soci-ology. Westport, Conn.

Keen, M., Mucha, J. (2001). History in the Making: Sociology and the Transformation ofEastern and Central Europe,. Mirrors and Windows: Essays in the History of Sociology.J. Mucha, Kaesler, D., Winclawski, W., (eds.). Torun, Nicholas Copernicus UniversityPress: 40-52.

Keen, M. F., Mucha, J., Ed. (2003). Sociology in Central and Eastern Europe: Transfor-mation at the Dawn of a New Millenium. Westport, Kluwer.

Keen, M. F., Mucha, J.L. (2006). Autobiographies of Transformation: Lives in Central andEastern Europe. London / New York, Routledge.

Kellermann, P. (2006). "Von Sorbonne nach Bologna und darüber hinaus. Zur Ideologiederzeitiger europäischer Hochschulpolitik." Soziologie 35(1): 56-69.

Kellermann, P., Boni, M., Meyer-Renschhausen, E. (2009). Zur Kritik europäischerHochschulpolitik. Forschung und Lehre unter Kuratel betriebswirtschaftlicherDenkmuster. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Kerševan, M. (1995). Slovenska sociologija med socialnim okoljem in znanstveno skup-nostjo. Zbornik ob 30 letnici slovenskega socioloskega drustva. A. Kramberger, Kolaric,Z., (eds.). Ljubljana, Slovensko sociolosko drustvo: 41-50.

Kettler, D. (1989). Politisches Wissen. Studien zu Karl Mannheim. Frankfurt am Main,Suhrkamp.

Kettler, D., Meja, V., Stehr, N. (1984). Karl Mannheim. London, Tavistoc.Keutel, A. (2011). "Die Soziologie der europäischen Integration." Berliner Journal für Sozi-

ologie 21(1): 147-165.King, G., Keohane, R., Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in

Qualitative Research. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Knill, C. (2005). Die EU und die Mitgliedstaaten. Die Europäische Union: Theorien und

Analysekonzepte. K. Holzinger, Knill, C., Peters, D., Rittberger, B., Schimmelfenning,F., Wagner, W., (eds.). Paderborn, UTB: 153-180.

Knoll, R. (1985). Soziologie aus Österreich 1880-1938. Vienna.Knoll, R., Majce, G., Weiss, H., Wieser, G. (1981). Der österreichische Beitrag zur Sozi-

ologie von der Jahrhundertwende bis 1938. Soziologie in Deutschland und Österreich1918-1945. M. R. Lepsius, (ed.). Opladen. KZfSS Sonderheft 23: 59-101.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivistand Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, Pergamon Press.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1997). "Sociality with Objects: Social Relations in Postsocial KnowledgeSocieties." Theory, Culture & Society 14(4): 1-30.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Science Makes Knowledge. Cam-bridge & London, Harvard University Press.

243

Kofler, G., Le Rider, J., Strutz, J., Ed. (2002). Kulturelle Nachbarschaft. Zur Konjunktureines Begriffs. Klagenfurt / Celovec, Wieser

Kohn, M. L., Ed. (1989 a). Cross-National Research in Sociology. London, Sage.Kohn, M. L. (1989 b). Introduction. Cross-National Research in Sociology. M. L. Kohn,

(ed.). London / New York, Sage: 17-33.Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, University of Chicago

Press.Kuhn, T. S. (1993). Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen. 12th ed. Frankfurt am

Main, Suhrkamp.Kuzmics, H. (1983). Die Entwicklung der Selbstzwangapparatur als Prozess der Entfrem-

dung. Gesellschaftliche Prozesse. Beiträge zur historischen Soziologie und Gesellschaft-sanalyse. K. Acham, (ed.). Graz, Akademische Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft: 161-172.

Kuzmics, H., Axtmann, R. (2007). Authority, State and National Character: The CivilizingProcess in Austria and England 1700 ‑ 1900. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Kuzmics, H., Mozetič, G. (2003). Literatur als Soziologie. Zum Verhältnis von literarischerund gesellschaftlicher Wirklichkeit. Konstanz, UVK Universitätsverlag Konstanz.

Lamnek, S., Ed. (1993). Soziologie als Beruf in Europa: Ausbildung und Professional-isierung von Soziologinen und Soziologen im europäischen Vergleich. Berlin, Editionsigma.

Lamnek, S. (1995). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim, Beltz.Lamont, M., Thévenot, L., Ed. (2000). Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Reper-

toires of Evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress.

Langer, J. (1984). Gesellschaftstheoretische Probleme empirischer Hochschulforschung.Student und Studium im interkulturellen Vergleich: Student Worlds in Europe. G.Framheim, Langer, J., (eds.). Klagenfurt, Kärntner Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft:31-46.

Langer, J., Ed. (1988 a). Geschichte der österreichischen Soziologie: Konstituierung, En-twicklung und europäische Bezüge. Vienna, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik.

Langer, J. (1988 b). Allgemeine gesellschaftliche Hintergründe für die Entwicklung derSoziologie in Österreich. Geschichte der österreichischen Soziologie. Konstituierung,Entwicklung und europäische Bezüge. J. Langer, (ed.). Wien, Verlag für Gesellschaft-skritik 11-34.

Langer, J. (1992). Emerging Sociology: An International Perspective. Aldershot, Avebury.Langer, J. (1996). On the Western Side of the Former Iron Curtain: The Austrian Border

Region. Border, Region and Ethnicity in Central Europe. J. Langer, Eger, G., (eds.).Vienna, Norea: 121-144.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers ThroughSociety. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Latour, B., Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of ScientificFacts. London, Princeton University Press.

Lee, A. M. (1986). Sociology For Whom? Syracuse, Syracuse University Press.Legewie, H., Schervier-Legewie, B. (2004). "Anselm Strauss: Research is Hard Work, it's

Always a bit Suffering. Therefore, on the Other Side Research Should be Fun. Interviewwith Anselm Strauss." Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Vol.3(No.3).

Lemert, C. (2004). Sociology After the Crisis. London, Paradigm Publishers.

244

Lepenies, W., Ed. (1981). Geschichte der Soziologie: Studien zur kognitiven, sozialen undhistorischen Identität einer Disziplin. 4 Bde. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.

Lepenies, W. (1985). Die drei Kulturen. Soziologie zwischen Literatur und Wissenschaft.Reinbek Hanser.

Lepsius, M. R. (1981 a). Die sozialwissenschaftliche Emigration und ihre Folgen. Soziologiein Deutschland und Österreich 1918-1945. M. R. Lepsius, (ed.). Opladen, WestdeutscherVerlag: 461-500.

Lepsius, M. R., Ed. (1981 b). Soziologie in Deutschland und Österreich 1918 ‑ 1945. Ma-terialien zur Entwicklung, Emigration und Wirkungsgeschichte. Kölner Zeitschrift fürSoziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderheft 23. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag.

Lepsius, M. R. (1990). Interessen, Ideen und Institutionen. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag.Lepsius, M. R. (1991). Die Europäische Gemeinschaft. Rationalitätskriterien der Regime-

bildung. Die Modernisierung moderner Gesellschaften. Verhandlungen des 25.Deutschen Soziologentages in Frankfurt am Main 1990. W. Zapf, (ed.). Frankfurt a. M.,Campus: 309-317.

Levy, D., Pensky, M., Torpey, J., Ed. (2005). Old Europe ‑ New Europe ‑ Core Europe:Transatlantic Relations after the Iraq War. London / New York, Verso.

Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Challenge of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement,and Self-Organization of Scientific Communications. Leiden, DSWO Press.

Lindstrom, N., Piroska, D. (2002). "Slowenischer Weg? Die Politik der 'Europäisierung' inEuropas südöstlicher Peripherie." Prokla. Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft32(128): 421-439.

Loubser, J. J. (1988). "The Need for the Indigenisation of the Social Sciences." InternationalSociology 3(2): 179-187.

Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., Sivertsen, G. (1992). "Understanding Patterns of InternationalScientific Collaboration." Science, Technology, & Human Values 17(1): 101-126.

Lynd, R. S. (1986). Knowledge for What? The Place of Social Science in American Cul-ture. Middletown, Wesleyan University Press.

Maassen, P., Olsen, J. P., Ed. (2007). University Dynamics and Eureopan Integration. Dor-drecht, Springer.

Mahoney, J., Rueschemeyer, D., Ed. (2003). Comparative Historical Analysis in the SocialSciences. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Majone, G. (2005). Dilemmas of European Integration: The Ambiguities & Pitfalls of Inte-gration by Stealth. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Mali, F. (1994). Znanost kot sistemski del druzbe. Ljubljana, Znanstveno in publicisticnosredisce.

Mali, F. (1999). Slovenia: Social Sciences and the Challenge of Transition. Compendium ofnational reports. Council of Europe. Strasbourg.

Mali, F. (2000). "Obstacles in Developing University, Government and Industry Links: TheCase of Slovenia." Social Studies of Science (Science Studies) 13(1): 31-49.

Mali, F. (2003 a). Socio-Economic Transition and New Challenges for the Science andTechnology Policy in Slovenia. Innovation Policies in Europe and the US: The newagenda. P. S. Biegelbauer, Borras, S., (eds.). Aldershot, Ashgate: 211-231.

Mali, F. (2003 b). Sociology in Slovenia: The Challenge of Transition. Sociology in Centraland Eastern Europe. M. F. Keen, Mucha, J., (eds.). Westport, Greenwood Press: 165-174.

245

Manners, I. (2006). Another Europe is Possible: Critical Perspectives on European UnionPolitics. Handbook of European Union Politics. K. E. Jorgensen, Pollack, M. A., Rosa-mond, B. (eds.). London, Sage. 77-96.

Mannheim, K. (1928/1982). Die Bedeutung der Konkurrenz im Gebiete des Geistigen. DerStreit um die Wissenssoziologie 2 Bde. V. Meja, Stehr, N., (eds.). Frankfurt am Main,Suhrkamp: 325-370.

Mannheim, K. (1929/1985). Ideologie und Utopie. Frankfurt a M., Klostermann.Marx, K. (1988). Feuerbach. Gegensatz von materialistischer und idealistischer Anschau-

ung 1. Kapitel des I. Bd. der "Deutschen Ideologie". 8th ed. Berlin, Dietz Verlag.Mau, S., Verwiebe, R. (2009). Die Sozialstruktur Europas. Bonn, Bundeszentrale für poli-

tische Bildung.Mayntz, R. (1994). "Krise der Soziologie? Kommentar zu Peter L. Bergers Essay 'Does

Sociology Still Make Sense?' " Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 20: 551-555.Mayntz, R., Neidhardt, F., Weingart, P., Wengenroth, U., Ed. (2008). Wissensproduktion

und Wissenstransfer. Wissen im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik undÖffentlichkeit. Bielefeld, Transcript.

Meja, V., Stehr, N., Ed. (1982). Der Streit um die Wissenssoziologie. 2 Bde. Frankfurt amMain, Suhrkamp.

Meleghy, T., Niedenzu, H.-J., Preglau, M., Traxler, F., Schmeikal, B., Ed. (1997). Soziologieim Konzert der Wissenschaften: Zur Identität einer Diziplin. Report from the 14th Aus-trian Conference for Sociology 1995 in Innsbruck. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag.

Merritt, R. L., Rokkan, S., Ed. (1966). Comparing Nations: The Use of Quantitative Datain Cross-National Research. London, Yale University Press.

Merton, R. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, The Free Press.Merton, R. K. (1942/1973). The Normative Structure of Science. The Sociology of Sciences:

Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. R. Merton. Chicago, University of ChicagoPress.

Merton, R. K., Ed. (1977). The Sociology of Science in Europe. Carbondale, Southern Ill.University Press.

Merton, R. K. (1988). Some Thoughts on the Concept of Sociological Autobiography.Sociological Lives. M. W. Riley, (ed.). London et al., Sage: 17-22.

Merton, R. K. (1996). On Social Structure and Science. Edited and with an introduction byPiotr Szptomka. Chicago / London, University of Chicago Press.

Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., Kendall, P.L. (1956). The Focused Interview: A Manual of Prob-lems and Procedures. New York, The Free Press.

Michaud, G. (1972). Introduction. Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Researchin Universities. G. Michaud, (ed.). Paris: 23-26.

Mill, J. S. (1843). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Collected Works, Vol. VIIand VIII. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York / London, Oxford UniversityPress.

Mitrovic, M. (1989). "Jugoslovenska Sociologija i Drustvo." Sociologija 31(2): 337-358.Mlinar, Z. (1995). Territorial Dehierarchization in the Emerging New Europe. Kleine Staat-

en in großer Gesellschaft. J. Langer, Pöllauer, W., (eds.). Eisenstadt, Verlag für Sozi-ologie und Humanethologie: 161-180.

Mozetič, G., Ed. (1983). Austromarxistische Positionen. Vienna/ Cologne/ Graz, Böhlau.

246

Mozetič, G. (1985). "Ein unzeitgemäßer Soziologe: Ludwig Gumplowicz." KölnerZeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 37: 621-647.

Mozetič, G. (1987). Die Gesellschaftstheorie des Austromarxismus. Darmstadt, Wis-senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Mozetič, G. (1988). Der austromarxistische Beitrag zur Konstituierung der Soziologie inÖsterreich. Geschichte der österreichischen Soziologie. Konstituierung, Entwicklungund europäische Bezüge. J. Langer, (ed.). Vienna, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik:217-238.

Mozetič, G. (1992). Outsiders and True Believers. Austrian Sociologists Respond to Fas-cism. Sociology Respond to Fascism. S. Turner, Kaesler, D., (eds.). London / New York,Routledge: 14-41.

Mozetič, G. (1994). Mythos Mitteleuropa. Einige Überlegungen zur Entstehung von Iden-titäten. Identität und Nachbarschaft: Die Vielfalt der Alpen-Adria-Länder. M.Prisching, (ed.). Vienna/Cologne/Graz, Böhlau: 171-192.

Mozetič, G. (2001). Viele Kleider, arge Blößen? Ein Essay über das erfolgreich-schwächliche Projekt der Soziologie. Soziologie und Anti-Soziologie. P.-U. Merz, Wag-ner, G., (eds.). Konstanz, UVK Universitätsverlag Konstanz: 207-240.

Mozetič, G. (2002). Some Remarks on the Beginning and Development of Sociology inAustria. Studies in Modern Sociology. E. Laiferova, (ed.). Bratislava: 92-105.

Mozetič, G. (2004). "Soziologie aus Wien": Einleitende Überlegungen zur Soziolo-giegeschichtsschreibung heute. Soziologie in und aus Wien. A. Balog, Mozetič, G., (eds.).Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang 11-16.

Mulkay, M. (1991). Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage. New York, OpenUniversity Press.

Mulkay, M. (1992). Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. Aldershot, Gregg Revivals.Mullins, N. (1981). Ein Modell der Entwicklung soziologischer Theorien. Geschichte der

Soziologie. W. Lepenies, (ed.). Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Vol. 2: 69-96.Münch, R. (2008). Die Konstruktion der europäischen Gesellschaft. Zur Dialektik von

transnationaler Integration und nationaler Desintegration. Frankfurt a. M., Campus.Münch, R. (2011). Akademischer Kapitalismus. Über die politische Ökonomie der

Hochschulreform. Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp.Muskens, G., Ed. (1993). Current Trends in European Sociology: Is There a European

Sociology? Special Issue of Innovation in Social Sciences Research Vol.6 No.2.Muyiwa Sanda, A. (1988). "In Defence of Indigenization in Sociological Theories." Inter-

national Sociology 3(2): 189-199.Nedelmann, B., Ed. (1995). Politische Institutionen im Wandel. Opladen, Westdeutscher

Verlag.Nedelmann, B., Sztompka, P., Ed. (1993). Sociology in Europe: In Search of Identity. Berlin

and New York, de Gruyter.Neisser, H., Puntscher-Riekmann, S., Ed. (2002). Europäisierung der österreichischen Poli-

tik: Konsequenzen der EU-Mitgliedschaft. Vienna, WUV Wiener Universitätsverlag.Neumann, I. B. (1999). Uses of the Other. "The East" in European Identity Formation.

Manchester, Manchester University Press.Nigsch, O. (1994). "Kanon und Krise der Soziologie." Schweizer Zeitschrift für Soziologie

20: 207-238.

247

Nissen, S. (2003). "Who Wants Enlargement of the EU? Support for Enlargement amongElites and Citizens in the European Union." Czech Sociological Review 39(6): 607-624.

Nowotny, H. (1983). "Marienthal and After ‑ Local Historicity and the Road to Policy Rel-evance." Knowledge 5(2): 169-192.

Nowotny, H. (1988). Lokale Historizität in den österreichischen Sozialwissenschaften: Vonpolitisch relevanter Forschung zur Politikrelevanz. Geschichte der österreichischen Sozi-ologie. Konstitutierung, Entwicklung und europäische Bezüge. J. Langer, (ed.). Vienna,Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik: 167-184.

Nowotny, H. (1993). "The Unfinished Agenda of Modernization ‑ Trends in European So-ciology " Social Science Information 32(1): 5-21.

Nowotny, H., et al. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age ofUncertainty. Cambridge, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Nowotny, H., Taschwer, K., Ed. (1996). The Sociology of the Sciences: A Reader Chel-tenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Olsen, J. P. (2002). The Many Faces of Europeanization. ARENA Working Papers WP01/2. Oslo.

Outhwaite, W. (2008). European Society. Cambridge, Polity Press.Oyen, E., Ed. (1990). Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practice in International So-

cial Research. London, Sage.Park, P. (1988). "Toward an Emancipatory Sociology: Abandoning Universalism for True

Indigenization." International Sociology 3(2): 161-170.Pelinka, A., Rosenberger, S. (2003). Österreichische Politik: Grundlagen, Strukturen,

Trends. Vienna, WUV Universitätsverlag.Pickel, G., Pickel, S. (2009). Qualitative Interviews als Verfahren des Ländervergleichs.

Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen undAnwendungen. S. Pickel, Pickel, G., Lauth, H.-J., Jahn, D., (eds.), Wiesbaden, VS Verlagfür Sozialwissenschaften: 441-464.

Pickel, S., Pickel, G., Lauth, H.-J., Jahn, D., Ed. (2009). Methoden der vergleichenden Poli-tik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen. Wiesbaden, VSVerlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Pohoryles, R. (1994 b). Europe at the Crossroads: Transitions and/or Crises? EuropeanTransformations: Five Decisive Years at the Turn of the Century 1988-1992. R. Poho-ryles, Giorgi, L., (eds.). Avebury, Aldershot: 1-9.

Pohoryles, R. (1994 c). The East and the West: What Cooperation, What Aid? EuropeanTransformations: Five Decisive Years at the Turn of the Century. An 'Innovation' Reader1988-1992. R. Pohoryles, (ed.). Aldershot, Avebury: 15-33.

Pohoryles, R., Kellermann, P. (1988). Zur Lehre der Soziologie in Österreich. Divergenzenund ihre Ergebnisse. Geschichte der österreichischen Soziologie. Konstitutierung, En-twicklung und europäische Bezüge. J. Langer, (ed.). Vienna, Verlag für Gesellschaft-skritik: 357-368.

Pohoryles, R. J., Ed. (1994 a). European Transformations: Five Decisive Years at the Turnof the Century. An 'Innovation' Reader 1988-1992. Aldershot, Avebury.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. New York, Doubleday & Co.Popovic, M. (1971). Dosadasnji razvitak i perspektive sociologije u Jugoslaviji. Rad /

Beograd.

248

Popovic, M., Bolcic, S., Pesic, V., Janicijevic, M., Pantic, D. (1977). Drustveni slojevi idrustvena svest. Belgrade, Institu Drustvenih Nauka.

Potter, W. G., Ed. (1981). Bibliometrics. Special Issue Library Trends Vol. 30 No. 1. Illinois.Preglau, M. (2009). 'Bologna' in Theorie und Praxis. Ein europäisches Projekt im Lichte

lokaler Erfahrungen an der LFU Innsbruck. Zur Kritik europäischer Hochschulpolitik.P. Kellermann, Boni, M., Meyer-Renschhausen, E. (eds.). Wiesbaden, VS Verlag fürSozialwissenschaften: 173-185.

Price, D. J. de Solla (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York, Columbia UniversityPress.

Prisching, M. (2001). Das Verhältnis von Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. Das Verhält-nis zwischen Universität und Fachhochschule. M. Prisching, Lenz, W., Hauser, W.,(eds.). Vienna, Verlag Österreich: 141-166.

Prisching, M. (2005). Bildungstrends in Europa. Bildung in Europa: Entwicklungsstand undPerspektiven. M. Prisching, Lenz, W., Hauser, W., (eds.). Vienna, Verlag Österreich:19-32.

Prisching, M., Lenz, W., Hauser, W., Ed. (2001 a). Das Verhältnis zwischen Universität undFachhochschule. Vienna, Verlag Österreich.

Programme, N. R. (1995). Science and Technology in Slovenia. Ljubljana, Ministry of Sci-ence and Technology of Slovenia.

Prunc, E. (2007). Still-Leben / Tihozitja. Gedichte / Pesmi. Klagenfurt, Wieser Verlag.Radaelli, C. M. (2000). "Whither Europeanization? Concept Stretching and Substantive

Change." European Integration online Papers 4(8).Radaelli, C. M. (2004). "Europeanisation: Solution or Problem?" European Integration on-

line Papers 8(16).Ragin, C. (1987). The Comparative Method. Berkeley CA, University of California Press.Ragin, C., Becker, H.S., Ed. (1992). What Is A Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social

Inquiry. Cambridge et al, Cambridge University Press.Ragin, C. (1994). Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thou-

sand Oaks, Pine Forge.Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Ragin, C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, University

of Chicago Press.Rifkin, J. (2004). The European Dream. How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly

Eclipsing the American Dream. New York, Penguin.Roche, M. (2010). Exploring the Sociology of Europe. London, Sage.Rohracher, H. (2009). Shaping Socio-Technical Change. Social science perspectives on the

transformation of energy systems and the built environment. Publikationsbasierte Habil-itationsschrift, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt.

Rokkan, S., Ed. (1968). Comparative Research across Cultures and Nations. Paris, Mouton.Rokkan, S. (1972). Vergleichende Sozialwissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main, Ullstein.Rokkan, S. (1999). State-Formation, Nation-Building, and Mass Politics in Europe: The

Theory of Stein Rokkan. Edited by P. Flora and S. Kuhnle. Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress.

Roose, J. (2009). "Europasoziologie. Neue Blicke auf Gesellschaft, Kultur und Sozialstruk-tur." Soziologische Revue 32: 188-198.

249

Rosenmayr, L. (1966 a). Vorgeschichte und Entwicklung der Soziologie in Österreichbis 1933. Einheit und Vielfalt in den Sozialwissenschaften. Festschrift für AlexanderMahr W. Weber, (ed.). Wien / New York, Springer: 268-282.

Rosenmayr, L. (1966 b). Austrian Sociology ‑ An Overview. Sociology in Austria. L. Rosen-mayr, Köckeis, E., (eds.). Vienna / Cologne / Graz, Böhlau: 11-48.

Rosenmayr, L. (1988). Erlebte Soziologie-Geschichte in Österreich ab 1945. Geschichte derösterreichischen Soziologie. Konstituierung, Entwicklung und europäische Bezüge. J.Langer, (ed.). Vienna, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik: 281-316.

Rosenmayr, L. (2001). "Soziologie wohin?" Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 26(2):42-63.

Rosenmayr, L., Höllinger, S., Ed. (1969). Soziologie, Forschung in Österreich. Vienna/Cologne/ Graz, Böhlau.

Rosenmayr, L., Köckeis, E., Ed. (1966). Sociology in Austria. History, Present Activites andProjects. Vienna, Böhlau.

Rubin, D. B., Stern, H.S., Vehovar, V. (1995). "Handling Don't Know Survey Responses:The Case of the Slovenian Plebiscite." Journal of the American Statistical Association90(431): 822-828.

Ryen, A. (2003). Cross-Cultural Interviewing. Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Con-cerns. J. A. Holstein, Gubrium, J. F. (eds.). London, Sage: 429-448.

Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. London, Vintage.Schäfers, B. (1999). Komparative und nicht-komparative Ansätze zur Analyse der Eu-

ropäisierung der Sozialstrukturen. Karlsruhe.Scharpf, F. (1988). "The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and Euro-

pean Integration." Public Administration 66: 239-278.Schefold, B., Lenz, T., Ed. (2008). Europäische Wissensgesellschaft. Leitbild europäischer

Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik? Berlin, Akademie Verlag.Scheler, M. (1960). Die Wissensformen und die Gesellschaft. Leipzig, Neuer-Geist-Verlag.Scheuch, E. K. (1989). "Theoretical Implications of Comparative Survey Research: Why

the Wheel of Cross-Cultural Methodology Keeps on Being Reinvented." InternationalSociology 4(2): 147-167.

Schimmelfennig, F., Sedelmeier, U., Ed. (2005). The Europeanization of Central and East-ern Europe. Ithaca/ London, Sage.

Schneeberger, A. (1980). Kritische Analyse der österreichischen universitären Sozialwis-senschaft seit 1945. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung. Vienna.

Schofer, E. (2004). "Cross-National Differences in the Expansion of Science." SocialForces 83(1): 215-248.

Schorske, C. E. (1982). Wien: Geist und Gesellschaft im Fien de Siècle. Frankfurt am Main,Fischer.

Schuch, K. (2005). The Integration of Central Europe into the European System of Re-search. Vienna, Guthmann-Peterson.

Schülein, J. A. (2000). Soziologie in Österreich ‑ österreichische Soziologie? Bemerkungenzu Entwicklung der Soziologie in einer 'peripheren' Gesellschaft. Von der Macht derKöpfe. Intellektuelle zwischen Moderne und Spätmoderne. E. Kreisky, (ed.). Vienna,WUV Wiener Universitätsverlag: 156-182.

250

Shils, E. (1970). "Tradition, Ecology, and Institutionalization in the History of Sociology."Daedalus 99: 760-825.

Shils, E. (1975). Geschichte der Soziologie. Tradition, Ökologie und Institutionalisierung.Soziologie ‑ autobiographisch: Drei kritische Berichte zur Entwicklung einer Wis-senschaft. T. Parsons, E. Shils, P. Lazarsfeld, (eds.). Stuttgart, Enke: 69-147.

Slaughter, S., Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic Capitalism. Politics, Policies, and the En-trepeneurial University. London, John Hopkins University Press.

Slovenia (1992). Science in Slovenia: Overview With Highlights. Ljubljana, Ministry ofScience and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia.

Slovenia (1996). Science in Slovenia. 3rd ed. Ljubljana, Ministry of Science and Technologyof the Republic of Slovenia.

Smelser, N. J. (1976). Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,Prentice Hall.

Smelser, N. J. (1989). "External Influences on Sociology." International Sociology 4(4):419-429.

Smelser, N. J. (2004). Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice. The Dialogical Turn: NewRoles of Sociology in the Postdisciplinary Age. C. Camic, Joas, H., (eds.). Oxford, Row-man & Littlefield 43-64.

Smith, D. (2003). "Editorial: Sociology meets Globalization." Current Sociology 51(6).Stadler, F., Ed. (1987/ 1988). Vertriebene Vernunft I & II. Emigration und Exil österre-

ichischer Wissenschaftler. Vienna/Munich, Jugend & Volk.Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge Societies. London / New Delhi / Thousand Oaks, Sage.Stehr, N. (2004). The Social Role of Knowledge. Advances in Sociological Knowledge: Over

Half a Century. N. Genov, (ed.). Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften:83-108.

Stehr, N. (2005). Knowledge Politics: Governing the Consequences of Science and Tech-nology. Boulder / London, Paradigm Publishers.

Stehr, N., Meja, V., Ed. (2005 a). Society and Knowledge: Contemporary Perspectives inthe Sociology of Knowledge and Science. New Brunswick / London, Transaction Pub-lishers.

Stehr, N., Meja, V. (2005 b). Introduction: The Development of the Sociology of Knowledgeand Science. Society and Knowledge: Contemporary Perspectives in the Sociology ofKnowledge & Science. 2nd edition. N. Stehr, Meja, V. (eds.). New Brunswick/London,Transaction Publishers: 1-34.

Stolte-Heiskanen, V. (1987). "The Role of Center-Periphery Relations in the Utilization ofthe Social Sciences." International Sociology 2(2): 189-203.

Stone Sweet, A., Sandholtz, W., Fligstein, N. , Ed. (2001). The Institutionalization of Eu-rope. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Strathern, M., Ed. (2000). Audit Cultures. Anthropological studies in accountability, ethicsand the academy. New York, Routledge.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Proceduresand Techniques. London / New York, Sage.

Strauss, A., Fagerhaugh, S., Suczek, B., Wiener, C. (1985). The Social Organization ofMedical Work. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

251

Studienrichtungsvertreter, Ed. (1974). Dokumentation zum Kampf der Soziologiestudentengegen die Einschränkung ihrer Rechte durch den Staat. Vienna, Studienrich-tungsvertreter Soziologie der Philosophischen und der Juridischen Fakultät der Univer-sität Wien.

Süß, W., Becher, G., Ed. (1993). Politik und Technologieentwicklung in Europa. Analysenökonomisch-technischer und politischer Vermittlungen im Prozeß der europäischen In-tegration. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot.

Szacki, J. (1981). 'Schulen' in der Soziologie. Geschichte der Soziologie 4 vol. W. Lepe-nies, (ed.). Frankfurt, Suhrkamp. Vol.2: 16-30.

Sztompka, P. (1990). Conceptual Frameworks in Comparative Inquiry. Globalization,Knowledge and Society. M. Albrow, King, E., (eds.). London, Sage: 47-60.

Sztompka, P. (2002). The Condition of Sociology in East-Central Europe. Three SocialScience Disciplines in Central and Eastern Europe. Handbook of Economics, PoliticalScience and Sociology (1989-2001). M. Kaase, Sparschuh, V., (eds.). Budapest, SocialScience Information Centre IZ: 548-556.

Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (1990). Mixed Methodology. Combining Qualitative and Quan-titative Approaches. London, Sage.

Teichler, U. (2007). Die Internationalisierung der Hochschulen: Neue Herausforderungenund Strategien. Frankfurt, Campus.

Therborn, G. (1995). European Modernity and Beyond: The Trajectory of European Soci-eties 1945 ‑ 2000. London, Sage.

Thum, K. P. (1984). Österreichische soziologische Diplomarbeiten und Dissertationen 1960‑ 1984. Institut für Soziologie der Grund- und Integrativwissenschaftlichen Fakultät derUniversität Wien.

Tiryakian, E. A. (1990). Sociology's Great Leap Forward: the Challenge of Internationali-sation. Globalization, Knowledge and Society. M. Albrow, King, E. (eds.). London,Sage: 63-78.

Todorova, M. (1997). Imagining the Balkans. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Torrance, J. (1976). "The Emergence of Sociology in Austria 1885-1935." European Journal

of Sociology 17: 185-219.Toš, N., Ed. (1968 to present). Slovensko javno mnenje. Ljubljana, Raziskovalni Institut

Fakultete za Sociologijo, Politicne Vede in Novinarstvo.Traxler, F. (1998). Austria: Still the Country of Corporatism. Changing Industrial Relations

in Europe. A. Ferner, Hyman, R. (eds.). Oxford, Blackwell: 239-261.Turner, R. H. (1990). A Comparative Content Analysis of Biographies. Comparative

Methodology: Theory and Practice in International Social Research. E. Oyen, (ed.).London, Sage: 134-150.

Universität Graz (2008). Wissensbilanz 2007 der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Graz.Urry, J. (2000). Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. Lon-

don / New York, Routledge.Van den Daele, W., Krohn, W., Weingart, P., Ed. (1979). Geplante Forschung. Vergle-

ichende Studien über den Einfluß politischer Programme auf die Wissenschaftsentwick-lung. Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp.

Vaughan-Whitehead, D. C. (2003). EU Enlargement versus Social Europe? The UncertainFuture of the European Social Model. Cheltenham, UK / Northampton, USA, EdwardElgar.

252

Verwiebe, R. (2004). Transnationale Mobilität innerhalb Europas. Eine Studie zu densozialstrukturellen Effekten der Europäisierung. Berlin, edition sigma.

Viale, R., Etzkowitz, H., Ed. (2010). The Capitalization of Knowledge. A Triple Helix ofUniversity ‑ Industry ‑ Government. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Vicic, V., Ed. (1989). Stanje, vloga in razvojne perspektive druszbenih znanosti naSlovenskem Ljubljana, Marksisticni center.

Vink, M. (2002). What is Europeanization? and Other Questions on a New Research Agen-da. M. Paper for the Second YEN Research Meeting on Europeanisation University ofBocconi, 22-23 November 2002. Milan.

Vobruba, G. (2003). "The Enlargement Crisis of the European Union. Limits of the Dialec-tics of Integration and Expansion." Journal of Europan Social Policy 13(1): 35-49.

Vobruba, G. (2007). Die Dynamik Europas. 2nd edition. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozial-wissenschaften.

Vobruba, G. (2008). "Die Entwicklung der Europasoziologie aus der Differenz national/europäisch." Berliner Journal for Soziologie 18(1): 32-51.

Vobruba, G. (2010). "Das politische Potential der Europäischen Nachbarschaftspolitik. ZurÜberwindung des Widerspruchs zwischen Integration und Erweiterung der EuropäischenUnion." Leviathan 38: 45-63.

Wagner, F. P. (2001). "Beyond 'East' and 'West': On the European and Global Dimensionof the Fall of Communism." ProtoSociology: An International Journal of Interdisci-plinary Research 15: 244-273.

Wagner, P. (1985). Interlinkages Between Social Science and Politics: the Case of Austria.The Difficult Dialogue between Producers and Users of Social Science Research. H.Nowotny, Lambiri-Dimaki, J., (eds.). Vienna, Eurosocial: 39-47.

Wagner, P. (1996). "Die Universitäten, die Soziologie und der Staat am Ende des 20.Jahrhun-derts." Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 21(4): 83-103.

Wagner, P., Hirschon Weiss, C., Wittrock, B., Wollmann, H., Ed. (1991). Social Sciencesand Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads. Cambridge,Cambridge University Press.

Wagner, P., Wittrock, B. (1991). States, Institutions, and Discourses: A Comparative Per-spective on the Structuration of the Social Sciences. Discourses on Society. The Shapingof the Social Sciences Disciplines. P. Wagner. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers:331-358.

Wallace, C., Haerpfner, C. (1998). Three Paths of Transformation in Post-Communist Cen-tral Europe. Vienna, Institute for Advanced Studies.

Weingart, P. (1998). Self-Conception, Strategies of Transformation, and Moods in Coping.East European Academies in Transition. R. Mayntz, et al., (ed.). Dordrecht, KluwerAcademic Publishers: 141-151.

Weingart, P. (2003). Wissenschaftssoziologie. Bielefeld, Transcript.Weingart, P., Carrier, M., Krohn, W., eds. (2007). Nachrichten aus der Wissensge-

sellschaft. Weilerswist, Velbrück.Westphalen, F. A. (1953). Sociology and Economics in Austria. A Report on Postwar De-

velopments. Washington, Library of Congress, European Affairs Division.Whitley, R. (1984). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford,

Clarendon.

253

Whitley, R., Gläser, J., Ed. (2007). The Changing Governance of the Sciences. The Adventof Research Evaluation Systems. Dordrecht, Springer.

Whitley, R., Gläser, J., Engwall, L., Ed. (2010). Reconfiguring Knowledge Production.Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellec-tual Innovation. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Wieser, G. (1983). "Sociology in Austria." International Review of Modern Sociology13(1-2): 1-33.

Witschel, G. (1995). "Sloweniens Wissenschaft im Umbruch." Südosteuropa Zeitung 44(5):280-289.

Wittrock, B., Heilbron, J., Magnusson, L. (1998). The Rise of the Social Sciences and theFormation of Modernity. The Rise of the Social Sciences and the Formation of Moder-nity. J. Heilbron, Magnusson, L., Wittrock, B., (eds.). Dordrecht / Boston / London,Kluwer Academic Publishers: 1-34.

Wolff, L. (1994). Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of theEnlightenment. Stanford, Stanford University Press.

Woolgar, S. (1988). Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Know-ledge. London / New York, Sage.

Wrong, D. H. (1961). "The Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology."American Sociological Review 26: 184-193.

Yearley, S. (2005). Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science.London, Sage.

Zilian, H. G. (1989). Wo ein Wille ist, ist auch ein Werk. Arbeitsbedingungen und Arbeit-slosigkeit im Wohlfahrtsstaat. Vienna, Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales.

Zilian, H. G. (1992). "Theorie und Praxis ‑ der österreichische Weg." ÖsterreichischeZeitschrift für Soziologie 17(1): 20-33.

Zilian, H. G. (2000). Zwei Welten: universitäre und außeruniversitäre Wissenschaft. Beitragzum ÖGS-Kongress von 20. bis 23. September 2000 in Wien. Vienna.

Zilian, H. G., Malle, B. (1994). Spreu und Weizen: Das Verhalten der Arbeitskräftenach-frage. Graz, Nausner & Nausner.

Zimmermann, A., Favell, A. (2011). "Governmentality, Political Field or Public Sphere?Theoretical Alternatives in the Political Sociolgoy of the EU." European Journal of So-cial Theory 14(4): 489-515.

Zuckerman, H. (1988). The Sociology of Science. Handbook of Sociology. N. J. Smelser,(ed.). London / New Delhi / Newbury Park, Sage: 511-576.

254

Index

Abbott, A. 30–32, 53, 89, 90, 114, 115,125, 197, 198, 208, 225, 233

academic capitalism 21, 105academic labour market 115Acquis Communautaire 42, 198Actor-Network Theory 21Adam, F. 57, 59–61, 103, 233Adorno, T. W. 171Aigner, E. 16, 233Albania 185Albrow, M. 15, 36, 233, 252ALLBUS (Allgemeine Bevölkerungsum-

fragen der Sozialwissenschaften) 165,180

alpine provincialism 58, 77ambivalence, sociological 111, 135, 136,

202, 209, 210, 212, 221, 227analysis– bibliometric a. 48, 73, 101, 225– cohort a. 34– comparative a. 43, 47, 48, 50, 52, 195,

196, 200– content a. 128– discourse a. 48– documentary a. 48– historical comparative a. 43, 73– level of a. 71, 201, 229– literature a. 51, 159– process a. 43– statistical a. 43– theoretical a. 52, 53– unit of a. 44, 47–49, 63, 157, 165, 166ANOVASOFIE 183, 184approach, methodological– case-oriented a. 43, 49– Mixed Methods a. 43, 48– qualitative a. 18, 48–50, 92

– quantitative a. 48, 50, 56, 92, 93, 196– variable-oriented a. 43, 44Archer, M. 15, 233Archive for the History of Sociology in

Austria (AGSÖ) 63argument 43, 77, 107, 109, 216aristocracy 78, 168asymmetry 178, 224Austria– and current sociology 44, 61, 64, 67, 80,

91, 92, 101, 103, 113, 116, 132, 133,145, 166, 218, 227

– and EU accession 18, 41, 158, 205,217

– and EU membership 17, 83, 160, 162– and European neighbourhoods 75, 76,

78– and history of sociology 57, 96, 130– and its history 42, 77, 83– and politics 88, 115, 122, 123, 131,

161– and university reform 142, 143, 145,

147, 151– corporatism in A. 59, 60, 78– science studies in A. 16Austrian Council for Research and Tech-

nology 135Austrian School of National Eco-

nomics 104Austrian Science Fund (FWF) 138, 177Austrian Sociological Association

(ÖGS) 63, 118, 119, 173Austro-Marxism 58, 103authority in science 21–23, 27, 189, 210autonomy, institutional 21, 28, 33, 117,

226, 228Axt, H. J. 202, 233

255

Babbie, E. 49, 233Bach, M. 14, 15, 156, 157, 203, 233, 234,

242Bailey, J. 15, 234Balkan 69, 81, 186Balla, B. 220, 234Balog, A. 58, 91, 121, 122, 131, 136, 145,

146, 234, 247Bammè, A. 25, 182, 207, 234Barr, N. 41, 42, 198, 202Bartolini, S. 16, 234Bauman, Z. 15, 234Becher, T. 21, 234, 252Beck, U. 15, 36, 156, 157, 234Becker, H. S. 38, 49, 234, 249Becker, U. 38Belarus 51, 159Belgrade School 80Benigni-Cokan, H. 92, 235Benoit, K. 51, 235Berger, P. L. 17, 23, 34, 197, 235Berlin Humboldt University 131Bernhard, S. 16, 235Bernhard, T. 115Bernik, I. 60, 104, 235Biagioli, M. 21, 235bias 99Biegelbauer, P. 16, 235, 245biographies of transformation of sociolo-

gists 71, 126–128, 201, 205, 228Boden, R. 21, 235Boh, K. 125Bologna Declaration 48, 203, 205Bologna Reform Process– advantages of the B. R. P. 152, 154– appreciation of B. R. P. 214– documents of the B. R. P. 150

– implementation of the B. R. P. 49, 52,63, 71, 148, 155, 213, 214, 222, 228

– modest critique of B. R. P. 151, 153,214

– objectives of the B. R. P. 150, 216– opportunities to influence the B. R.

P. 149– radical critique of B. R. P. 150, 152– research on the B. R. P. 16– role of employers in B. R. P. 153– unintended effects of the B. R. P. 156border region 154Börzel, T. 202, 235Bosnia-Herzegovina 81, 149, 181Boudon, R. 17, 235Bourdieu, P. 21, 78, 103, 109, 110, 135,

166, 208, 226, 235Brady, H. E. 43, 235Brandt, W. 191Braun, D. 21, 235Bucar, M. 16, 57, 235Buchinger, E. 16, 235Bulgaria 185bureaucracy 28, 100, 161, 191Busek, E. 173

capital, social 37, 98capitalism 37, 40, 100career, academic 86, 110, 114, 118, 119,

126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 136, 145, 201,211, 228

Cas, B. 57, 235case selection 14, 47case study 44, 183, 222causal relationship 13, 195, 222Central and Eastern Europe 40, 41, 94,

170Centre for Public Opinion and Communi-

cation Research 93

256

change– contribution of sociologists to social

c. 81– economic c. 81, 98, 100, 102– historical c. 87, 224– institutional c. 53, 118, 135– political c. 54, 100, 116, 120, 122, 124,

133, 146, 161– social c. 31, 37, 112, 121, 150, 157– theory of social c. 38, 98Charmaz, K. 49, 200, 236Chorvat, I. 17, 236Cicourel, A. V. 24, 49, 50citizenship 86, 126, 171, 181civil society 37, 41, 60, 68, 98, 121, 173clientelism 118, 123, 145, 152co-presence 193, 221Cohen, R. 15, 236cohort 59, 133, 189, 190, 199, 207, 212,

228Cold War 14, 39, 79, 84, 86, 88, 122, 186,

191Cole, S. 17, 21, 35, 236Collins, H. M. 26colonization, intellectual 87, 184, 218communism 20, 39, 45, 119, 162competition, scientific– role of s. c. in knowledge produc-

tion 31– s. c. for academic positions 76, 131– s. c. for credit and reward 22, 210– s. c. for research funds 106, 112, 113,

136, 139, 140, 209– s. c. of disciplines 29, 31, 32, 114, 226– s. c. of institutions 92, 106, 108, 113,

118, 126, 142, 144, 147, 168, 226Comte, A. 170concentration camp Loibl/Ljubelj 88conditional matrix 205

conflict 40, 77, 91, 112, 113, 121, 124, 152,209

consensus 26, 41, 78, 156, 163, 168consequences of action 23, 28, 33, 39, 55,

77, 102, 105, 177, 196Convergence Criteria 42Copenhagen Criteria 42, 198, 205Corbin, J. 71, 126, 196, 197, 199–201cosmopolitanism 36, 134, 157Council of Wise Men 123Crane, D. 117, 175, 236Creswell, J. 43, 236crisis 17, 35, 40, 143, 145Critical Theory 64, 91, 103, 122, 131, 171,

173, 226critique, sociological 36, 121, 122, 127,

140, 149, 150, 157, 161, 168, 187, 206,211–214, 228

Croatia 64, 81, 85, 148, 170, 173, 174Cronin, B. 48, 236Crothers, C. 44, 97Crouch, C. 15, 236cultural studies 21, 45, 53, 66, 92, 101,

103, 125, 146, 225, 227, 230Cyba, E. 91, 122, 136, 145, 146Czech Republic 40, 51, 79, 82, 83, 159,

170

Dahrendorf, R. 14, 40, 236Darraz, E. 16, 236data sources 195, 198database 38de Toqueville, A. 42Debeljak, A. 92, 115Delanty, G. 14–16, 36, 203, 236Delhey, J. 16, 236Della Porta, D. 43, 236Delo 124

257

democracy 37, 39, 40, 42, 79, 99, 158, 160,163

democratization 98, 103, 120, 157Denzin, N. 49, 236Der Standard 147dialectical perspective 36, 45, 75, 77, 112,

118, 161, 170, 186, 204Dierkes, M. 16, 237differentiation, social 16, 30, 33, 35, 44,

75, 85, 86, 99, 102, 114, 157, 204Dill, D. 16, 237disciplines, scientific 21, 26, 30, 31, 90, 91,

114, 115, 201, 208, 227, 230diversity, cultural 43–46, 52, 62, 85, 102,

137, 162, 185, 193, 225, 226Djindjic, Z. 80domination 75, 83, 84, 86, 157, 161, 163,

183, 184, 221Druzboslovne razprave 98, 211Durkheim, E. 42, 104, 170

East European countries 37, 45, 47, 98,127, 190, 225, 226

Eastern Bloc 14, 79, 80, 85, 86, 101, 102,188

economics (discipline) 32, 37, 64, 68, 91,101, 116, 131, 171, 226, 230

Eigmüller, M. 15, 237Elias, N. 77, 221elites 27, 60, 80, 103, 107, 158, 160, 161emancipation of small scientific commu-

nities 76, 77, 125, 184, 217emigration of scientists 77, 96, 171empirical social research 47, 49, 50, 52, 80,

89, 91, 95, 97, 196employability 148, 150, 213, 214, 226enhanced professionalism 16, 31–33, 73,

105, 137, 208, 211, 218, 225, 226, 230enlightenment 15, 56

epistemic cultures 21, 26, 73, 78, 81, 224ERASMUS 126, 154–156, 185, 214, 229Erno-Knjolhede, E. 21, 237ethnomethodology 50Etzkowitz, H. 21, 22, 67, 105, 237, 253European Commission 138, 140, 162European Community 112, 156European Council 163European Credit Transfer System

(ECTS) 153, 156, 185European Higher Education Area 148European integration 15, 16, 36, 39, 60,

116, 157, 164, 166, 168, 186, 203, 220,225

European neighbourhoods 18, 71, 79, 81,82, 85, 87, 88, 125, 217, 223, 224, 231

European Research Area 13, 203, 205,217, 223, 224

European Research Council 140European Social Survey (ESS) 94, 169,

174, 180European Societies (journal) 166European Sociological Association

(ESA) 118, 168, 170, 228European studies 36, 38, 147, 185, 227European Union– accession to the EU 13, 41, 205– attitudes towards the EU 54, 93, 158,

160, 161, 228, 229– enlargement of the EU 15, 126, 163– General Directorates of the EU 142,

167, 168– higher education policy of the EU 16,

48– impact of accession to the EU 17, 18,

51–53, 61, 71, 126, 164, 169,201–205, 227

– members of the EU 16, 42, 82, 85, 175– public opinion towards EU acces-

sion 82

258

– research funds of the EU 100, 103, 135,139, 174, 210, 225, 228

– research policy of the EU 16, 54, 134,136, 227

– research topics supported by EU 100,137, 138, 168

– rhetoric of EU 100– science policy of the EU 17, 24, 28, 48,

101, 102– shifting borders of the EU 85– transformation processes of the EU 13,

198– wishes for future sociology within the

EU 171European Value Survey 94, 174Europeanization– as sociological concept 200, 202– causal conditions of E. 205, 223– consequences of E. 18, 37, 54, 71, 97,

172, 184, 198, 200, 216, 217, 221,223, 229

– contexts of E. 75, 223– counter-arguments on sociology's

E. 164– E.'s impact on power relations in scien-

tific community 184, 217, 218, 224– intervening conditions of E. 71, 126,

200, 201, 204–206, 223– of national societies 14, 71, 75, 78, 85,

87, 88, 126, 158, 205, 206, 224, 225,231

– of science 135, 204, 221, 230– of sociology 14, 17, 46, 77, 87, 164, 168,

195, 196, 201, 204, 205, 216, 218,222–229, 231

– strategies to deal with E. 29, 54, 71, 79,85, 135, 196, 210, 223, 229

EUROSTAT 165evaluation– e. in students' access to universi-

ties 108– e. of research performance 113, 134– e. of teaching performance 145

evaluation criteria 116, 196evaluation procedures– concerning hybrid institutions in insti-

tutional landscape 106– of EU funded research 135, 137, 140,

141, 211, 213evidence, empirical 18, 44, 169, 201, 217,

223excellence, scientific 109, 137, 152, 185,

209expansion of the higher education sys-

tem 59, 122expert judgments 51experts 18, 27–30, 51, 158, 163, 169, 182,

205

Fabris, H. 58, 237Falkner, G. 202, 237Favell, A. 16, 237, 254Featherstone, K. 202, 237Felderer, B. 16, 237Felt, U. 16, 21, 235, 237Ferligoi, A. 57, 237Fiala, V. 58, 237Fink-Hafner, D. 57, 237Finland 78, 182Fischer-Kowalski, M. 58, 237Fleck, C. 17, 58–61, 64, 77, 92, 96, 97, 127,

140–142, 202, 236, 238Flere, S. 35, 57, 59, 238Flick, U. 49, 238Fligstein, N. 15, 238, 251Fochler, M. 16, 238focus group 18, 49, 52, 61, 63, 142, 143,

149, 154, 213, 229Ford Foundation 94FORIS (Research Information System on

the Social Sciences) 38FORM project 177–179, 191

259

forms of social exchange 76, 85Foucault, M. 23, 166fractal distinctions 53, 89, 90, 92, 97, 114,

125, 197, 225Framheim, G. 177, 178, 238, 239, 244France 32, 46, 73, 103, 160, 171, 173, 177,

183, 244Frankfurt School 91, 103, 122, 131, 171Freud, S. 104Fuller, S. 21, 239

Galtung, J. 25, 45, 46, 73, 77, 92, 217, 231,239

Gareau, F. 15, 37, 239Garfinkel, H. 23, 24, 50, 239Gauthier, A. 43, 239Geertz, C. 43, 51, 239gender representation 69gender segregation– horizontal g. s. 69– vertical g. s. 69gender studies 189generations of sociologists– ambivalences between g. 228– comparing three g. 53, 126, 128, 163,

199, 228– institutional change of g. at universi-

ties 91– pioneering g. 59, 130, 164, 172, 173– project g. 133, 135, 141, 163, 172, 207– second g. 131–133, 172Genov, N. 15, 17, 37, 46, 233, 239, 251George Soros Foundation 106George, A. 43, 106, 239Georgia 185Gerhards, J. 15, 239German Association of Sociologists 76Germanization 83, 183

Germany– current state of research on Eastern Eu-

rope in G. 38– G. and current sociology 103, 171– historical formation of sociology in

G. 32, 46– perceptions of G. 75, 82, 165, 183, 217– Protestantism in G. 104– research institutes in G. 95– scientific community in G. 76, 131,

177Gestrin, F. 57, 239Gibbons, M. 21, 25, 26, 28, 135, 207,

239Giddens, A. 23, 24, 50Gieryn, T. F. 21, 239Glaser, B. 49, 52, 193, 195–198, 200, 201,

240Gläser, J. 21, 74, 240, 254globalization 15, 36, 37, 48, 60, 75, 81, 99,

100, 160–162, 164, 166, 169, 204, 223Goertz, G. 43, 240Goetz, K. 202, 218, 240Goffman, E. 35Goldthorpe, J. 43, 240Goody, J. 47Goricar, J. 95, 130Gouldner, A. 17, 35, 240governance of science 17, 21Grande, E. 16, 117, 228, 234, 240Graz Forum Stadtpark 84Graz Institute for Advanced Studies in Sci-

ence, Technology and Society (IAS-STS) 174, 181, 182

Graz Inter-University Research Centre forTechnology, Work and Culture (In-teruniversitäres Forschungszentrum,IFZ) 67, 110, 111, 169, 181, 182

Graz University 63, 68, 148, 173, 174, 180,183

260

Great Britain 132, 164, 173, 177, 182–184,186

Grounded Theory– axial coding paradigm of GT 195, 196,

200, 201– coding procedures of GT 53, 200– conditional matrix of GT 54, 196, 200,

201– evaluation criteria of GT 196– GT as methodological approach 18, 52,

195, 196, 198, 199, 223– theoretical sampling in GT 52, 62, 196,

197, 199groups, social 19, 26, 28, 50, 112, 121, 144,

158, 162, 197Gumplowicz, L. 58, 103Gwiazda, A. 202, 240

Habermas, J. 15, 40, 104, 138, 156, 157,166, 171, 240

Habsburg monarchy 14, 58, 76, 77, 83, 87,104, 170

Hackett, E. 21, 240Haerpfner, C. 40Haller, M. 15, 16, 44, 58, 156, 158, 180,

240, 241Haraway, D. 74, 241Harding, A. 16, 241Hegel, G. W. F. 104Heidenreich, M. 15, 241Heintz, B. 17, 21, 241Herlitschka, S. 16, 241Heschl, F. 82, 241Hessels, L. K. 21, 241Hettlage, R. 15, 241Heyt, F. D. 58, 241hierarchies, scientific 98, 113, 145, 148,

184, 207, 228hierarchy of professions 32historical materialism 45, 60, 104

history of science 20Hitler, A. 129Hjerppe, R. 48, 241Hochgerner, J. 16, 241Holl, A. 58, 241Holzinger, K. 202, 241, 243Horkheimer, M. 30, 171Horvath, T. 81, 242Hradil, S. 203, 242Hribar, T. 80, 120Huber, J. 51, 240, 242humanities 44, 63, 65, 66, 116, 144, 183,

188, 227Hungary 40, 79, 82, 83, 85, 170, 177, 181,

184, 220hypothesis 20, 48, 73, 77, 87, 90, 101, 117,

120, 158, 164, 177, 218

identity See self-conceptionideology 35, 51, 66, 132, 160, 177ignorance, sociological 47Immerfall, S. 15, 242impact factor 60indigenization– i. by others 86, 87, 219– i. of social science 37individualization 101, 211, 226inequalities, social 99–101, 161, 181, 203,

225innovation, scientific 16, 17, 141, 169,

175, 182, 209, 216institution, scientific 24, 30, 36, 152, 176,

179, 182, 185, 197institutionalization of sociology– criteria of i. 30, 56, 197– i. as teaching subject at secondary

schools 109, 133– i. in terms of academic positions 69,

106

261

– relation of i. with strategies of sociolo-gists 209

institutions, hybrid in science 106intellectual capital reports 111, 113, 136,

143, 210intellectual centres of sociology 63, 198,

204, 231intellectual styles in science 24, 45, 46, 73,

92, 231intellectuals 27, 33, 68, 77–79, 92, 120,

183inter-war period 57, 58interdisciplinarity 114, 227International Social Survey Programme

(ISSP) 94, 139, 165, 174, 179–181internationalization 15, 36, 37, 60, 73, 76,

117, 118, 126, 133, 144, 145, 163, 184,204, 207, 210, 216, 220, 223

INTERREG 182interview guideline 51, 62, 138interviews, semi-structured 18, 29, 48–52,

57, 61, 222Iron Curtain 86ISI Web of Science 210, 211Italy 64, 85, 95, 142, 148, 164, 173, 184,

185

Jacquot, S. 203, 242Jahoda, M. 96, 242Jansen, D. 21, 242Japan 220, 231Jasanoff, S. 21, 242Javnost 60Jazbec, M. 76, 242Jogan, M. 57–59, 129, 242, 243Johnston, W. M. 58, 243joint-decision trap 117journalism 65, 78, 116, 131, 192

journals, sociological 30, 56, 60, 76, 77,98, 104, 116, 145, 166, 197, 204, 210,211, 215, 216, 228

jurisdiction, professional 31

Kaase, M. 15, 37, 233, 243, 252Kardelj, E. 104Keen, M. 15, 37, 127, 238, 242, 243, 245Kellermann, P. 16, 243, 248, 249Kersevan, M. 57, 243Kettler, D. 31, 243Keutel, A. 16, 243King, G. 43, 233, 243, 252Klagenfurt Faculty for Interdisciplinary

Research and Education (Fakultät fürInterdisziplinäre Forschung und Fortbil-dung, IFF) 68, 110

Klagenfurt University 64, 68, 148, 151,153

Knill, C. 202, 241, 243Knoll, R. 58, 243Knorr-Cetina, K. 21, 24, 26, 73, 74, 243knowledge– background k. 24, 52, 81, 112, 224– capitalization of k. 21– commodification of k. 21– everyday k. 20, 22– growth of k. 89– implicit k. 24, 26, 35, 50, 51, 197– k. as capacity for social action 23– k. cultures 53, 73, 74, 81– k. politics 28– k. resources 222– mutual k. 23, 24, 175, 187, 231– practical k. 23, 198– scientific k. 17, 19–21, 23, 26, 27,

30–32, 45, 74– tacit k. 24, 25– types of k. 19, 22, 24–26– utilization context of k. 26

262

knowledge claims 13, 19, 22, 31, 32, 46,90, 92, 104, 141, 145, 189, 208–210

knowledge institutions 13, 53knowledge production– back stage and front stage in k. p. 35– conceptualizing change in k. p. 135,

207, 209– cross-cultural differences in k. p. 44– fields of intellectual k. p. 21, 45, 55– literary k. p. 30, 33– locations of k. p. 82, 86, 87, 184, 217,

218– modes of k. p. 21, 25, 26, 28, 110, 207– processes of k. p. 18, 21, 25, 26, 57– stratification in k. p. 31– triple helix of k. p. 21knowledge resources 13, 86knowledge societies 18, 19, 26–28knowledge society 78knowledge workers 28knowledgeability of human agents 23Kofler, G. 51, 244Kohn, M. L. 43, 47, 48, 197, 244Korea 130Kosovo 163, 186Kramberger, A. 60, 242, 243Kuhn, T. S. 20, 21, 34, 55Kuzmics, H. 33, 77, 244

Labeling Theory 115Laboratory Studies 21Lacan, J. 66Lamnek, S. 16, 49, 244Lamont, M. 51, 111, 160, 244Langer, J. 15, 57, 58, 83, 178, 238, 239,

242, 244, 246–248, 250language community 118, 120, 184language proficiency 84, 183, 188, 216,

219large-n-comparison 43

Latour, B. 21, 244Lazarsfeld, P. 94, 96, 242Lee, A. M. 17, 244Lemert, C. 17, 35, 244Lepenies, W. 17, 29, 30, 32, 46, 58, 73, 90,

197, 245, 247, 252Lepsius, M. R. 15, 58, 243, 245Leydesdorff, L. 48, 237, 245Lindstrom, N. 202, 245Lisbon Strategy 42, 48, 150, 213, 225Lithuania 184, 185Ljubljana Institute of Sociology 64, 132Ljubljana Peace Institute (Mirovni Insti-

tute, MI) 68, 106, 113Ljubljana Public Opinion and Mass Com-

munications Research Centre(CJMMK) 180

Ljubljana University 62, 64–66, 90, 93, 95,107, 133, 139, 143, 144, 146–149, 151,154–156, 164, 174, 178, 180, 184

Ljubljana University, Faculty of Arts(Filozofska fakulteta, FF) 65–67, 90, 92,148, 185

Ljubljana University, Faculty of SocialSciences (Fakulteta za druzbene vede,FDV) 64, 66, 67, 79, 80, 90, 92–95, 107,116, 121, 124, 125, 130, 132, 144,146–148, 153, 155

Ljubljanska School 80, 93logic 22, 32, 39, 113, 165, 193Loubser, J. J. 37, 245Luckmann, T. 23Luhmann, N. 78, 103–105, 226Luukkonen, T. 117, 245Lynd, R. S. 17, 245

Macedonia 81Mahoney, J. 43, 245Majone, G. 16, 245

263

Makarovic, M. 59, 60, 233Mali, F. 16, 57, 59, 245Manners, I. 16, 246Mannheim, K. 19, 20, 30, 31, 34Marcuse, H. 171Maribor University 66, 148, 153, 154,

174Marx, K. 19Marxism 19, 33, 103, 105, 122Marxist Theory 59, 103, 171Master curriculum of sociology 65, 153,

154, 185Matthew effect 141Mau, S. 15, 237, 246Mayntz, R. 17, 21, 246, 253Meja, V. 17, 19, 22, 23, 243, 246, 251Meleghy, T. 114, 246Merritt, R. L. 43, 246Merton, R. K. 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 49, 52,

61, 111, 128, 131, 134–136, 141, 186,209, 215, 228, 246

methodological nationalism 15, 36, 157methodology 18, 43, 52, 94, 95, 114, 131,

181methods of social research 26, 32, 38, 43,

47–50, 55, 56, 58, 92, 108, 141, 168,181, 198

Michaud, G. 114Mill, J. S. 43Mills, C. W. 127Milosevic, S. 80minorities 42, 83, 116, 123, 131, 185,

226Mitrovic, M. 57, 246Mlinar, Z. 89, 217, 219, 220, 224, 246mobility, social 85, 93modernization 47, 87, 122Moscow Declaration 88

movements, social 35, 37, 98Mozetic, G. 17, 33, 35, 55, 56, 58, 73,

87–89, 98, 105, 109, 197, 234, 244, 246,247

Mucha, J. 37, 127Mulkay, M. 21, 247Mullins, M. 34, 198, 247Münch, R. 15, 22, 105, 247Muskens, G. 15, 247Muyiwa Sanda, A. 37, 247

nation state– and regionalization 113, 204– and sociology's methodological nation-

alism 164, 220– as context for historical formation of

sociology 32, 36, 56, 73, 74, 87– as context of a science policy 16, 36, 74,

126, 137, 168– as context of analysis 48, 125, 197– as context of knowledge producing in-

stitutions 105, 117– as object of analysis 47, 48– as unit of analysis 47– its transformation in EU integration 18National Socialism 83, 88, 96national societies 73, 75, 88, 175,

203–205, 229–231nationalism 36, 66, 100, 160, 163, 171natural sciences 30, 32, 90, 116, 119, 134,

138, 144, 145, 165, 166, 188, 196, 205,216

Nedelmann, B. 15, 238, 247Neisser, H. 202, 247Netherlands 177Neumann, I. 231, 247Nigsch, O. 17, 247Nissen, S. 82NORC (National Opinion Research Cen-

ter) 180normal science 20

264

normalization thesis 33, 89, 97normative ethos of science 20norms, social 20, 21, 24, 25, 31, 39, 162,

209Nova Gorica University 107Nova revija 120Nowotny, H. 15, 21, 46, 58–61, 78, 92, 97,

112, 237–239, 248, 253NS-regime 14, 58, 77, 88, 121

observation, participatory 49, 61, 222,226

Olsen, J. P. 202, 245, 248opportunity structure 131, 193, 228Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziolo-

gie 98Ostpolitik 191Outhwaite, W. 15, 248Oyen, E. 43, 239, 248, 252

paradigm– constructionist p. 20–22, 74, 115– institutionalist p. 22, 74, 210– p. of integration 39– research p. 189, 221– theoretical p. 20, 30, 46, 89, 90, 103,

104paradox of weakness 117, 228Park, P. 37, 248, 254Pelinka, A. 121, 123perception, mutual, of sociologists 53, 73,

79, 85, 86, 224Perestroika 38peripheries in Europe 39, 40, 218, 224Perspektive (journal) 79philosophy 32, 45, 63, 66, 68, 80, 91, 104,

105, 111, 129, 131, 157philosophy of history 33philosophy of science 20, 100Pickel, S. and G. 43, 50, 235, 248

pluralism– democratic p. 41– theoretical p. 45, 46Pohoryles, R. 15, 35, 36, 47, 63, 248Poland 40, 79, 176–179, 183, 188, 191Polanyi, M. 24, 51, 248policies of agenda setting 18, 134, 139,

206, 211political correctness 100political democratization 60, 98political science 38, 68, 165, 202, 225political will 78, 95, 139, 157, 191, 193,

221Popovic, M. 57, 248, 249positivism 33, 105, 122Positivismusstreit 122post-academic science 25, 111, 207post-Yugoslav territories 82, 85, 185, 186,

218, 226, 231postdoctoral lecturing qualification 76,

118, 210Potter, W. G. 48, 249power relations 15, 23, 78, 82–84, 86, 87,

161, 203, 217, 221pragmatism, philosophical 196Praxis Group 59, 80, 173Preglau, M. 16, 246, 249Preseren, F. 88Price, D. de Solla 34, 175, 198, 249Primorska University 66Prisching, M. 107–109, 209, 247, 249privatization 21, 41, 144, 162, 226psychoanalysis 66, 104psychology 96, 109, 129, 188publications, scientific 22, 26, 54, 116,

136, 144, 145, 188, 189, 207, 210, 220,229

Pucnik, J. 120

265

Qualitative Comparative Analysis 43

Radaelli, C. 202, 237, 249Ragin, C. 43, 249Rational Choice Theory 101, 225rationality 32, 55, 113, 221reasoning– line of r. 200– practical r. 24, 50, 51– scientific r. 55, 56, 74– strategic r. 213recognition, scientific 13, 22, 35, 53, 54,

81, 88, 109, 153, 163, 210, 211, 213referendum concerning EU accession 83reflexivity of science 21, 39, 46region 83, 170regionalization 36, 75, 106, 112, 204, 223reification 50relativism, scientific 47repertoires of evaluation 51, 111, 160reputation, scientific 20, 22, 79, 80, 128,

131, 136, 139, 147, 209, 210, 213research– advocacy r. 206, 211, 213– applied r. 97, 168, 209– basic r. 113– contractual r. 91, 110, 113, 114– disciplinary orientation of r. 110– funding structure of r. 74, 110– organizational structure of r. in

projects 110– problem-orientation of r. 227– short-termism of r. 111– tertiary party funds of r. 108, 111, 206– topics of r. 46, 53, 60, 68, 91, 98–100,

102, 111, 115, 137, 138, 157, 168,179, 206, 213, 225

research culture 137, 190research design 18, 27, 29, 47, 48, 198,

213, 222

Research Framework Programmes 48,114, 134, 198, 201, 203, 205, 226, 227

research institutes– appreciation of EU research policy by r.

i. staff 212– competition with universities 53, 109,

112, 113, 135, 226– funding of r. i. 94, 114, 206– institutionalization of sociology at r.

i. 69, 70, 94, 95, 106, 110, 111, 133– sample of r. i. 48, 50, 53, 62, 63, 67,

69– structural opportunities in EU science

policy 112, 134, 137, 219, 226research project 24, 28, 29, 68, 93, 94, 134,

136–138, 178, 189, 193, 221research technique 26, 50return to Europe 39, 41revolution 20, 37, 40reward system of science 111, 135, 136,

209, 210, 225, 227Rifkin, J. 161, 231Roche, M. 15, 249Rockefeller Foundation 141Rohracher, H. 16, 249Rokkan, S. 43, 157, 178, 218, 246, 249Roncevic, B. 60, 235Roose, J. 16, 249Rosenberger, S. 121, 123, 248Rosenmayr, L. 58, 97, 130, 250Rubin, D. B. 57, 250rules, social 23, 24, 31Rupel, D. 120, 125Russia 39, 51, 159, 190, 231Ryen, A. 49, 250Ryle, G. 24

Said, E. 231, 250sample 48, 50, 52, 53, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69,

70, 83, 110, 175, 177, 197, 198, 231

266

Schäfers, B. 203, 250Scharpf, F. 117Schefold, B. 16, 250Scheler, M. 22Scheuch, E. 43, 250Schimmelfennig, F. 202, 250Schneeberger, A. 58, 250Schofer, E. 46, 117, 250Schorske, C. 58, 250Schuch, K. 16, 250Schülein, J. A. 58, 250Schumpeter, J. 104science and technology studies 101, 112,

181science policy 14, 17, 53, 61, 78, 105, 112,

117, 160, 168, 191, 203, 205, 224, 230scientific community– communication in s. c. 206– diversity within s. c. 46– division of labour among s. c. 18, 29, 31,

73, 90, 98, 208– English as lingua franca in s. c. 119,

128– internal cohesion of s. c. 54, 80, 118,

126, 144, 161, 204, 216, 227, 228– internationalization of s. c. 46, 54, 118,

119, 183, 184, 204– national sub-structures of s. c. 46, 51,

73, 90, 92, 97, 98, 139, 161, 166, 183,216, 221, 224, 228

– s. c. as invisible college 34, 175, 198– s. c. as network configuration 145, 198– s. c. as oriented towards a paradigm 21,

34– s. c. as reward system 20, 22, 128, 135,

136, 210– s. c. embedded in nation state 54, 125– s. c. in a bridge function between East

and West 81, 112, 192, 219– size of s. c. 76, 118– socialization in s. c. 46

scientism 33SCPR (Social and Community Planning

Research) 180seinsverbundenes Denken 31self-conceptions of sociologists 87, 91, 92,

97, 110–112, 135, 159, 205, 206, 208,209

sense of social structure 24Serbia 80, 81, 130, 181, 186Shils, E. 30, 56, 57, 197Slaughter, L. 22, 105, 251Slovakia 40, 82, 83, 170Slovene Public Opinion Poll project 61,

93–95, 125, 174, 224Slovene Sociological Association

(SSD) 118, 119, 173Slovenia– and current sociology 61, 64, 66, 68, 78,

92–95, 99, 100, 103, 105, 106, 109,110, 116, 118, 122, 145, 171, 178,226, 227

– and EU accession 17, 18, 42, 82, 83,124, 158, 205, 217

– and EU membership 139, 160, 162, 163,191, 192

– and EU presidency 161– and history of sociology 45, 57, 104,

132– and its history 54, 79, 81–83, 88, 94,

121, 126, 129, 130, 132– and politics 78, 107, 120, 123–125, 131,

144, 179– and university reform 62, 131, 143, 144,

147, 148, 150, 153, 155– as nation state 81– S.s path of transformation 40, 41– science studies in S. 16, 102, 169Slovenia and Austria as neighbouring

countries 13, 53, 56, 85, 87, 171, 230,232

small-n-comparison 48, 49

267

Smelser, N. 42, 114Smith, D. 15, 241, 251Snow, C. P. 73social anthropology 66social informatics 93, 146Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) 116,

145social sciences– characteristics of s. s. in contrast to nat-

ural sciences 116, 134, 144, 166, 188,216

– cosmopolitan turn in s. s. 36– historical formation of s. s. 17, 30, 32– individualization in s. s. 101– interpreted due to cumulative model of

scientific development 55– paradigmatic shift of s. s. towards cul-

tural studies 100–102– public acceptance of s. s. 25, 35, 211– s. s. as perceived by students 146– scientific universalism of s. s. 25– status of s. s. within Euroepan research

policies 216– status of s. s. within European research

policies 138, 227socialism 40, 132Socialist Alliance of Working People 79sociological theory 34, 195, 226, 230sociology– as a crisology 35– as a perspective 34, 197– as a scientific discipline 16–18, 29–31,

33, 52, 75, 87, 120, 197, 216– as a third culture 30, 32, 90– Catholic s. 58, 104– cognitive dimension of s. 21, 197– cognitive tasks of s. 206, 229– comparative s. 14, 15, 43–46, 49, 50, 94,

140, 167, 169, 171, 177, 178, 192,201, 203, 222, 231

– cultural turn in s. 101, 102, 225, 226– economic s. 64

– economization in s. 33, 73, 113, 115,150, 214, 225

– European dimension of s. 15, 18, 71,166–168, 170, 198, 215, 229

– European s. 15, 16, 60, 97, 166, 167,169, 171, 183, 184, 215, 223

– fragmentation of s. 183– history of s. 17, 33, 34, 37, 55, 56, 58,

60, 73, 74, 97, 101, 116, 225– institutional conditions of s. 71, 123,

205, 218– institutional dimension of s. 33, 38– interpretive s. 50, 89, 197– national traditions of s. 37, 46, 53,

56–58, 73, 75, 81, 90, 98, 126, 164,165, 168, 204, 218, 226, 231

– neighbouring disciplines of s. 30, 31,127, 129

– political s. 15, 16, 100, 116, 120, 127,163, 225

– positivist s. 89– professional associations of s. 31, 76,

114, 163, 204, 216, 228, 229– public recognition of s. 115, 227– s. as a scientific discipline 14, 18,

55–57, 222, 224– s. of ageing 97– s. of arts 66, 98– s. of culture 64–66, 95– s. of education 64, 109, 153, 154, 171,

230– s. of European integration 14, 16, 98,

225– s. of gender 64, 66– s. of health 167– s. of inequalities 98– s. of knowledge 13, 14, 17–22, 26, 27,

29, 31, 47, 53, 57, 74, 222, 223, 230– s. of religion 66, 154– s. of science 19, 21, 22, 53, 58, 101, 102,

171, 210, 225, 230– s. of sociology 18, 19, 46– s. of sports 98

268

– s. of transformation 98– s. of work 64, 98, 153– scientific schools of s. 16, 33– traditions in s. 30– translation function of s. 35, 197SOLIS (Social Science Literature Infor-

mation System) 38Sorbonne Declaration 48Sparschuh, V. 38spatial proximity 14, 45, 81, 87, 172, 188,

224Spencer, H. 170Stability and Growth Pact 42Stadler, F. 58, 238, 251Stalin, J. 143standards– academic s. 46, 55, 135, 136, 167, 168,

183– moral s. 35, 177– s. of living 14, 41, 134, 162– s. of quality control 149–151, 156, 214,

215Stehr, N. 17, 19, 22, 23, 27, 28, 51, 243,

246, 251Stone Sweet, A. 15, 251strategies of sociologists– in conceptualizing change in institu-

tional landscape 110, 135– practices of distinction 109–111, 135,

208, 210– project s. 138, 139, 191, 206, 211, 213,

216– publication s. 55, 118, 206, 210, 211– s. of de-hierarchization 219– s. of emancipation 87, 219, 224– s. of transformation 18, 29, 51, 59, 127,

159, 205Strathern, M. 21, 251stratification, social 31, 80, 93, 99Strauss, A. 49, 52, 71, 126, 193, 195–201,

236, 240, 244, 251

structural functionalism 196structural opportunities 78, 89, 139, 164,

176, 186, 192, 193, 207, 215, 219, 221,224, 227

structure, social 47, 53, 57, 93, 114, 127,169, 177

students’ movement 77, 121, 131study curricula 108, 146, 148, 151, 210Süß, W. 16, 252Switzerland 128, 182symbolic interactionism 170, 196system of professions 31, 32System Theory 60, 80, 104, 170Szacki, J. 33, 34Sznaider, N. 36, 157, 234Sztompka, P. 37, 43, 98, 225

Tadic, B. 80tangential coalitions 217, 219, 224Tashakkori, A. 43, 252Teichler, U. 16, 252The Unemployed of Marienthal 96theory formation 34, 91, 103, 224theory generation 18, 43, 45, 104, 195,

196, 200, 201, 223Therborn, G. 15, 252thick description 51Thum, K. P. 58, 252Thévenot, L. 51, 160Tiryakian, E. 15, 215, 252Tito, J. B. 104, 120, 126Todorova, M. 231, 252Torrance, J. 58, 252Tos, N. 61, 180trans-disciplinarity 26trans-national co-operation– cognitive and emotional aspects of t.

c. 221

269

– dynamic trajectory model of t. c. 192,193, 223, 229

– examples of t. c. 52, 61, 145, 149, 154,172, 199, 200

– factors supporting t. c. 84, 188, 190,191, 217, 229

– level of institutionalization of t. c. 84,221

– social practice of t. c. 187transformation– double t. 39– forms of t. 40– paths of t. 40– t. of university staff 131Traxler, F. 78, 246, 252trust 179, 186, 187, 193Turkey 100, 183Turner, R. 128typology 44, 48, 96, 178

United Kingdom 73, 130United States 58, 77, 86, 91, 94, 121, 129,

130, 132, 145, 151, 160, 166, 170, 171,173, 220

universalism, scientific 20, 46, 127, 156universities– changing organization of u. 110,

142–144, 152– changing role of u. 16, 21, 149– cohort change at u. 34, 131, 207– concurrence clause between u. 107– elite u. 166, 217– entrepreneurial u. 22, 67, 105, 106, 111,

133, 144, 150– Humboldt model of u. 145, 149, 152– institutionalization of sociology at

u. 58, 91, 94, 110, 112, 115, 121, 129,130, 133, 147

– numerus clausus system at u. 67, 107,147

– private u. 53, 208, 226– privatisation of u. 107

– public u. 67, 106–108, 151, 208, 215– regional u. 64, 106, 107, 148, 154, 213– relationship to non-academic research

institutes 53, 113, 135, 137, 206,212

– sample of u. 62– u. and reward system in science 20,

141– u. in CEE states 81, 149, 185– u. of applied sciences 107, 108, 122,

133, 147, 209, 226University Council (Universitätsrat) 143university departments 48, 50, 52, 53, 62,

63, 69, 128, 136, 146, 153, 199, 208,218

university system 18, 62, 111, 121, 126,135, 142, 143, 148, 149, 201, 228

Urry, J. 15, 252Usenicnik, A. 104USSR 86

Vaughan-Whitehead, D. 15, 252vernacular language 224Verstehen 50Verwiebe, S. 15, 246, 253Viale, R. 22, 105, 253Vicic, V. 57, 253Vienna Centre 176–179, 187, 191Vienna Circle 104Vienna Institute for Advanced Studies and

Scientific Research (Institut für HöhereStudien, IHS) 60, 110, 132

Vienna University 178Vink, M. 202, 253Vobruba, G. 15, 156–158, 234, 237, 253Voice of America 130

Wagner, F. P. 36, 39, 40Wagner, P. 17, 36, 39, 56, 58, 241, 243,

247, 253Waldheim, K. 119, 121

270

Wallace, C. 40, 41Weber, M. 15, 42, 157, 161, 170Weingart, P. 21, 22, 51, 59, 110, 135, 159,

160, 205, 208, 246, 252, 253welfare state 122, 123, 227West-East relation in Europe 35, 39, 47Westphalen, F. 58, 253Whitley, R. 21, 253, 254Wiese, L. von 104Wieser, G. 58, 234, 243, 244, 254Witschel, G. 16, 57, 254Wittgenstein, L. 104Wittrock, B. 36, 253, 254Wolff, L. 231, 254Woolgar, S. 21, 244, 254World Value Survey 94, 174, 180World War II 14, 57, 88, 119, 121,

126–129, 191

xenophobia 36, 160, 163

Yearley, S. 21, 254

Yugoslav Sociological Association(JSA) 80

Yugoslavia– green border between Y. and Aus-

tria 85– perceptions of Y. 85, 86– post-socialist processes in Y. 68– research on Y. 93, 178– scientific community in Y. 80, 94, 95,

177– separation of Slovenia from Y. 81, 82– Y. as former multi-ethnic state 76, 125,

126, 161

Zeisel, H. 96Zilian, H. G. 58, 97, 113, 238, 241, 254Zimmermann, A. 16, 254Zizek, S. 66Zuckerman, H. 17, 21, 22, 210, 254ZUMA (Zentrum für Umfragen, Method-

en, und Analysen) 180

271