Problems in partnership realisation: communication and co-

operation of scholars in the field among countries and among

different fields in a country

Palmira Jucevičienė,Kaunas University of Technology,Lithuanian Educational Research Association

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh, 20-23 September 2000

1. Pre-history of the topic actualisation

In 1999, presenting a report at the ECER’99 conference in Lahti, the author of this paper called for a special discussion on the problems related to researchers’ competence development in post-soviet countries. The discussion was grounded on the following:

the need of common knowledge in education in Europe, and on a specific role of universities in European development1;

the importance of co-operation between West and East European universities in forming common knowledge of Europe by both parties;

a problematic situation in Central and Eastern Europe in the acquisition of Western experience and the creation of a new quality educational knowledge (Sting, Wulf, 1994), and, consequently, on great expectations, related to the development of a new generation of researchers in education, particularly emphasizing doctoral studies;

Lithuanian case on a problematic development of a young generation of researchers due to:

1) rather strong administration of the doctoral studies process and degree quality from outside the university, mostly carried out by the officials from natural sciences who advocate positivistic methodology and normative research strategy;2) a lack of discussion between scholars from natural sciences and researchers in education;3) deficiency of new knowledge in education among the old generation scholars in education;

the necessity of reconstruction and development of knowledge, and the importance of Western universities’ help there, and also in the development of a generation of young scholars, especially by the means of doctoral studies.

1 “…Europe is not only that of the Euro, of the banks and the economy; it must be a Europe of knowledge as well. We must strengthen and build upon the intellectual, cultural, social and technical dimensions of our continent. These have to a large extent been shaped by its universities, which continue to play a pivotal role for their development.” (‘Joint Declaration on Harmonisation of the Architecture of the European Higher Education System’, Paris, 1998)

1

After the discussion on the problem in the symposium of the network “Research

Partnerships in Education” (ECER’99), scholars from two countries – Canada and the United

Kingdom, professors Lorraine Savoie-Zajc (Quebec University) and David Bridges (East

England University) offered their assistance. Two more scholars also had a real influence on

solving the problem – Dr.Terrence Henry McLaughlin (University of Cambridge, United

Kingdom) and Prof.Lennart Svensson (Lund University, Sweden).

The academicians implemented the following activities:

1. Professor Lorraine Savoie-Zajc created the project “Changing Role and Principles of

Educational Research: Where are the Baltic Countries in a Western Context?”,

financed by the Baltic Initiative Programme (Canada), with participation of Quebec

University in Hull and Kaunas University of Technology (KTU). Under the

conditions of the project, Prof. Lorraine Savoie-Zajc visited Lithuania in June 2000

and delivered three seminars for the scholars and doctoral students of Lithuanian

universities (with more than 200 participants in total in three one-day seminars) on

qualitative research, particularly, on action research. Two Lithuanian scholars (one of

them - the President of Lithuanian Educational Research Association - LERA) visited

Quebec University and delivered two seminars for Canadian scholars.

2. Professor Lennart Svensson delivered a set of seminars for scholars and doctoral

students in education from all Lithuanian universities in the frame of ERASMUS

mobility between Lund University and Kaunas University of Technology project.

3. Professor David Bridges had planned a seminar for the Baltic scholars competence

development for May 2000, which was postponed till December 2000, due to some

financial problems.

4. Dr. Terrence Mc.Laughlin continues delivering a one-week intensive course on

contemporary philosophy in education for Lithuanian doctoral students. This winter

he is coming to Kaunas University of Technology for the fourth year in a row.

Kaunas University of Technology2 has become the link, which enables the scholars of

Western countries to share their experience with their colleagues from Lithuania and the Baltic

countries. The underlying idea promoted by KTU was to invite to methodological seminars

people not only from the field of education, but also from natural sciences, aiming to introduce

communication and, possibly, partnership between Lithuanian scholars from social and natural

sciences.2 Kaunas University of Technology represented by the author of the paper and its researchers group in education has some partnership experience inside and outside Lithuania (expertise work on the governmental, municipality and schools level, state projects in Lithuania, PHARE, SOCRATES, Fulbright projects on the international level, individual co-operation with scholars from Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France, Germany, etc.).

2

Did the activities of the scholars from Western countries influence communication and

co-operation of scholars in developing new competencies, particularly – in bringing up a new

generation of researchers? Why is this question urgent for research?

2. Problem framing

Knowledge and research are becoming more and more interdisciplinary and even

multidisciplinary. This idea, important for the scholars’ present work transformations, has been

emphasised in many books by P.Drucker (1992, 1993, etc.). Then, the tendencies of integration

were highly evaluated by Barnett (1990) as crucial issues leading to broader co-operation of

scholars and cross-disciplinary research projects.

However, research results at four Western European countries (Cuthbert, 1996) and the

investigation carried out at Kaunas University of Technology by the author of the paper and her

students (Jucevičienė, Poškienė, Kudirkaitė, Damanskas, 1999; Poškienė, 1998) claim that

researchers’ commitment to their discipline is extremely high. Thus, the danger of “closing”

himself/ herself in the field emerges which is especially obvious in post-soviet countries.

The problem of co-operation among scholars in different fields, especially in social and

natural sciences is becoming urgent in Lithuania. A clear example to this has been given in the

pre-history of the paper topic actualisation. Similar, and sometimes even more dramatic, problem

lies in a certain field of knowledge. As an example, a lack of basic communication in social

sciences in Lithuania can be pointed out; a lone scholar often works “in the desert” (Jucevičienė,

1999). Research carried out together with student I.Milišiūnaitė (Jucevičienė, Milišiūnaitė, 1998;

Milišiūnaitė, 1998) proved that Lithuanian researchers (especially researchers in education) face

rather obvious problems of co-operation in their field in the context of Lithuanian universities.

This can negatively influence young researchers’ development, particularly – doctoral students

raised up in such environment.

Research carried out by the author of the paper together with a former doctoral student

I.Milišiūnaitė (Jucevičienė, Milišiūnaitė, 1998; Milišiūnaitė, 1998) has proved that doctoral

students feel lack the communication and co-operation with their supervisors. At the same time,

the latest ideas about graduate and postgraduate education require the opposite way of initiative,

and sometimes graduates’ actions have to take the form of extremely close co-operation, as in

the models of participatory action research and action-based collaborative inquiry (Wei, 1997;

Oja&Smulyan, 1989; Reason, 1994a; Zuber-Skerritt, 1996).

3

Considering present tendencies towards interdisciplinarity/multidisciplinarity,

researchers’ co-operation, and research and studies globalisation, on the one hand, and

unsatisfactory situation regarding cooperation of scholars in a post-soviet country (as it is in

Lithuania), on the other hand, the problem of development of co-operation between researchers

is urgent not only for improving the practices, but for research as well. Description of the factors

which can influence solving the problem in most efficient ways is an important research

problem. Unfortunately, we have not succeed in finding particular research results on the

problem.

Therefore, the following research question stands out: will international activities aiming

at raising methodological culture of scholars and doctoral students in a post-soviet country

influence communication and co-operation in the academic community in post-soviet countries?

The research question was the main means to help realise the demand addressed at the

ECER’99 conference – namely, to benefit from the experience accumulated by Western

countries. In this aspect, partnership ties were developed between Kaunas University of

Technology and Western universities - University of Quebec in Hull and Lund University in

order to aid the development social sciences in the Baltic States, and especially to develop

competence of young researchers in educational sciences.

As a matter of fact, partnership of several types was necessary for the case:

a) among representatives of the main institutions implementing the goal mentioned

above – Canadian, English, Swedish, and Lithuanian scholars of educational science

(referred to as basic partners);

b) among the basic partners and the scholars in educational science representing other

Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian universities and participating in the project (referred

to as joint partners);

c) among the basic partners and doctoral students, representatives of Lithuanian, Latvian

and Estonian universities participating in the project;

d) among the basic partners and representatives of natural sciences;

e) among basic Lithuanian partners (LERA, KTU) and Lithuanian representatives of

natural sciences;

f) among basic and joint partners, as well as representatives of natural sciences in

different countries;

g) among basic and joint partners, as well as doctoral students in educational science.

The paper will analyse the above mentioned partnership types in order to answer the

following questions:

Has partnership been achieved in all cases?

4

In what cases has the partnership been achieved in an easier way and has become

more efficient?

Research hypothesis: international communication and co-operation among scholars in a

certain field of knowledge (for instance, social sciences; education in particular) among different

countries (including countries in transition) is easier and more efficient, than communication and

co-operation of scholars representing different fields (education and natural sciences) even inside

one country.

3. Research methodology

Aiming to answer the questions described above the author of the paper has carried out

research using case study and inquiry.

The case analysed was the Western Universities Initiative Programme “Development of

Young Researchers Generation in Education in the Baltic Countries” implemented in the frame

of the BIP project “Changing Role and Principles of Educational Research: Where are the Baltic

Countries in a Western Context?” and SOCRATES Programme: Project “Higher Education”

(ERASMUS), mentioned in the pre-history of the topic formulation.

The author of the paper was the chief organiser of the seminars which encouraged

participation of scholars and doctoral students in the field of education and other fields, including

natural sciences.

Academicians from natural sciences were invited to participate in seminars which

analysed methodological problems of the positivistic and anti-positivistic approaches in research

and implementation of quantitative and qualitative methods. In this case we, researchers in

education, were striving for discussion with Lithuanian experts in natural sciences who had been

asked by the Science Council of Lithuania to evaluate the quality of dissertations in social

sciences in Lithuania and who kept strong positivistic approach towards research. Invitations

were sent out to all the members of the Science Council, Qualifications Committee, Study

Quality Centre and the Department of the Science and Study of the Ministry of the Education

and Science, and other official structures which have managerial or administrative impact on the

social sciences and education development

Members of Lithuanian Educational Research Association and Lithuanian universities

were also invited to participate. Invitations were also sent to the Estonian researchers whom we

had met at ECER'99; also to Latvian and Estonian universities. In addition, the information was

posted on the Internet.

5

Seven seminars were organised with numerous participation of scholars and doctoral

students (see Table 1).

The inquiry. All the scholars and students were asked to fill out a questionnaire created

by the author of the report. The aim of the inquiry was to find out the attitudes of the scholars

and doctoral students on different types of co-operation.

The questionnaire was given to every participant once, indiscriminately of the number of

seminars he/she attended. The questionnaires were given to 191 participants, 81 were returned.

The respondents’ characteristics are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3.

Table 1

Age Work experience18-25 26-35 36-45 >45 <5 6-20 >20

Number of answers 2 26 34 17 7 39 35

% 2.5 32.9 43 21.5 8.6 48.1 43.2

Table 2

Sex DegreeWomen Men Not

doctorDoctoral student

Doctor Habil. doctor

Number of answers 62 17 2 47 24 5

% 78.5 21.5 2.6 60.3 30.8 6.4

Table 3

Representatives from universities Number of answers %Vilnius University VU 4 5.3Kaunas University of Technology KTU 23 30.7Vilnius Pedagogical University VPU 17 22.7Klaipeda University KU 2 2.7Vytautas Magnus University VMU 7 9.3The Law Academy of Lithuania LAL 3 4.0Siauliai University SU 8 10.7Lithuanian Institute of Physical Education LIPE 4 5.3Kaunas University of Medicine KUM 2 2.7Pedagogic University of Daugavpils PUD 3 4.0Tallinn Pedagogical University TPU 1 1.3University of Tartu UT 1 1.3

Three "closed answer" questions and six "open answer" questions were given. They were

as follows:

1. Do you think it is worth inviting representatives of other research fields to participate in the discussions on the problems of Educational Science? 2. If yes, please give reasons. 3. If no, please give reasons. 4. Do you think it is necessary to have partnership between educational scientists and doctoral students; educational scientists and scientists from other research fields;

6

educational scientists and doctoral studies in other fields; doctoral students in education and representatives of other fields.5. In your opinion, what are the incentives to develop the above mentioned partnership?6. In your opinion, what are obstacles to the partnership?7. In your opinion, with respect to the development of educational science, is it important to develop partnership between: educational scholars in the Baltic countries; doctoral students in education in the Baltic countries; educational scholars and doctoral students in the Baltic and Western countries; educational scholars and doctoral students in the Baltic and North American countries; only Lithuanian educational scholars and doctoral students; other.8. If it is important to develop these partnerships, please give your reasons.9. If it is not important to develop these partnerships, please give your reasons.

The respondents were also asked to indicate demographic data (university, represented

academic degree, years of teaching at the university, age, sex).

As a separate case, there might lie Dr. T.H. McLaughlin's seminars which have been

offered for Lithuanian doctoral students at Kaunas University of Technology. But survey of the

participants was not carried out in this instance. The case is used only for the analysis of co-

operation between basic partners.

4. Research findings

4.1. Results of the case study

a) Co-operation among the representatives of the main institutions implementing the

program, i.e. Canadian, English, Swedish and Lithuanian scholars (basic partners; they are also

the responsible persons of their projects, see Picture 1) can be evaluated as fruitful because of the

following:

Prof. L.Savoie-Zajc and Prof. L.Svensson were satisfied with the Baltic scholars and

doctoral students who attended their seminars; the professors highly commented on

working with KTU partners on the organisation of the seminars.

The ERASMUS project implementing co-operation between Lund university (Prof.

L.Svensson) and KTU was decided to be continued;

Prof. L.Savoie-Zajc expressed the idea of establishing joint doctoral studies at Quebec

university and Kaunas University of Technology.

Dr. T.H. McLaughlin keeps coming to Kaunas to deliver his seminars and has

positively evaluated course-papers and examination results of the students. Moreover,

Dr.T.H.McLaughlin and Prof. P.Jucevičienė have carried out joint research and have

published a paper together. Dr. T.H. McLaughlin prepared a special set of his articles

7

in the form of a book translated into Lithuanian and published by KTU. Dr. T.H.

McLaughlin’s co-operation with Lithuanian scholars was highly evaluated: he was

awarded Doctor Honoris Causa by Kaunas University of Technology in 1999.

b) Co-operation among basic partners and scholars in educational science representing

other Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian universities and participating in the project (joint

partners) was created. However, certain universities, e.g. Klaipėda University, Lithuanian

Academy of Physical Training and others, were represented by a small number of participants,

and a major Latvian university, Riga University, did not delegate any scholars. It has to be

pointed out as a special feature, that communication was carried out according to the principle of

a "star" with the main communicator (in this case, the main organiser of the seminars, i.e. KTU)

providing interaction with other partners (see Picture 1).

During the seminars, special communication (in the form of interaction) was established

between Quebec University and Latvian and Estonian university representatives (see Picture 1).

c) Co-operation among basic partners and Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian doctoral

students was established in the same way as in case b). Doctoral students from other fields of

social science (not education) came only from Kaunas University of Technology, but they were

much more passive, compared with doctoral students in education.

d), e), f) There was no co-operation between representatives of natural sciences and the

partners or participants in the project, because not a single scholar from natural science answered

the call (the invitation had been signed by three organisations - Kaunas University of

Technology (the main organiser), Lithuanian Academy of Science (Dept. of the Humanities and

Social Sciences) and Lithuanian Educational Research Association) and no representatives

participated in the seminars.

g) Co-operation among basic and joint partners, as well as doctoral students in education

had the same topography as in case b), only the communication was not so interactive and

intense as in case b).

h) Some plans for the future co-operation (see Picture 2) not only between Baltic-Western

universities, but also between Western partners, were discussed during the presentation of the

implementation of the Canadian – Lithuanian (BIP) and Swedish – Lithuanian (ERASMUS)

projects at the Research Partnership in Education Symposium “Combining Research Expertise to

Build New Research Competencies in Education” at the ECER’2000 conference in Edinburgh.

Swedish and British professors supported the idea of Swedish doctoral students’ (Latvians and

Estonians would also be welcome) joining Lithuanian doctoral students for the seminar that

would be provided by the British professor.

8

9

KTU - Kaunas University of Technology, LithuaniaVMU - Vytautas Magnus University, LithuaniaKMU - Kaunas Medical University, LithuaniaVU - Vilnius University, Lithuania, LithuaniaLAPE - Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education, LithuaniaVPU - Vilnius Pedagogical University, Lithuania, LithuaniaLAL - The Law Academy of Lithuania, LithuaniaSU - Siauliai University, LithuaniaKU - Klaipeda University, LithuaniaPUD - Pedagogic University of Daugavpils, LatviaTPU - Tallinn Pedagogical University, EstoniaUT - University of Tartu, EstoniaLU - Lund University, SwedenUQAH - Quebec University in Hull, Canada

Picture 1. The communication between joint partners of the program and its first developments

1 – Contacts which initiated the project2 – Especially close contacts preferring future

cooperation 3 – Contacts established during project implementation4 – Contacts established during project implementation with the statement for future co-operation5 – Previously existing contacts strengthened during project implementation

10

Existing co-operation

Plans for co-operation

Picture 2. Co-operation among Western-Baltic and Western-Western partners

Canada

Sweden

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

GreatBritain

4.2 Results of inquiry

We researched attitudes towards communication and cooperation asking scholars and

doctoral students the following question: “Is it necessary for researchers in education to invite

representatives of other fields of science to participate in a discussion on methodological

problems in education?”

Table 4

Is it necessary for researchers in education to invite representatives of other fields of science?

Number of answers %No 2 2.5

Don’t know 4 5Yes 74 92.5

It can be seen in Table 4, that 9 respondents out of 10 answered positively. Taking the

years of teaching at the university into account (3 positive answers, 2 – “don’t know”, 1 negative

answer), the survey could be summarized along the following lines: the younger the age and the

shorter the experience of teaching at the university is, the more positive attitudes are likely to

appear; though no significant statistical difference could be observed (respectively p1=0.443,

p2=0.283) (see Table 5).

Table 5

Is it necessary for researchers in education to invite representatives of other fields of science?

Age Years of teaching at the university

18-25 26-35 36-45 > 45 <5 6-20 >20Average 3.0000 2.9231 2.9394 2.7647 3.0000 2.9487 2.8235

Standard Deviation 0,000 0.2717 0.3482 0.5623 0.0000 0.2235 0.5205

Doctoral students were most inclined to answer positively, doctors of science – less, and

doctors of habilitation – the least. However, the results revealed no significant difference

(p=0.178).

Table 6

Is it necessary for researchers in education to invite representatives of other fields of science?

Scholar Doctoral student

Doctor Habil. Doctor

Average 3.0000 2.9231 2.9394Standard Deviation 0,000 0.2717 0.3482

11

Interestingly enough, more female respondents than the male ones approve inviting

representatives of other fields of science to the seminars, the difference being statistically

important (p=0.018).

Table 7

Is it necessary for researchers in education to invite representatives of other fields of science?

Sex Women Men

Average 2.9508 2.7059Standard Deviation 0,2844 0.5879

Picture 3 reveals answers to the question if partnership among different associates is

necessary: 9 respondents out of 10 think that partnership among Baltic and European countries is

beneficial; 7 out of 10 give priority to the necessity of cooperation among the representatives of

North American and Baltic countries.

1. Between Baltic and West European countries scholars and doctoral students in education (BESDE).2. Between educational scientists (ES) and doctoral students in education (ED);3. Between scholars in educational scientists (ES) and other fields (FS);4. Between Baltic and North American countries (BASDE);5. Between Baltic States scholars in education (BSE);6. Between Baltic States doctoral students in education (BDE);7. Between doctoral students in education (ED) and the representatives of other fields (F);8. Between scholars in education (ES) and doctoral students in other fields (FD);

Picture 3. Is the partnership needed?

Almost 9 respondents out of 10 see advantages in partnership between scholars and

doctoral students in education, and more than 8 out of 10 – between scholars in education and

the ones in other fields. However, only about half of the respondents consider positive

partnership between academicians in education and doctoral students in other fields, as well as

collaboration of doctoral students in education and scholars in other fields. As a matter of fact, 7

12

56,859,366,770,487,7

90,171,682,7

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

% of respondents, having answered positively

Types of partnership

out of 10 respondents think that collaboration among the scholars in the Baltic countries

(similarly to possible partnership between North America and the Baltics) is necessary; a little

less than 7 out of 10 positive answers refer to cooperation among doctoral students in the Baltic

countries.

Distribution of opinions along the lines of age, years of teaching at the university,

academic degree, and sex can be seen in table 8.

Table 8

Demographic factors

Average Between BESDE

Between ES and ED

Between FS and ES

Between BASDE

Between BSE

Between BDE

Between ED and F

Between ES and FD

Age18 - 2526 - 3536 – 45above 45

1,00000,87501,00001,0000

1,00000,88001,00000,8125

1,00000,72000,90910,9375

0,50000,75000,81820,7500

1,00000,66670,87880,6250

1,00000,66670,81820,5625

0,50000,72000,57580,5625

0,50000,64000,57580,5625

Years of theaching at the universitytill 56-20 above 20

0,60000,97301,0000

0,71430,97370,8788

0,85710,84210,8788

0,60000,78380,7647

0,60000,75680,7647

0,60000,75680,6765

0,85710,60530,5758

0,71430,63160,5152

Degree/ positionNot researcherDoctoral stud.DoctorHabil. Doctor

1,00000,93331,00001,0000

1,00000,93330,91670,7500

1,00000,80000,91671,0000

0,50000,71110,91300,7500

0,00000,71110,95650,5000

0,00000,73330,82610,2500

0,50000,62220,62500,5000

0,00000,55560,70830,5000

Genderfemalesmales

0,96720,9286

0,93440,8667

0,83610,9333

0,77050,7857

0,77050,7143

0,75410,5714

0,60660,6667

0,57380,6667

- statistically significant difference - slight difference

Positive attitudes towards partnership along all 8 criteria were expressed, first of all, by

researchers holding a degree of doctor in science, secondly, by doctoral students, thirdly, by

doctors of habilitation, with the answers bearing no significant difference. Assurance for

partnership, according to the years of respondents’ teaching at the university, was expressed by

the individuals having, in the first place, 6 to 20 years, and, secondly, up to 5 years of

experience. However, this tendency appears to be statistically significant (p=0.002) only in the

case of partnership between scholars and doctoral students in education. At the same time,

expressing positive opinion towards co-operation of Baltic and European scholars and doctoral

students (the difference bearing statistical significance p=0.000) has been expresseded in the

following way: the longer years of teaching at the university, the more positive attitude towards

13

partnership has been revealed. According to sex, there has been no difference in reference to

partnership; disagreement appears when voicing opinions on co-operation within a discipline or

among disciplines: men, more than women, support this kind of partnership, the difference,

however, being not statistically significant.

The statement claiming that only Lithuanian scientists and doctoral students in education

should collaborate did not enjoy any success – only 11 percent of the respondents supported it.

Among them, male doctors of science with relatively few (up to 5) years of experience of

teaching at the university predominated.

The following opinions dominated among the answers to the following open question:

“What could facilitate partnership?”: “mobility of scholars and doctoral students”,

“international projects, seminars, and conferences”. Then, answers, such as “integrated

research”, “positive attitudes towards partnership”, “participation in doctoral studies

committees”, Lithuanian association of research in education”, “departments of education”, and

other have been presented.

Answers to the question “What are the obstacles to partnership?” were as follows: “lack

of finances”, “being limited to one discipline”, “indifference”, “inertia”, “absence of

communication tradition and communication strategies”, “lack of communication itself”, “too

big emphasis on teaching among scholars and doctoral students”, “ineffectively communicated

and used information”, “ignorance in science methodology”, “competitive atmosphere”, “the

tendency of doubting the competence of others and one’s own”, “low status of educational

science”, and “conservatism”.

Having supported the invitation of representatives of other fields of science to a

discussion, the individuals specified that this would “present a more versatile view”, “help

realize the position of educational science among other sciences”, “offer a perspective of other

branches of science”, “enable using mature methodological rules of natural sciences”, “allow

representatives of other sciences acknowledge the meaning and problems of education”, “help

solve problems of educational science and realize the causes of negative attitudes towards

education”.

Only a small number of respondents were against inviting scholars of other fields of

science to a discussion, and they chose not to give reasons for this; the only explanation found

was the suggestion “to try solve the problems among the partners in the same field.”

Answers to the question “Why is international partnership necessary?” ranged form

such opinions, as “sharing the experience of other countries is beneficial”, “aid the development

of educational science”, “support integration in science” to “the necessity of singling out general

tendencies”.

14

5. Discussion

The results of the case study do not force any discussion to validate the major line of the

research hypothesis. The hypothesis has been proved: the situation investigated did not lead to

establishing contacts or co-operation between the scholars of social sciences and natural

sciences.

In spite of the fact, that scholars in social sciences, namely, in education, delivered quite

obvious and inviting signals, representatives of natural sciences did not respond.

Is it possible to claim that meetings and discussions conducted facilitated communication

and co-operation among scholars and doctoral students in education both inside the country and

internationally? The data obtained allow to answer positively, but it is worth investigating the

problem deeper, attempting to reveal the development of the phenomenon and the underlying

attitudes of individuals.

It should be noted, that some of the joint partners in the project had had some kind of

communication and co-operation. In Picture 1 line 5) points out this kind of relationship. It is

evident, that it basically existed inside the countries (Lithuania and Estonia). There was only one

international link, between Sweden and Lithuania. I would like to single out especially strong

contacts (line 2), namely, the relationship between two scholars, representing Canada (Quebec

University) and Lithuania (Kaunas University of Technology), which not only enabled the

implementation of the BIP project, but (in addition to facilitating the development of broader

cooperation between the two universities) allowed to renew the contacts, almost interrupted 10

years ago, that is, facilitated communication among scholars in the Baltic countries (line 3).

In spite of the fact that Picture 1 does not reflect the establishment of additional ties

among scholars and doctoral students in educational science at Lithuanian universities, the fact

is, that their communication during the seminars has definitely aided their future communication.

At this point, I would like to go back to the survey and consider the attitudes towards

partnership and their meaning. As seen in Picture 2, the emphasis has been placed, first of all, on

communication and co-operation between scholars and doctoral students in Western countries,

on the one hand, and the Baltic countries, on the other hand. This is obvious and it fully answers

the needs described in the pre-history of the topic actualisation. It should be noted, that this kind

of necessity increases along the years of experience of teaching at the university. Among the

attitudes expressed, co-operation between scholars and doctoral students in the field of education

comes second. The fact that international co-operation, encompassing a large number of

15

countries, has been given the priority, in contrast to co-operation inside the country, reveals the

idea that experience of foreign countries in educational research is more important than the that

of the local ones. Moreover, the multidisciplinary attitude of the respondents, manifesting itself

in favoured co-operation between scholars in educational science and in other sciences, leaves

hope. The respondents holding this view do not have long years of work experience (see Table

5), are mostly female (see Table 7), and doctoral students (see Table 6).

The fourth position has been taken by the respondents’ attitudes towards co-operation

between scholars in North America, on the one hand, and the Baltics, on the other. Even being

the fourth in a row, the group of answers represents a high number – two thirds – of opinions in

favour of this kind of co-operation. Similarly, the fifth position has gone to the positive opinion

on co-operation between scholars in education and doctoral students in other fields, which was

expressed by a high number - more than a half - of the respondents. It should be noted that the

dominating position has been taken by co-operation between West European countries and the

Baltic countries, if compared with corresponding research data on North American and Baltic

co-operation. The difference is statistically important (p<0.001).

The case of Western scholars’ initiative in helping the researchers of the Baltic countries

raise their competence is quite special due to the fact that a Canadian scholar was given a credit

by seminar participants. A supposition could be made that if not for the impressive example of

Canada, the difference between the answers regarding co-operation with West European or

North American scholars and delivered some other time could have been even bigger. This

enables a supposition that a number - one third - of the respondents bear quite a controversial

view concerning geographical aspect of co-operation. It allows to implement the idea of Europe

of knowledge, but at the same time it is too narrow in order to share the idea of Europe for

globalisation.

A question might be offered for a discussion: why the attitudes supporting partnership

were expressed by not very young (6 to 20 years of teaching at the university) doctors of science,

and not doctoral students or young doctors of science, likely to possess the latest, though not too

broad, knowledge. As a matter of fact, in the process of communication and co-operation, not

very young doctors of science encounter a number of problems related to foreign language

barriers or reconciliation of their own knowledge and Western experience. Apparently, the facts

characterising both parties are not crucial determinants of the position under investigation.

Presumably, older doctors of science, more than the younger ones, are critical towards their own

experience (this requires serious investigation). On the one hand, this could have been

determined objectively; on the other hand, there is still a threat for young scholars to become

“closed” in a limited environment. In case this supposition appears to be true, there will have to

16

be additional means involved to solve the problem. The fact that the female party of the

respondents appeared to be more flexible in evaluating international contacts (see the results of

the survey) also calls for special attention.

Summarising the results of the Western scholars’ initiative for the Baltic countries case

study, the following conclusions could be drawn:

The hypothesis, stating that international communication and co-operation among

scholars in a certain field of knowledge (for instance, social sciences, education in particular)

among different countries (including countries in transition) is easier and more efficient, than

communication and co-operation of scholars representing different fields (education and natural

sciences) even inside one country, has been proved. Considering the present situation in

Lithuanian research and studies administration on a macro-level, it is evident that the officials

(essential part of them being representatives of natural sciences) keep to a strictly positivistic

approach in evaluating results of research in social sciences; moreover, as has become evident in

the case analysed, when invited to participate in the seminars on methodology in social sciences,

they were not active demonstrating willingness to share knowledge and did not respond to the

invitation. Thus, it could be concluded, that more powerful influence is necessary in an attempt

to cure this situation. Formal long-term contacts in research and scholar development between a

country experiencing this problem and a Western partner, experienced in the field of social

sciences, could be a solution to the problem. As an example, joint doctoral studies implemented

between Eastern and Western partners could be considered. The developing relationship

between Quebec University (Canada) and Kaunas Technological University (Lithuania) lets us

hope for implementation of this example.

Attitudes of scholars and doctoral students from the Baltic countries investigated

clearly demonstrate a definite position on all communication and co-operation spheres:

among scholars, among doctoral students, between doctoral students and scholars; in the

field or between the fields; inside a country or internationally. The priority has been

given to co-operation between doctoral students and scholars in education in West

European countries and in the Baltics (90 percent). Communication and co-operation

among scholars and doctoral students in education inside the country takes the second

(88.8 percent), and co-operation between scholars in education and other fields - the third

position (83 percent), which indicates a favourable attitude towards interdisciplinary and

multidisciplinary relations. However, the representatives of natural sciences have not

revealed any positive attitudes in this respect. In the context of the attitudes towards co-

operation, it is evident that about one third of the respondents surveyed lack a more

global vision on partnership in scholarship; they are inclined to limit themselves in the

17

European area. However, a bigger part – two thirds, have stressed not only European, but

a more global context in communication and co-operation.

A definite example of Western scholars assistance in upgrading the competence of

researchers in the Baltic countries has enabled new relationships among the Baltic

countries, between Canada, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia; it has also strengthened co-

operation among Lithuanian scholars and doctoral students in education.

In the future, special attention should be given to doctoral students and young

researchers helping them consider the importance of international relationship and its

impact on personal development.

Literature

1. Drucker, P. (1992). Managing for the Future. New York: Truman Talley Books / Dutton.2. Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist Society. Oxford: Linacre House, Jordan Hill.3. Barnett, R. (1990). The Idea of Higher Education. SRHE & Open University Press.4. Cuthbert, R. (1996). Working in Higher Education. SRHE & Open University Press.5. Jucevičienė, P., Poškienė, A., Kudirkaitė, L., Damanskas, N. (1999). Investigation of

University Culture: The Research Methodology. In: The Role of Social Sciences in the Development of Education, Business and Government Entering 21st Century. Selected Papers of the International Conference (pp. 296-300). Kaunas: Technologija.

6. Poškienė, A. (1998). University Organisational Culture – the Complex Educational Factor of Higher Education. (A summary of the doctoral dissertation in educational science, Kaunas University of Technology).

7. Jucevičienė, P., Milišiūnaitė, I. (1998). The Features of Doctoral Studies in Lithuania in the Context of World Wide Trends. Social Sciences, Educology, 2 (15), 81 – 90.

8. Milišiūnaitė, I. (1998). Researchers’ Education at Doctoral Studies: Worl Wide Trends and their Reflection on Lithuanian Higher Education (A summary of the doctoral dissertation in educational science, Kaunas University of Technology).

9. Jucevičienė, P. (1999). Lithuanian Universities on the Way to the World-wide Academic Community: the Problems of the Development of Critical Thinking and Research Skills. In The Role of Social Sciences in the Development of Education, Business and Government Entering 21st Century. Selected Papers of the International Conference (pp. 121-125). Kaunas: Technologija.

10. Weil, S. (1997) Postgraduate Education and Lifelong Learning as Collaborative Inquiry in Action: An Emergent Model. In: Burgess, R.G. (Ed.) Beyond the First Degree. SRHE & Open University Press.

11. Oja, S.N., Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative Action Research: Developmental Approach. London: Falmer Press.

12. Reason, P. (Ed.). (1994). Participation in Human Inquiry. London: Sage.13. Sting, S., Wulf, Ch., Eds. (1994). Education in a Period of Social Upheaval: Education

Theories and Concepts in Central East Europe. Munster, New York: Waxmann.

18

14. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996). New Directions in Action Research. London: Falmer Press.19