Individual report about the three study
programmes in Political Science,
University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.
By professor Knut Midgaard,
Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway;
member of the Assessment Commission for study programmes in
Communication, Political Science and Philosophy, in the capacity of a
foreign expert in the field of Political Science
The present individual report is based on the study of all material
submitted, on interviews with student at all levels, employers and the
teaching staff at the university. Its focus is primarily determined by the
recommendations issued and approved by the Department of Education
in Latvia.
I would like to emphasise at once that Political Science is a rather new
discipline in Latvia. It was not established until 1989 and it has been
built up under rather adverse economic conditions. On this background
I am impressed with the results obtained, which would not have been
possible without the hard, enthusiastic and competent work by
dedicated and open-minded staff members.
I.
General aims and objectives
The self-report stresses the need for well-educated political scientists in
modern democratic society generally and in present Latvian democracy
specifically: in state structures, in local communities, in organisations,
in the press, in research and education and even in private business.
The present evaluator certainly agrees. More specifically, I agree that
this is not only a question of developing knowledge and analytic skills;
it is also a question of developing a free and mature personality.
The question arises whether the study programmes have so far proved
able to produce candidates who are able to serve Latvian democracy
and society in the manner suggested. I would like at once to point to
the testimony of employers - from both the public and the private
sector - whom we interviewed during our site visit. They were
unanimous in their positive evaluation, which included both the
candidates’ knowledge, analytic perspectives and skills, and attitudes.
There are several reasons for this good result. One of them is obviously
this: the department faculty have from the outset very actively availed
2
themselves of any opportunity to develop networks of contacts with
well established milieus abroad, and thereby to study and do research
work abroad, to send students to other countries, to invite guest
lecturers, to get ideas from abroad for study reforms, etc. Self-criticism
goes with this orientation in a striking way. Thus, on page 19 the selfevaluation report says that the teaching process is still to a large extent
”dominated by information presentation to students. The volume of
analytic and research work must be increased.” The ways in which this
can be done is then specified in a number of points.
II.
Evaluation of the individual programmes
I will discuss the three programmes separately.
a) Bachelor’s Programme in Political Science.
This programme is well organised, reflecting modern international
political science in content and structure. The self-evaluation report
presents not only the overall content and structure but also the
individual courses. The course descriptions are systematic; with some
variations, they present the title of the course, the lecturer(s), the scope
and purpose (and concrete tasks) of the course, its main subjects
(course outline), its teaching methods and course requirements, and
finally readings. In a couple of cases both lecturer and reading list are
lacking, but for the rest the presentation is complete.
We had an interview with the third-year B.A. students. They were
without exception enthusiastic about the B.A. programme and the
teaching of it. Mentioning the fact that there is a strong competition for
being admitted at the programme, they asserted that one of the reasons
for this competition is the
high reputation of the programme: the teaching is known to be very
good. This testimony confirms my positive impression of the teaching
staff – which I have got partly from their CVs and partly from direct
contact with some of the teachers.
My conclusion, then, is that the bachelor’s programme should be
accredited for maximum time, i.e. 6 years.
b) Master’s Programme in Political Science
2
3
The Master’s programme is open for several categories of students:
persons with a B.A. in Political Science, persons with a B.A. in another
field, persons with a M.A. in another field, and persons who have
graduated from the University in an earlier period. This obviously
creates problems, but it is a kind of problems that is characteristic of
Master’s studies more generally; thus, the M.A. programme in
Philosophy also experiences it.
According to the self-evaluation report, the Master’s programme
should be a continuation of the bachelor’s programme, ”supplemented
with deepened theoretical studies in the same and related sciences” (p.
10). It seems, however, that due to students coming from other
disciplines, some of the B.A. themes must be dealt with. That may be
the reason why, in our interview with former and present M.A.
students, some students who had a B.A. background in Political
Science, found that teaching could be somewhat repetitive. More
generally, the student evaluations of the M.A. programme and the
teaching of it were somewhat more mixed than the corresponding B.A.
evaluations. On the other hand, there were no reservations with regard
to M.A. graduates on the part of the employers.
In my opinion, the department should focus on the problem how to deal
with the needs of the different categories of M.S. students so as to
ensure both a good basis and good progression for all of them. The
routines for quality control should also be checked. My overall
impression, however, of the department’s ability and determination to
correct deficiencies and to improve programmes and performances is
such that I have no doubt that the Master’s programme, like the
Bachelor’s programme, should be accredited for maximum time, i.e. 6
years.
c) Doctoral programme in Political Science
The self-evaluation report in Political Science is primarily concerned
with the Bachelor’s programme and the Master’s programme. The
department, however, also has a 3 years Ph.D. programme. The two
former programmes are characterised as academic studies and the
Ph.D. programme as research.
I find that the establishment of a Ph.D. programme in Political Science
at the University of Latvia is a good thing. It is indeed good that some
3
4
Ph.D. students write their thesis at a university abroad, but it would not
therefore be good that all Latvian Ph.D. students in Political Science
had to do so. For some of them it may be more natural to write their
thesis in Riga, partly because their sources are there, partly because
they can get good, perhaps optimal, supervision and guidance there.
For the milieu in the department it may also be a good thing. For
faculty members it is inspiring to advise young, promising researchers,
and for B.A. and M.A. students it may be very good to have a young
Ph.D. student as one of their teachers. (There were three Ph.D. students
in the department when the self-evaluation report was written.)
A necessary condition, of course, is that there are faculty members who
have high enough research qualifications to advise Ph.D. students in
their research work and ensure high enough quality, generally.
According to the self-evaluating report the lecturers at the department
include three professors, Hab. Drs., three associate professors, Drs.,
and one lecturer with a Ph.D. in Political Science. In addition there is a
corresponding Member of the Latvian Academy of Sciences who is
professor, Dr. Habil. This seems to be sufficient although, of course,
there are significant specialties that are not covered at the level
required.
I am therefore in favour of accrediting the Ph.D. programme, too. It is a
question, however, whether it should be accredited for 6 years or only 2
years.
Today, there seems to be a consensus, at least in Political Science, that
the average Ph.D. student should not only write a thesis. For maturing
as a researcher he or she should in addition participate in courses or
seminars specially organised for Ph.D. students. In my opinion, the
Department of Political Science should in the time ahead consider what
should be done with a view to ensuring this kind of extra education for
its Ph.D. students. It is obviously necessary to think in terms of
international co-operation. More specifically, the possibilities for cooperation in the Nordic and Baltic area seem interesting.
The present Ph.D. programme is in my opinion a good beginning.
There should be a further development, however, along the lines
suggested above. I therefore recommend that the Ph.D. programme
should be accredited for 2 years.
4
5
III.
Concluding remarks
It is impossible to participate in an evaluation project like the present
one without considering the economic conditions under which teaching
and research is carried out. The need for extra work tends in particular
to take time from research. This, in the next round, may affect the
quality of teaching. The economic conditions for young researchers
give a particular reason for concern.
There is indeed a need for stimulating research, in particular with a
view to publishing articles in international journals. This report,
however, is hardly the place for submitting general political
recommendations. Suffice it here to express my respect for the
dedicated and fine work carried out by colleagues under adverse
economic conditions.
Individual report about
The higher professional education study
programme in Political Science in pursuit of the
degree of Political Scientist,
Riga Humanities Institute,
University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.
By professor Knut Midgaard,
Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway;
member of the Assessment Commission for study programmes in
Communication, Political Science and Philosophy, in the capacity of a
foreign expert in the field of Political Science
5
6
The present individual report is based on the study of the material
submitted, on interviews with the teaching staff at the university,
employers and students. Its focus is primarily determined by the
recommendations issued and approved by the Department of Education
in Latvia.
It should be noted at once that the study programme that is here up for
accreditation is a revision of the study programme on which
instructors, students and employers have so far gained experience.
IV.
Institutional framework, goal and missions
The Riga Humanities Institute (LU RHI), which runs the study
programme to be evaluated, is a private institution that is affiliated in a
special way to the University of Latvia. It was founded as an institution
of higher education in 1994. The core of its faculty are academic
personnel working at the University of Latvia. I quote from the selfevaluation report:
“The Department of Political Science of the LU RHI employs, on a
contractual basis, instructors from the Faculties of History and
Philosophy, Journalism, Law and Economics of the University of
Latvia. Also participating in the implementation of the program are
leading specialists in public relations and European Union issues. The
structure of the LU RHI consists of threee departments: the Department
of Psychology, the Department of Economics and the Department of
Political Science.”
The goal of the professional study programme is to prepare highly
qualified specialists for work in government and private institutions
with a specialisation in European studies and public relations.
The missions of the study programme is formulated in five points:
1. To ensure the learning of academic and professional
knowledge and skill in political science, European affairs and
public relations;
2. To promote simultaneous development of theoretical
knowledge and practical skills during the learning process,
thus preparing students for effective and rapid involvement in
6
7
their professional careers, ensuring their competitiveness in
the job market;
3. To create favourable conditions for the academic and
practical work of students, promoting the expansion of their
overall level of culture, as well as the qualitative learning of
professional knowledge;
4. To help students to apply their academic knowledge in
practice, promoting a synthesis between theory and practice;
5. To ensure the successful involvement of students in
international institutions and international companies.
V.
Organisation of teaching and training
The programme is intended for completion in 10 semesters (altogether
200 credit points). It is made up of three separate parts:
1. Basic academic courses in Political Science
2. Specialisation
3. Practical seminars to facilitate the learning of professional
abilities and skills, as well as an internship in the chosen
specialty.
Moreover, a bachelor’s thesis must be defended at the completion of
the study programme.
The basic academic courses are partly mandatory, partly optional,
partly free electives. There are two specialisations: European studies,
and Public relations. In the self-evaluation report a long list of courses
is presented for each of the two specialisations. The self-evaluation
report moreover makes the following pedagocial point: ”Students
underpin their theoretical knowledge about the EU and public relations
by serving an internship at government institutions that elaborate and
implement Latvia’s policy of EU integration, as well as in private
companies that work in the field of public relations.”
Some words should be said about the ways in which the professional
programme differs from the strictly academic B.A. programme in
Political Science at the University of Latvia. First, the professional
programme, in its specialisation phase, is inter-disciplinary. Second,
not only does it include practical training through internships; it is
meant to serve persons who already have a job.
VI.
Evaluation
7
8
The programme has a clearly formulated goal which reflects the needs
of a maturing democracy that aims at joining the European
Community. The programme, moreover, has in a systematic way, in its
five ”missions”, specified how to achieve this goal. Finally, the
programme has systematically been worked out in even greater detail.
The programme, therefore, is transparent, and it is convincing.
The interview with the academic staff of the programme helped to get
an even better understanding of the programme and its idea. The
interview, moreover, confirmed the impression I have got from the
documentation, that it is run by competent people, some of whom are
clearly very competent.
The interview we had with a set of employers was particularly
interesting. There were employers from both the private and the public
sector. They included high-ranking persons, i.a. Latvia’s minister of
foreign affairs and a member of parliament. They were all very positive
in their evaluation of the programme and its candidates. Let me
mention a couple of points made. First, it was emphasised that the
programme conveyed basic concepts and models, and thereby new
ways of asking questions and of reasoning, which had proved very
fruitful. Second, it was emphasised that the candidates were not only
characterised by knowledge and analytic skills, but also by an
increased ability to co-operate, and to elicit co-operation.
Because of shortage of time our two-person team had to split up toward
the end, so that my Estonian colleague took care of the interview with
students while I took care of the interrview with employers. Through
my colleague, however, I got the impression that the students were
positive in their evaluations.
Two words should be said about the institutional solution found
through the establishment of the Riga Humanities Institute. I think it is
a very good and fruitful solution. Given the economic conditions of
Latvian scholars, the use of members of the academic staff of the
University of Latvia in teaching at the Humanities Institute serves two
good purposes. It guarantees competent teaching and it makes it
possible for University teachers to earn highly needed extra money in a
way that does not distract from their academic work.
8
9
On this basis, I recommend that the programme should be accredited.
The fact, however, that the experiences gained so far date from the
programme that has now been replaced by the new one, makes it
natural to propose an accreditation for two years only. There is a need
for a further elaboration of the details of the programme, which can be
done during the two years ahead.
Report
on the assessment of the study programmes in Political Science
(B.A., M.A., and Ph.D programs) at the Department of Political
Science of the University of Latvia and the Higher Professional
Education study programme at the Riga Humanities Institute
This report is based on the Reports of self-evaluation, presented by the
Departement of Political Science and Riga Humanities Institute, and on the results
of the site visit, which took place on April, 12-13, 1999. During the visit the
accreditation commission met with the academic staff and students, investigated
the resources and facilities of the of Departement, observed the teaching process
and its administration.
University of Latvia started the training of political scientists in 1992. Thus, this is
a new study program, still in a phase of formation. At the same time it become
evident, that there is a great demand of specialists in this field in Latvia. Local
governments and central administration, foreign services and international
companies – all they need professionals who have a good education in politics and
administration. The high need of professionals was stressed aslo by representatives
of political and governmental institutions, we had a chance to meet. This is
seemingly one of the reasons, why an additional structure, Riga Humanities
Institute of the Latvian University, was established in 1997. Today more then 450
students are studying the political science in these two institutions.
9
10
Curriculum
The study programs of B.A. and M.A. in general correspond to international
academic standards in this field. The academic studies take place in five basic
fields of political science (political theory, comparative politics, international
politics, public policy and administration, methods of political science),
additionally students get number of general subjects. M.A program is a
continuation of bachelor programme aimed to deeper theoretical studies of a
particular field in political science.
More problematic happened to be the Ph.D program and the Higher Professional
Study Program. Ph.D program means first of all Ph.D studies at some foreign
University. The composition of the Higher Professional Study Program happened
to be longer as B.A. program (the volume of this program is 200 credit points) at
the same time the students don’t get any academic degree after finishing the
programme. The relations between the professional and degree programs were not
fully clarified during the discussions with the program administrators.
Staff and course content
There are several high level professionals among the teaching staff. At the same
time it is obvious, that the lack of young Ph.D-s , especially those, who have a
doctoral degree from some western University, is standing as one of the most
urgent issues for the faculty. As majority of the staff from the Departement of
Political Science is teaching also at the Riga Humanities Institute, the number
overall lecturing hours per person/per week is very high. As it became obvious
from the discussion with the staff members, the Departement is strongly
underfinanced. It makes staff members stressed and forces them to keep additional
jobs, i.e. lecturing in the Humanities Institute or somewhere else. Which in turn
makes difficult to concentrate to the research. As a result the number of
publications of majority of faculty members is lower that it used to be for
university professor or docent.
Despite it is difficult to evaluate the course content during two-days visit, it
appears, that in general the content is in line with the modern university programs.
Students are required attend to lectures, prepare written texts, participate in a group
work almost at the same proportions as in other universities.
Students
We interviewed first and third year students in both institutions as well as
graduates from Departement of Political Science. The students are bright,
motivated and generally satisfied with the level of training. Their command in
english was really good. We got a criticism from the students concerning the
10
11
technical equipment of the classes, especially because of the lack of the internet
connected PC-s for students.
The graduates were generally satisfied with the teaching process emphasizing at the
same time some overlapping of the courses and low professional level of some
lecturers.
Facilities
There seems to be enough space for teaching purposes, both in the Department of
Political Sciences and Riga Humanities Institute. At the same time the Institute’s
facilities are more modern and better equipped. There is really shortage of the
space for student’s individual work with PC-s. Students are using the Library of the
Political Sciences (about 12 thousand volumes) as well as the Library of the
University of Latvia which both are comparatively well equipped.
Feedback and quality assurance
The regular student survey is carried out to evaluate the course contents and
quality of lecturing. The results of survey are used to modify the courses and orient
teachers to more effective ways of teaching. At the same time such a student
feedback system doesn’t cover all courses taught in a context of the Political
Science program.
Another direction of activities in the field of quality assurance is connected with
two TEMPUS projects the Department of Political Sciences is participating.
Those projects have enabled the integration of the Latvian Political Science
programs into Western European models of teaching, to exchange professors and
students, to carry out joint research projects.
Conclusions and recommendations
1.Taking into consideration, that the Political Science programs both in Department
of Political Science and Riga Humanities Institute are in a quite initial stage of
formation, and during those first years a considerable progress have been made in
establishing the modern curriculum and teaching, I recommend to accredit the B.A
and M.A. program as well as the Higher Professional Education Study program in
Political Science for six years.
2.Taking into account, that the presented report of self-evaluation doesn’t consist
enough information about the Ph.D program, and as it became obvious during the
site visit, this program is still organised as a purely scheme where the Ph.D
students are visiting some foreign universities to carry out their studies, I
11
12
recommend to accredit the Ph.D program conditionally for two years. A real
Latvian University based Ph.D program should be established during this period.
3. My main recommendation is concerning the relations between those two
institutions, carrying today out the programs of political science in Latvian
University – Department of Political Science and Riga Humanities Institute. It
seems highly unreasonable to have two different units (with almost the same staff?)
both issuing the diplomas and degrees of Latvian University. If the main reason for
this is, that the Humanities Institute allows more flexibility in using finances, this
means, that the reform of financing and finance distribution at Latvian University is
needed. The reform is needed which creates conditions where the faculty is not
more forced to establish private institutions to carry out the same work they are
doing at the state university.
Mati Heidmets
Professor, Social Science Faculty
Tallinn Pedagogical University
Tallinn, 25.05.1999
12
13
11 June 1999
Accreditation report on the University of Latvia
by Kaarle Nordenstreng
This report is based on my participation in the Evaluation Commission which visited Riga on 1213 April 1999 examining four departments and their study programmes. The evidence comes
from self-assessment reports by each department, from meetings with the faculty, students and
industrial partners of the department of my main focus (Communication and Journalism), as well
as from discussions within the Evaluation Commission and its subgroup on this particular
department.
I wish to state that before this exercise I had no personal experience of Latvia's higher education
system, nor of the University of Latvia, except for more or less casual contacts with my
colleagues from the Department of Communication and Journalism in various international
platforms over the past few years. But the self-assessment reports and other materials given to
the Evaluation Committee, with the discussions during the on-site visit, provided an excellent
basis for serious orientation by someone who has only limited prior knowledge on the matter.
Thus I can express my appreciation on the evaluation process: it was well organized and it gave
me a valuable learning experience.
A general remark
First of all I want to make a point regarding the salary level of Latvian university staff. It is so
low that one cannot lead with it a normal life without resorting to other sources of income, which
normally means a second job and consequently reduced intellectual and physical commitment to
the main job. This constitutes a serious burden for the whole academic system -- indeed a
fundamental limitation to its performance. The same problem is known in other post-socialist
countries, but as shown by the statistic given in Dr Peeter Vihalemm's report, the salary level of
Latvian university staff is much lower than for example that of Estonia.
I find it somewhat ironic to participate in a careful quality assessment and accreditation exercise,
while the teaching staff is so underpaid that it is a wonder that any decent performance can be
maintained. Therefore I cannot help raising a voice of alarm on this matter.
Department of Philosophy
This department is well established both in quantity and quality, and it has a respectable tradition
on which to build. Its staff of over 30 positions and its study programmes at the BA, MA as well
13
14
as PhD level seem to me to meet international standards, leaving me with no doubts about their
merits to be accredited for full six years.
From the point of view of my main interest (Communication and Journalism) it is worth noting
that the Master's study programme includes in its "B" part, module of practical philosophy, a
course on "Ethics of communication" (4 credits).
Department of Political Science
The department was established in 1989 within the Faculty of History and Philosophy. It
represents a modern concept of Political Science in line with mainly Scandinavian model
within an overall West European and American context. Its task is to prepare professionals for
the state structures, local communities and political organizations at all levels. Its staff of 10,
its library and other facilities as well as its national and international contacts and research
activities seem to be adequate to meet the demands of the undergraduate and graduate
programmes offered.
The BA and MA programmes, as outlined in the curriculum documentation, seem to me quite
comprehensive and up to international standards. It is without any hesitation that I join the other
members of the Evaluation Commission to recommend these programmes to be accredited for
full six years. Likewise, I agree with the Commission's position that the PhD programme is not
yet established enough to merit more than two-year accreditation. However, this is well justified,
indeed necessary, because in the long run a strong combination of undergraduate and graduate
programmes cannot be maintained without a doctoral programme within the same institution.
From the point of view of Communication and Journalism it is noteworthy that several courses
of especially the BA programme fit perfectly for the education of a journalist who naturally
should have a deep understanding of the theory and practice of the political system. Moreover,
two courses of the BA programme (Political Information; Communication and Rhetorics) could
be included in the discipline of Communication as such, while one of the MA courses (Theories
of Ideology) includes a central topic of any media studies: Ideology and mass communication.
The Riga Humanities Institute
This unit of the University of Latvia constitutes an unconventional administrative solution to
offer higher professional education programmes. It seems to fit within the system and provide
some help particularly with regard to the above-mentioned staff salary problem.
The Higher Professional Education Programme in Political Science (altogether 200 credit points)
provides basic academic education in Political Science during the first two years according to the
standards of the University of Latvia. However, its mission goes beyond general Political
Science to two areas of specialization: European Affairs and Public Relations. The latter
speciality overlaps with the programmes offered by the Department of Communication and
Journalism, and the curricula of the two seem to have a number of common elements. However,
their coordination remains somewhat unclear to me.
14
15
I join the others of the Evaluation Commission in recommending this programme to be
accredited for two years. During this period the concept and the division of labour with the
respective regular programmes should be clarified.
Department of Communication and Journalism
This department operates within the Faculty of Philology next to those of Baltic, Slavic and
Classical Philologies as well as Library and Information Science. Journalism has been taught in
the University of Latvia, within this Faculty, since the 1940s.
The study programmes submitted for accreditation are Bachelor and Master in Communication
Science, while the degrees offered in accordance with the official code are "Bachelor of Social
Sciences in Communication Science" (443221) and "Master of Social Sciences in
Communication Science" (463221).
The programme profiles correspond to respective Scandinavian and other Western models
typically within the social science context. Therefore it is well grounded that the degrees are
designated in Social Sciences, but it is somewhat abnormal -- although explained by history -that the administrative framework is the Faculty of Philology.
Total number of students enrolled in the two programmes is over 300, two thirds of them tuitionpaying and around 100 based on budget financing. The number of new students entering the BA
programme annually is 25 budget-paid and 25 tuition-paying in the full-time category, while
additional 40 tuition-paying students enter the part-time category of distance education. The MA
programme admits 5 budget-paid students a year, in addition to which there are some tuitionpaying MA students. Both programmes are quite popular and obviously able to attract students
with considerable intellectual potential.
The permanent faculty is composed of 10 teachers: four associate professors with a Doctoral
degree and six lecturers with a Master's degree. In addition, there are eight regular guest
instructors (4 with PhD, 4 MA degrees). The teaching staff seems to meet the overall standards
of comparable institutions in Scandinavia and elsewhere, both in quantitative and qualitative
terms, although the teachers' research and publication record leaves a lot to be desired.
The department's technical facilities include a reading room, a computer room and a radio and
TV studio supported by a staff of six full-time persons. These are necessary for programmes with
practical aspects of journalism, but they barely meet the requirements of modern mass media.
What is lacking is decent office space for permanent teachers.
The mission, goals and organization of the study programmes, as presented in the selfassessment report, are generally speaking in accordance with the standards of Scandinavian and
other Western countries. My own University of Tampere has served as a model and point of
comparison for the programmes, as noted in the self-assessment report (p. 10). While I endorse
the remark that they "generally share the same essential content", I must note that the Latvian
variant is made up of relatively more Communication and Journalism material (measured in
credit points) than its Finnish equivalent -- even if the Finnish one is already quite heavily
dominated by major subject Journalism and Mass Communication. For example the American
standard rule is that only 25 % of the undergraduate Journalism degree volume should be
composed of the theory and practice of the major subject, while the rest is filled by general
Liberal Arts and minor subject studies. Accordingly, one should not aim at increasing the share
15
16
of Communication and Journalism in the programme structure beyond a reasonable limit. In the
present case this limit is close and if anything, one should decrease rather than increase the
volume of the main subject.
In general, I find the BA and MA programmes worth supporting. The only notable question is
raised by combining particularly Advertising, and to certain extent Public Relations, with a
programme on Journalism. None of the respective Scandinavian programmes, and few in
Western Europe, include Advertising, which is taught completely separate from Journalism,
Media and Communication -- typically in schools of Business or Arts. However, given the
particular conditions in contemporary Latvia and the experience of present programmes, I do not
wish to make this a point of dissent.
The inclusion or exclusion of Advertising and Public Relations in relation to the programmes of
Communication Science should be considered as a separate question after the present
accreditation process and taking into consideration the other similar programmes offered in
Latvia. Obviously there is a need for a critical look at what is feasible in the country as a whole,
given its limited market for student employment as well as for teacher recruitment.
As far as the courses in Communication and Journalism are concerned, the course descriptions
provided give a good picture of the substance matter of studies in question. However, three
courses were missing from the package: "Media law", "Communication technologies", and
"Rhetorics". Given the importance of especially Media law (in A part) one just hopes that this
omission does not reflect a lesser attention to this topic.
In general, the courses are well founded and meet international standards. There seems to be
some overlap and redundancy between for example courses "Mass communication sociology"
and "Mass communication theories" (both in A part and 4 credit points). In further development
of the programme I would merge these into one and use the credit points 'saved' for either
reducing the major subject to meet the point made above or for 'elevating' one or two of the
"World journalism" courses from the elective B part into the obligatory A part. Also there seems
to be room for better cooperation between these programmes and those offered by the
departments of Philosophy and Political Science as hinted above.
The future development points as listed in the last chapter of the self-assessment report (p. 11-12)
are well placed and worth supporting. Yet they do not include two prospects of strategic
importance: introduction of Doctoral studies and change of the Faculty context. The department
is far from ripe for introducing its own PhD programme, but it should begin to work hard
towards an interdisciplinary Doctoral programme with Political Science and/or Sociology.
Related to this is the other prospect to create a new Faculty of Social Sciences, into which
Communication and Journalism should be moved from its old home of Philology. Setting up of a
new Faculty of Social Sciences (with or without History and Philosophy) would be a most
welcome development for Communication and Journalism.
In conclusion, I strongly endorse the two programmes of Communication Sciences and
recommend that they be accredited for the full six years.
Kaarle Nordenstreng, PhD
Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Tampere, Finland
16