Suchergebnisse

The investigation examines the continuous system as one of the two most common forms of migrant data-gathering today. The system is defined as a set of tools that obtains migration data on changes in the registration of the place of previous residence within the country or immigration record, including the total number of individuals entering or leaving the country and the type of visa issued to them. The strengths of the continuous system are noted, which lie in its ability to generate data on a regular basis and be useful to the authorities at the national level during the management of migration challenges and forecasting of various processes. The factors that influence the rejection of this data-gathering form today are highlighted, such as: 1) difficulty of conducting a comparative analysis between countries; 2) blurring of the entry category, which makes its unification problematic; 3) issues with monitoring of persons with unsettled (legal) status; 4) lack of recording of undocumented individuals in the continuous record of migrants; 5) system bias in focusing on emigration, ignoring the dimension of immigration. The idea about the lower level of use of the continuous system in our time due to the need for large financial resources, technological support, real agreement and coordination of joint actions between the governments of national states is substantiated as an unlikely scenario, taking into account the political, economic, cultural and social, etc. differentiation in the world. Attention is paid to the issue of prospects for the implementation of a continuous data-gathering system in the future based on the analysis of recent research and changes in the status of migration in the context of sustainable development. It is emphasized that, given the current challenges, the form will be used in the future, continuously recording data on displaced persons, but not claiming primacy in the process of systematizing information on global flows of migrants.

Subnational topic has come a long way from its inception fifty years ago to formation of an independent research direction. This period consists of three phases. In the first phase (early 1970's – mid 90's) scholars start discussing a topic that was still unexplored at the time and examine it as a fragmentary part of whole studies. The second phase (mid 1990's – first half of 2010's) sees changes in methodology: studies become more complex, focused solely on subnational phenomena and are carried out using a special tool – the subnational comparative method. A methodological dichotomy is outlined as a model for the analysis of subnational regimes and their types, as well. Finally, the third (current) phase (mid 2010's – present) is where the key changes take place: formation of independent research direction, overcoming theoretical constructs (whole-national bias and federal monism) and increase of complexity and depth of political studies. These features are entrenched in the form of methodological synthesis as a modern model for the analysis of subnational regimes and their types. The article focuses on the coverage of the classical and the modern foundations of the subnational comparative method. The author notes that modern methodology juxtaposes with ontology in the context of subnational discourse. However, in the process of studying such issues there is an urgent need to clarify, update and supplement some methodological foundations of the method.

Subnational topic has come a long way from its inception fifty years ago to formation of an independent research direction. This period consists of three phases. In the first phase (early 1970's– mid 90's) scholars start discussing a topic that was still unexplored at the time and examine it as a fragmentary part of whole studies. The second phase (mid 1990's– first half of 2010's) sees changes in methodology: studies become more complex, focused solely on subnational phenomena and are carried out using a special tool– the subnational comparative method. A methodological dichotomy is outlined as a model for the analysis of subnational regimes and their types, as well. Finally, the third (current) phase (mid 2010's– present) is where the key changes take place: formation of independent research direction, overcoming theoretical constructs (whole-national bias and federal monism) and increase of complexity and depth of political studies. These features are entrenched in the form of methodological synthesis as a modern model for the analysis of subnational regimes and their types. The article focuses on the coverage of the classical and the modern foundations of the subnational comparative method. The author notes that modern methodology juxtaposes with ontology in the context of subnational discourse. However, in the process of studying such issues there is an urgent need to clarify, update and supplement some methodological foundations of the method. ; Subnacionalinių tyrimų tema nuo atsiradimo iki jos, kaip nepriklausomos tyrimų krypties susiformavimo per pastaruosius penkiasdešimt metų, nuėjo ilgą kelią. Šis laikotarpis susideda iš trijų etapų. Pirmajame etape (XX amžiaus aštuntojo dešimtmečio pradžioje–dešimtojo dešimtmečio viduryje) mokslininkai pradeda diskutuoti tuo metu dar netirta tema ir nagrinėja ją kaip fragmentinę visų studijų dalį. Antrame etape (XX amžiaus dešimtojo dešimtmečio vidurys–XXI amžiaus antrojo dešimtmečio pirmoji pusė) atsiranda metodikos pokyčių. Tyrimai tampa sudėtingesni, jie orientuojami tik į subnacionalinius reiškinius ir yra vykdomi naudojant specialų įrankį– subnacionalinį lyginamąjį metodą. Taip pat pateikiama metodinė dichotomija kaip subnacionalinių režimų ir jų tipų analizės modelis. Galiausiai, trečiajame (dabartiniame) etape (XXI amžiaus antrojo dešimtmečio vidurys–ir iki šiol) vyksta pagrindiniai pokyčiai: formuojama savarankiška tyrimų kryptis, įveikiamos varžančios teorinės konstrukcijos (nacionalinis šališkumas ir federalinis monizmas), tyrimai darosi sudėtingesni ir nuodugnesni. Šios savybės yra įtvirtintos per metodinę sintezę kaip modernus subnacionalinių režimų ir jų tipų analizės modelis. Straipsnyje nagrinėjami klasikinio ir modernaus subnacionalinio lyginamojo metodo pagrindai. Autorius pažymi, kad moderni metodika subnacionalinio diskurso kontekste atitinka naudojamą ontologinį pagrindą. Kita vertus, tiriant subnacionalinių studijų klausimus būtina paaiškinti, atnaujinti ir papildyti kai kuriuos metodologinius pagrindus.

Abstract
At the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century, the role and value of subnational research in comparative political science are further strengthened, given that the political life of society is moving in two interdependent directions: localisation and internationalisation. Instead, the specifics of the subnational topic contribute to changes and innovations in the implementation of various methodological techniques in the study of subnational units and their structural elements. However, the question of correlating outputs of techniques – objective and subjective – still remains unresolved, and therefore actualises the following formulation: how they appear equivalent in the practical plane, as their theoretical context is illustrated balanced within equivalence in spatial research politics on a subnational scale. In other words, whether the results of each technique are approximate or distinctive from each other from the point of view of the final situation. In the article, a variable degree of correlation has been demonstrated between both techniques and also a hypothesis has been presented about the nature and type of such interactions on the example of three cases (Transcarpathian, Lviv and Chernivtsi regions) in Ukraine in the period 2010–2015.

Basic categories of democratic processes in local scope, their correlativity within its limits are analysed in the article. A view at formalisation of these notions is suggested and was made an attempt to schematize them as a general vector of human evolution that intents its direct realization on practice. Key words: local democracy, legal status, legal modus, municipal self-government, local democracy correlate. ; Проаналізовано основні категорії демократичних процесів у локальному просторі, їхня корелятивність у його межах. Запропоновано погляд на формалізацію цих понять іздійснено спробу їх схематизації як загального вектора розвитку людства, що інтенціює його безпосередню реалізацію на практиці. Ключові слова: локальна демократія, правовий статус, правовий модус, місцеве самоврядування, корелята локального середовища.

The article highlights the issue of a comprehensive consideration of three forms of data collection on the migration histories of displaced persons and four ways of presenting them in scientific publications. It is emphasized that today the most commonly used formats among scholars are conventional questionnaires, the life history calendars, and the migration history charts, which can be used methodically alternatively as independent tools or complement each other in data collection. The author also identifies analytical situations in which it is appropriate to test these forms, namely: 1) conventional questionnaires are effective when it is necessary to record a few facts about an individual's migration history, and the information itself is quantitative in nature; 2) the life history calendars are optimal for forming a complete migration history, being a tool aimed at covering various spheres of a person's life throughout his or her existence; and 3) the migration history charts are more valuable when the focus is on long-term interpersonal ties (usually family) in a spatial and chronological sense. Additionally, emphasis is placed on disclosing the differences that arise from each form of collection and have relevant implications for the analysis of the data. The paper considers four possible ways of implementing data from migration histories in scholarly works, including: 1) case studies; 2) a basis for identifying and classifying patterns; 3) aggregation of quantitative data; and 4) informational background that is not explicitly expressed in the text. The author highlights the idea that the place of migrants' histories has acquired a new meaning, since in recent years they have been perceived not exclusively as primary material for the researcher's analytical work, which without further secondary comprehension will not be of cognitive value, but as a key source on the basis of which significant conclusions are drawn. The author marks that, due to their conceptual proximity to the idea of "oral history", migrants' histories can potentially become a powerful evidence base in political discourse and international law regarding crimes against humanity. It raises the current "Ukrainian issue" around the world in a particularly scientific and pragmatic way, given the events of last year's military aggression by Russia, which continues to be ongoing.

The article examines the problem of complexity within the framework of migration theory and consequences of interdisciplinary interaction between different humanities from a conceptual level. The relevance of the issue lies in the fact that the very concept of "general theory of migration" is a connotative matrix that combines and structures additional semantic loads in the process of collision of different areas of research, and, consequently, problematizes the dimension of analysis, taking into account certain variations that a scholar chooses as the focus of his attention. During the search for such "points of contact", it was possible to identify convergent "bridges" of relevant interaction to define a coherent theoretical framework for the study of the phenomenon. As a result, the purpose of the article is to demonstrate how the views of researchers from eight areas of analysis of the migration topic have evolved on the way to the current established approach – interdisciplinary, which has become the basis for the identification of a "general theory" in scientific discourse. Particular attention is paid to the aspect of differences in the objects of study over the last decades, which contributed to the construction of a relatively unified scheme based on four criteria of analysis, in particular "research question", "level of analysis", "dominant theory" and "hypothesis model". The article examines the essence of the conceptual difference in the definition of "migration" among scientists of various fields of knowledge, which, according to the author, has become a factor of interdisciplinary rapprochement and interaction. In order to achieve the goal of the research, tools such as historiographical (literature review method) and eclectic, that accumulated positivist and interpretive approaches, were used by the author. The key conclusion was the case of the current state of interdisciplinary cooperation between scientists regarding migration as a topic from eight humanitarian fields of knowledge. It is argued that the formation and conventional acceptance of the "general theory of migration" has already taken place among scholars, but at the same time has opened up new perspectives for migration studies that have been less popular or not studied at all. The actual directions of interdisciplinary research, in the opinion of the author, are determined. It is emphasized that the optimal form of implementation of the latter is international comparative projects. Attention is paid to ways of solving practical migration problems. It is indicated that politicians also implement this matrix in order to understand various problems better and in more detail, which is especially necessary and important from a practical point of view against the background of the escalation of events in 2022, when a large-scale Russian-Ukrainian war began.