The methodology and deontology of sociological research in times of war and dictatorship

Abstract

It is a lesser-known fact that the sociological researches – of political and administrative orientation – carried out by Gusti School, during the interwar Romania, continued during World War II, when Marshal Antonescu established the military dictatorship regime, in September 1940. Moreover, the sociological research carried out in Transnistria, on the left bank of the Dniester River, during Antonescu’s regime, innovated Gusti’s monograph. This appened although the administrative performance of the Government from Bucharest was worse than that of the previous Soviet Government – as the studies of the sociologist Golopentia, made in Transnistria, during World War II, under the temporary Romanian military occupation, reveal. For the first time, the political-administrative dimension was rigorously studied from a scientific standpoint by the Sociological School of Bucharest, in Transnistria, between December 1941-February 1944, at the disposal of Antonescu’s government. At that time, a team from the National Institute of Statistics, led by Anton Golopentia, had been commissioned to identify the Romanians from the East of Bug, to repatriate them from the former Soviet territory of Ukraine occupied by Nazi Germany. In such circumstances, as it is usually the case, monographic research was done. This time the research was carried out in Valea-Hoţului, a locality from Transnistria, Ananiev county, between January and March 1942. In this historical context, in some of the investigated villages, the sociological research report included an informative note regarding the political views of the local population, under the Romanian military occupation regime. Also, the political perception of the Transnistrian Moldovans regarding Antonescu’s government was scientifically studied in comparison with the previous Soviet regime. The research findings were astonishing. The sociological reports submitted to the government systematically contained information intentionally falsified by the monographs. The purpose was not to expose the local population to the risk of potential political persecutions by Antonescu’s government. In this context, it should be noted that the dissatisfaction with the Romanian administration in Transnistria was almost generalized, but perfectly justified by the flawed way in which this former Soviet province was governed. However, all social information was accurately collected from the field, from a methodological point of view.