Organizacijų, pramonės šakų ir visuomenės valdymo lygmenyse cirkuliuojanti informacija ir žinios suvokiamos kaip strateginis išteklius, lemiantis šalies ekonominio potencialo darnų augimą bei konkurencinį pranašumą. Šiandieną informacijos valdymas tampa daugiau strategine nei funkcine priemone, sutelkta į organizacijos informacijos, žmonių ir technologinių išteklių planavimą, organizavimą, kontrolę ir koordinavimą, siekiant įgyvendinti bendrą organizacijos strategiją. Viešojo sektoriaus informacijos vadybos tyrėjai akcentuoja informacijos vadybos svarbą, kuri užtikrina institucijos strateginių tikslų siekimą, optimizuoja sprendimų priėmimo procesą, gerina kokybiškos informacijos panaudojimą priskirtų funkcijų vykdymui, užtikrina efektyvų informacinių paslaugų teikimą piliečiams bei verslo organizacijoms, skatinant pakartotinį informacijos naudojimą. Straipsnio tikslas -išanalizuoti ir įvertinti informacijos valdymo situaciją Lietuvos Respublikos ministerijose 1 . Pagrindiniai žodžiai: informacijos svarba, informacijos planavimas, informacinės technologijos, viešasis sektorius, informacijos paieška, informacijos kokybė, informacinė elgsena, informacijos vertinimas.1 Straipsnyje pristatomas tyrimas -tai antroji mokslininkų grupės projekto Nr. MIP-012/2012, finansuojamo Lietuvos mokslo tarybos, "Informacijos valdymas viešajame sektoriuje: kritinė analizė ir pokyčių perspektyva" dalis, kurioje pateikiami kiekybinio tyrimo rezultatai.

The article deals with the methodology of happiness measurement. Data from the European Social Survey, the European Value Survey and the World Happiness Index, that allow measuring the happiness level of the population and providing an opportunity to evaluate the situation of Lithuania in the context of other countries, are analysed. The discussion of research methodology highlights the main methodological differences applied in the above research. The comparative analysis shows that in Lithuania the happiness level remains the lowest among other European countries, although life satisfaction is growing. The conclusion is drawn that a low level of happiness can be determined not only by the economic level of the country or individual psychological conditions, but also by the cultural-social context of the country.

In democratic societies, both civic activism and happiness of its members are inseparable and equally important. But do more active civic members of society feel happier? This article analyses how the forms of civic engagement affect the feeling of happiness of the Lithuanian population. 1999 and 2017 data from the European Values Survey reveal that civic participation has a rather limited effect on the level of happiness in Lithuania. Only the voting of citizens and their participation in protest activities have a statistically significant positive effect on the feeling of happiness. In this paper, I argue that the decision to vote or participate in protests is not so much about dissatisfaction with objective living conditions as about emotional security and solidarity. The implicit link between an individual’s psychological well-being and his or her engagement in civic activities is complex and not necessarily direct. Civic activism alone is unlikely to increase happiness. At the same time, the level of happiness is fostered by emotional security, which is linked to specific forms of civic engagement and the perceived personal and societal benefits of participating in specific civic activities.

The article discusses how a therapeutic narrative is constructed in the life stories of selfhelp teachers in Lithuania. In-depth interviews with the members of the study group revealed that a prevalent structure of the narrative of this group could be discerned and identified as therapeutic narrative. It adapts the perspective of Western therapeutic culture and modifies it by introducing the dichotomy of ‘true’ and ‘false’ desire for self-transformation. The causes of personal misery are here explained by the prevailing emotional culture specific to Lithuania. This culture is characterised here by general fear, mistrust, insecurity, and the stigmatisation of the display of positive emotions as consequences of the experienced cultural trauma and anomie in the Lithuanian society.