POL.LIC. MINNA VEISTILÄUNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI/REPRO-PROJECT

16.11.2012 ROUND TABLE

Well-being of Immigrant Families with Russian

Background in South-eastern Finland

The Projects in a Process

Empathos (ESR, 2003-2007, Palmenia)Empowerment of Families with Children

(ENPI, 2011-2014, Palmenia)Reciprocal Relationships and the

Construction of Well-being during Critical Periods of Everyday Life (Finnish Academy, 2012-2016, University of Helsinki)

Data

thematic interviews of 25 families: 31,5 h, 289 pgs questionnaire: 242 answers, 93 questions

concerning family life in Finland, partly comparable with Suomalaisten hyvinvointi 2010 and Maamu

fairy tales (8) and life stories (5) of children and young people

in addition: structured interviews of 25 family workers in Finland and 81 (focus groups) in Russia

Theoretical Background 1: Main Concepts

P

Child and family

well-being

Everydayecoculturalcontext of the child and the family

Reciprocityand trust

Reciprocityand trust

Acculturation processof the child and the family

Theoretical Background 2: Acculturation

A community- and individual level as well as (especially) family level process, which takes place when different cultural groups come to contact each other and this contact changes the original cultural model of the groups.

A power of change that influences the inner interaction models of the family, parenthood and the upbringing of children, well-being of all family members and the development of children and youth.

Different and changing process

Affected by several factors: in case of immigration especially the political decisions and attitudes of the host society, the immigrants´ own human, economic and social capital and cultural distance family structure, the roles of different family members and family dynamics the ideals and values of child development and upbringing children.

(Alitolppa-Niitamo 2010, 45-61)

Theoretical Background 3: Well-being

Antti Karisto’s research group has carried out in Päijät-Häme, in the years 2002, 2005 and 2008 a well-being barometer, in which the concept of well-being has been carefully formulated to meet the criticism towards previous research on well-being and the new emphases of theoretical discussion concerning everyday life.

The central issue in this barometer has been that residents of a municipality have been asked how these preceding elements of well-being are realized in their current

life and how do they expect them to be realized in the future, and what kind of meaning they give to each element of well-being.

This barometer has been thought to make it possible to find, for example, such elements of well-being that at the moment realize poorly, but that are considered to be highly meaningful. This way, services could be allocated exactly for these elements.

(Karisto et al 2003, Haapola et al 2009.)

Well-being (2)

1. Spouse and family 2. Relatives 3. Neighbours 4. Relationships

5. Appearance 6. Health 7. Physical condition 8. Sex life

9. Wealth 10. Consumption possibilities

11. Permanence of a job

12. Meaningfulness of a job

13. Amiability 14. Faith 15. Travelling 16. Physical exercises

17. Learning 18. Cultural interests 19. Entertainment and recreation

20. Community

21. Organizational activities

22. Respect 23. Influence 24. Choices

25. Accommondation 26. Neighbourhood 27. Home environment

28. Closeness of services

29. Pleasures of everyday life

30. Homely environment

Theoretical Background 4: Ecocultural context

Weisner (2002, 277) emphasizes, in his ecocultural theory, the value of a cultural context for the growth and development of a child.

The living areas of a family and a community, health and demographic issues, safety threats, nature of employees, (age and gender), children´s tasks and jobs (domestic work, child care and school work), roles of fathers and older siblings, plays and playing groups of the children, the roles of women and girls in the community and the support they get, cultural influences and information available as well as the diversity of the community in care and the hobbies of children are especially important subjects of experiment.

Ecocultural theory is based on the theory of locally rational action. Local situation is understood as everyday routines and activities. Actors use complex, shared information in order to survive in the local daily routines. Children learn these ways of cultural surviving to be able to live in the community.

Theoretical Background 5: Reciprocity

Psychological sciences have found the experience of reciprocity most important to the development of self as well as to the satisfaction of the need to live a relevant and meaningful life.

Reciprocity has been examined as a symptom for example through symmetry or asymmetry or the relationship to self. (Keysar et al 2008, La Caze 2008)

The principal of giving and taking and the culture of exchanging gifts have been considered to be the most important sociological functions, the premise of the mechanism of social relations. (Malinowski 1950, Simmel 1950, Gouldner 1960)

The thought of giving creating more giving leads to continuous exchange and durable co-operation.

Reciprocity can be very asymmetrical, so that only the other part is giving and the other taking, all the way to the altruistic "pure gift".

Reciprocity can also vary in time, for example be delayed. All human relations can, however, be thought to be based on

different types of reciprocity. (Komter & Schans 2008, 294) 

Reciprocity (2) and family life

Reciprocity has been examined as a factor that influences family life but it has also been examined as a result of it.

The concept has been used in the field of family studies in order to define both the relationship between parents and children and the relationship between the elderly and the society.

Sahlins (1972) was the first one to classify family reciprocity into generalized, balanced and negative types: giving to the close and beloved ones without the expectations of receiving, pure exchange and the attempt to get something without giving anything in return.

The quality and amount of reciprocity inside a family is influenced by time and phase of life, gender, ethnic differences, religion, geographic distances, health, marrietal status of the parents, family structure, socio-economic status and cultural factors.

(Komter & Schans 2008, 279-294)

Theoretical Background 6: Trust

Trust and reciprocity are connected through the concepts of knowledge and predictability.

In the modern society a person has to have more and more relationships with people and institutions that are totally strange to him/her. In these situations interaction is risky - and trust covers that risk, including at the same time an element of instability because of the lack of information.

The abstract systems of the modern society need three kinds of trust in order to be able to function: person-to-person trust, professional trust between institutional relationships and trust in the functionality of abstract systems.

(Seligman 2000, 49-50; Jalava 2001, 112)

Qbjective and Problem

The objective of this research study is creating a wide and versatile picture of the well-being of Russian immigrant families with children in Finland.

This research study seeks for an answer to the research problem:

  What does the everyday well-being of Russian immigrant families in Finland look like?

  The problem is qualitative and attached to the research

fields of well-being, immigration and families. The problem is defined, concerning its versatile character and the researcher´s background, mostly from a social sciences point of view, however not forgetting the different possibilities that for example the developmental psychology and cultural anthropology points of view can offer.

Questions

Following questions are asked in order to find a solution to the problem:

How do immigrant children and their families construct the well-being of the children?

How do families with Russian background in Finland see their everyday well-being during their acculturation processes?

How are reciprocity and trust situated in the acculturation processes constructing the well-being of immigrant families?

Timetable

Phase 1: 1.10.2011–31.12.2011 Specifying the research plan, applying for research permissions.

Phase 2: 1.1.–31.12.2012 Collecting data, analyzing the child perspective, paper 1: The Power of a Child. The Construction of Well-being of Immigrant Children with Russian Background in South-Eastern Finland. In Törrönen, M., Borodkina, O., Samoylova, V. & Heino, E. 2013. Empowering Social Work, Research and Practise.

Phase 3: 1.1.–31.12.2013 Analyzing questionnaire data, paper 2: Reciprocal Relationships and the Well-being of Immigrant Families with Russian Background in the Finnish-Russian Border Area. With Törrönen and Vauhkonen.

Phase 4: 1.1.–31.12.2014 Analyzing interview data, paper 3: The Power of Families. The Construction of Well-being of Immigrant Families with Russian Background in South-Eastern Finland, and Conclusion

Open questions

Analysing the data: Questionnaire: Well-being profiles? Interviews: Families as communities? Social capital?

How to analyze the stories?Should I ask: how do reciprocal relationships

construct well-being? Is this too simple? Well-being is a complexed concept – should I

e.g. try to use Sen even though his thinking is hard to operationalize?

Key literature at the moment

Alanen, A. 2009. Suomessa jo 50 000 venäjänkielistä. Tieto&trendit 6/2009, Tilastokeskus. Alitolppa-Niitamo, A. 2010. Perheen akkulturaatio ja sukupolvien väliset suhteet. In Martikainen. T. & Haikola, L. (toim.) 2010. Maahanmuutto ja sukupolvet. Tietolipas 233.

Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Allardt, E. 1976. Hyvinvoinnin ulottuvuuksia. Helsinki: WSOY. Bardy, M. (ed.) 2009. Lastensuojelun ytimissä. Helsinki: THL. Chambers, D. 2012. A Sociology of Family Life. Change and Diversity in Intimate Relations. GB: Polity Press Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological review, 25: 161-178. Haapola, I., Karisto, A. & Kuusinen-James, K. 2009. Hyvinvoinnin ja palvelujen muutossuunnat. Päijät-Hämeen hyvinvointibarometrin 2008 tuloksia. Verson julkaisuja 4/2009. Helavirta, S. 2007. Lasten tutkimushaastattelu. Metodologista herkistymistä, joustoa ja tasapainottelua. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 72:6, 629-640. Jalava, J. 2001. Luottamuksen uudet kasvot. Janus 2/2001. Jäppinen, M., Hurtig, J. & Törrönen, M. 2007. Arjen polkuja ja kohtaamisia. Venäläistaustaiset maahanmuuttajat ja palvelujärjestelmä Kaakkois-Suomessa. Empathos - Ehkäisevää

työtä lasten ja perheiden kanssa Suomen ja Venäjän raja-alueella. EAKR-projekti, Kotka 2007. Anjalankoski: Helsingin yliopisto, Koulutus- ja kehittämiskeskus Palmenia, Kotka ja Empathos-projekti.

Karisto, A. 2003. Kohti hyvinvoinnin kokonaistarkastelua. In Hirvonen, J., Konttinen, R., Haapola, I. & Karisto, A. 2003. Alueellinen hyvinvointibarometri. Helsinki University of Technology, The Publication Series of the Institute for Regional Economics and Business Strategy 18.

Keysar, B., Converse, B. A., Wang, J. & Epley, N. 2008. Reciprocity Is Not Give and Take. Asymmetric Reciprocity to Positive and Negative Acts. Psychological Science 2008 Dec; 19 (12): 1280-1286.

Komter, A. & Schans, D. 2008. Reciprocity Revisited: Give and Take in Dutch and Immigrant Families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, March 22, 2008. La Caze, M. 2008. Seeing Oneself through the Eyes of the Other: Asymmetrical Reciprocity and Self-respect. Hypatia vol 23, no. 3, 2008. Litmala, M. 2002. Luottamus - käsitteellisiä näkökohtia. Lakimies 1/2002, 34-36. Malinowski, B. 1950. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Martikainen. T. & Haikola, L. (ed.) 2010. Maahanmuutto ja sukupolvet. Tietolipas 233. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Niemelä, P. 2006. Hyvinvoinnin käsite toiminnan teorian valossa. In Niemelä, P. & Pursiainen, T. Hyvinvointi yhteiskuntapoliittisena tavoitteena. 2006. Sosiaalipoliittisen

yhdistyksen tutkimuksia 62. Kuopio: Kuopion yliopisto. Niemelä, P. 2009. Ihmisen toiminnallisuus ja hyvinvointi sosiaalityön teoreettisen ymmärryksen perustana. In Mäntysaari et al (eds) 2009. Sosiaalityö ja teoria. PS-kustannus. Novitsky, A. 2011. Perhe ja maahanmuutto. Unpublished lecture at Lahti University of Applied Sciences 9.4.2011. Väestöliitto. Paaso, H. 2011. Indicators of Infant and Child Well-being. In Research Publication 2011, Publications of Kymenlaakso University of Applied Sciences, Series B. Puuronen, V., Häkkinen, A., Pylkkänen, A., Sandlund,. T.,& Toivanen, R. (eds) New Challenges for the Welfare Society. University of Joensuu, Publications of Karelian Institute N:o

142. Joensuu. Saari, J. (ed) 2011. Hyvinvointi. Suomalaisen yhteiskunnan perusta. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. London: Tavistock. Seligman, A. 2000. Luottamus ja yleinen vaihto. In Ilmonen, K. (ed.) 2000. Sosiaalinen pääoma ja luottamus. Simmel, G. 1950. Faithfulness and Gratitude. In Wolff, K. (ed.) 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: The Free Press. Stenman, K. 2011. Kotouttaminen on monialaista ja monipuolista yhteistyötä. HS Mielipide 8.8.2011. Thyer, B. (ed.) 2010. The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods. California: Sage Publications, Weisner, T. S. 2002. Ecocultural Understanding of Children´s Developmental Pathways. Human Development 2002; 45: 275-281. Veistilä, M. 2011. Indicators of Child and Youth Well-being. In Research Publication 2011, Publications of Kymenlaakso University of Applied Sciences, Series B.