Browsing by Subject "ethnography"

In my research I examined violence in secondary school from the point of view of the students. I asked, how the students themselves defined violence. I focused on who was considered to be someone who has information on the phenomenon or power to define it. In previous research it has been reported that mundane, everyday violence has been studied less than extreme acts of violence. In my research, I drew attention to the mundane aspects of the phenomenon and what it is at its limits. I tried to determine why some things were named violence, when others were not. In my research I regarded violence as gendered, since I wanted to study the phenomenon as a structure rather than as attached to specific individuals. In my understanding, violence and power are inseparably linked. Therefore I chose to approach the phenomenon from the perspective of a feminist theory. Key concepts in my research were violence, gender, school and agency. I used feminist ethnography as a method to both produce and analyze the data. In feminist ethnography it is essential to interact as respectfully as as possible with the people who are being studied as well as to maintain a critical attitude toward knowing and the hierarchies related to knowledge. The ethnographer tries to understand the world of the people she studies by participating in it. In feminist ethnography attention is drawn to power relations as well as in the intertwining differences. The data consist of field notes and interviews. For two weeks I observed the school days of the students of one seventh grade in one school located in the Helsinki metropolitan area. My observation covered classes, breaks and meal times, but I did not follow the students if they left the school grounds unless the classes were held there. I interviewed 17 of the 18 students in the class, in pairs or individually. Half of the interviews were done individually and the other half in pairs. There were 12 interviews in total. According to my research, the student's status in the social hierarchy, their position regarding the norms in the society and the discourses related to violence or bullying in society were some of the factors that influenced the way the students defined violence or were affected by it. Violence in school appeared to be so normal that often it was not even noticed or regarded as such. An atmosphere was maintained actively where the possibility of violence was always present. The teachers used the threat of violence as a resource to emphasize their message. Gendered structures were also entwined with the normalization of violence. Violence or the threat of it was linked in particular with the correct representations of masculinity. In addition to gender other differences affected how it was possible to be present in school and how violence could be defined or used as a resource. According to my research, racism, homophobia and gendered structures limit the students' agency. The students seemed to be struggling to understand situations from other person's points of view and to understand the consequences of their actions. On the other hand, the teachers did not seem to understand the students' perspective. I too shared the difficulties with identifying and naming violence. My conclusion is that even though no one is able to distinctly define violence, it is not to be accepted. Based on my research, violence should always be intervened, despite the difficulties of defining it.

In this study multiagency at school has been studied through pupil interviews. The view is on pupils sayings and experiences. Multiprofessionality at schools in Finland is legislated in new curriculum (2014). Collaboration is said to be important for pupils holistic well-being which has been discussed to be at stake. Current situation in Finland has proved to be that while pupils do well at PISA, their socio-emotional well-being is alarming. Phenomenon will and is making schools to invent new ways to support pupils. One way could be multiprofessionalism. This study immerses oneself in pupils experience and view which could be beneficial to improve multiprofessional working at schools. Interviews have been taken place at 2013–2015. All indentificative information has been changed to respect ones privacy and for good ethics. First all material has been read several times and put to two categories: which agents do pupils talk about and how they talk about them. In this section there hasn't been any changes to the text. Next this material which is in categories is examined and analyzed through etnoghraphic category-analyse. From categories researcher has made little briefings which are meant to demonstrate how multiagency is seen at pupil interviews. As result, multiagency at schools and in pupils life showed that pupils didn't see the networking. Material showed that parents were the most important thing for all pupils and acted often as advocates. When parents weren't there, pupils leaned on other close relatives. This makes collaboration between home and school important according to this finding. Teachers and special need assistants were also important for support. Assistants were stated even more important than teachers. Social workers, psychologists and supported hobbies were also mentioned. Material showed that when pupil has been heard and taken with to plan his or her own support the experience of the outcome was positive. Passive role referred to negative outcome. Talk about teachers had a negative touch if pupil felt that he or she hasn't felt to be heard or understood or taken with. Participation linked to positive outcomes within multiagency working with pupils.