Problematizing the research process

nest appreciated the efforts I made in learning the language and occasionally started speaking to me in Skolt Sámi too.

Considering the ideals of the language nest as a method for language transference and revitalization, the fact that most of the discussions I had with both the children and the caretakers were in Finnish raised some issues. Since ideally all interaction in the nest should be in the desired language (i.e. Skolt Sámi), I tried to be especially careful and participate in the activities as much as possible with my limited language skills and attempted to not ask for translations unless absolutely necessary. In this way the language nest worked as a language bath environment for myself as well. By the time my fieldwork was drawing to an end, I discussed this issue with the caretakers (as well as the parents) when the occasion presented itself, and they assured me that it was not as much of a problem as I worried as my presence in the nest was only temporary. According to them the children were quite used to having all kinds of visitors and “outsiders” who did not speak the language spending time in the nest. The conclusion I drew from this is that they (especially Maa´ren) saw my presence and the fact that I was doing research on language nest more beneficial than the possible (but not very likely) setbacks it may have had on the children’s language development. Äärelä (2016, 33) points out, however, that for her the fluent knowledge of Sámi was crucial for engaging in fieldwork in a Sámi language nest, as she did not want to endanger the children’s language learning process.

2.2 Problematizing the research process

“Maa´ren comes to the kitchen and we talk about who I still plan to interview. She criticizes the fact that the fieldwork time is so short and not even during the fall/winter term. I try to explain that this is how it has to go and it’s still more time than some other similar research projects. But I’m glad we talked about this.” (fieldwork notes, 16.6.2014)13

Language was only one of many issues that needed to be addressed during the process. As shown in the quote above, the realities of the timing were somewhat problematic as well. During the summer (which was the only time possible for me because of my work

and studies in Helsinki and Tromsø) the language nest is closed for about a month because of the funding gaps and summer vacations. This limited the actual time I was able to spend in the language nest. Additionally, according to Maa´ren, during the summer the activities of the nest are somewhat different from those of other times of the year (see chapter 3 for a more thorough discussion of the activities in the nest and the yearly cycle). This allowed me to get a glimpse of only one aspect of the activities, and had I done my participation observation at some other times or for longer periods, the results might have been different in some aspects. However, while the timing of the fieldwork presented a practical challenge, the daily and yearly cycles of the language nest were present in the everyday life and in discussions and interviews I had with the caretakers throughout the time I spent in the nest (and even beyond, in emails etc.).

To ensure that the parents were aware of the research process, they were sent a consent form with information about the research and my contact information (Appendix 2).14 Parents were also asked about filming and photographing the children as well as if they were interested in being interviewed for the project. Out of five families, four showed interest and one family declined from being interviewed, but all families gave their consent for their child(ren) to be included in the study. Since the community is so small and the scope of this work is so specific, it is almost impossible to hide the identities of the people included in the study. In order to protect the identities of the children involved, pseudonyms of traditional Skolt names will be used of the children throughout the work if a specific person needs to be singled out, and their family members are referred in relation to them as opposed to using their names either (appendix 1).15

Since the children in the study for the most part were well below school age, it is questionable how well they understood the focus and the aims of the study, and the point of my presence at the language nest. As Sirpa Lappalainen points out in her article on daycare ethnography, there is always a differentiating balance of power when it comes to researching children, and that the position of a researcher (especially when

14 _{I also applied and received a permission for the study from the Inari municipality education committee}

and the director of the daycare services Pirkko Suomela before starting the fieldwork.

15 _{The obvious exception to this is Maa´ren and her daughter, as she has the double role of a caretaker}

and a mother. Though Maa´ren is a relatively visible person in the community, I have given them both a pseudonym for identity protection. Also, in the consent form I asked for permission to use initials for the children instead of pseudonyms, I hope none of the families mind that I changed them to pseudonyms for

studying daycare groups) is to be a “different kind of adult”, someone and something quite separate from the caretakers (Lappalainen 2007, 66-67). While taking that kind of a “powerless” position was quite challenging, I often discussed with the children about the reasons as to why I was there in the nest and what they thought about my presence, taking into consideration the children’s capabilities to understand and discuss these kinds of questions.

Children often showed some curiosity about my notetaking, but became used to it very quickly. Occasionally one of the older children would ask me to read aloud something I had written (which I then would do), but they rarely showed any interest once they found out that I was indeed just chronicling the activities of the language nest. Many of the children liked to draw and they would ask me for paper and pencils for their own purposes, and they would fill my notebook pages with scribbles of their own trying to ”help” me with my notetaking. Altogether children hardly ever questioned my presence or activities in the nest. I also asked about this in the parental interviews: usually a few questions about the research process and the children’s possible reactions to it. According to parents, their children had not really paid any attention to my presence, or at least commented on it in any way at home (even when asked by their parents). This seems to suggest that the children were used to visitors in the nest (as seems likely) and not paying any special attention to my presence. They did not ignore me altogether, however, as I was often asked to participate in their play and other activities and children usually asked after me when I was away doing interviews in the other language nest etc. Hirsch and Gellner (2001, 5) note that access and the ethical aspects of research should not be something that is negotiated once and then forgotten about; rather they should be negotiated throughout the fieldwork and scrutinized for the way they affect the research. Consequently, it is not enough to just ask for permission on paper, but it should instead be done in a constant dialogue with the informants and interviewees. This point of view also informed the way I conducted interviews, and my decision to primarily use the data from only those children whose parents I had been able to interview.

Originally I had planned to involve the children more in the research process, but since the questions of consent and research ethics created such a dilemma, the eventual research questions ended up veering away from focusing on the children’s point of

workings in the language nest in chapter 3. Children’s point of view has usually been researched using performative methods and through empathizing, but Lappalainen for example is doubtful if it even is possible for an adult to grasp the ways children experience the world (Lappalainen 2007, 75-77). For this reason and the fact that the discussions with the caretakers and parents were so fruitful, it made sense to focus in this study more on the adult points of view and the aspects of language nest they brought up. Even if the experiences of the children remained somewhat inscrutable, they did remain an inspiration and the reason for this study. However, considering that while the focus is in the relationships within and of the language nest, and the ways in which the people (including the children, of course) in the nest, around the nest and in the community are affected by the nest, this study can hardly be called an ethnography of childhood or children.

Despite this, having an expansive view of methodology helped me to try to imagine the children’s point of view and try to pay attention to things that mattered to them. Experiencing the language nest from their perspective and participating in their play gave me an appreciation of their unique experience and point of view into language and culture. Combining that with the indigenous methodological practice of including the community, especially the parents and caretakers, hopefully has made this project meaningful for the language nest and revitalization workers as well.

2.3 Indigenous and feminist methodologies and research ethics

“It is no longer possible for the human disciplines to research the native, the indigenous other, in a spirit of value-free inquiry. Today researchers struggle to develop situational and transsituational ethics that apply to all forms of research act and its human-to-human relationships. We no longer have the option of deferring the decolonization project.”

– Denzin & Lincoln (2011b, 12).

When it comes to the fieldwork and the research as a process, Tomaselli et al. (2008, 369) call for further decolonization of ethnographic narratives, claiming that academic authority should not be taken for granted, rather the expertize of the subjects in their own lives should be better recognized and brought to light. In a similar vein, research should not end with an article, thesis or a book, but continue beyond the text and engage with the subject community even after the fieldwork.