Search results

Viimeisten vuosikymmenien aikana korkeakoulutuksen kansainvälistyminen on määrittänyt korkeakoulujen kehitystä kaikkialla maailmassa ja siitä on tullut myös merkittävä tutkimusaihe. Aiemman tutkimuksen perusteella korkeakoulutuksen kansainvälistymistä voi pitää monisyisenä ja ristiriitaisena prosessina. Tässä artikkelissa lähestyn kansainvälistymistä opiskelijanäkökulmasta tutkimalla suomalaisten yliopisto-opiskelijoiden näkemyksiä kansainvälistymisestä. Valikoin tutkittaviksi Venäjän ja itäisen Euroopan valtakunnallisten asiantuntijaopintojen (VIExpert) suorittajat, koska aluetutkimusta on pidetty yhtenä esimerkkinä kansainvälistymisestä jo vuosikymmenien ajan. Toteutin tutkimuksen avoimista kysymyksistä koostuvan verkkokyselyn avulla. Aineiston analyysissä käytin lähilukua. Tutkimus osoittaa, miten kansainvälistymisen määrittelyssä tärkeinä tekijöinä näyttäytyvät kielet sekä Suomesta että Suomeen suuntaava akateeminen liikkuvuus. Kieliin ja liikkuvuuteen keskittyvän näkökulman haastaa näkemys, jonka mukaan korkeakoulutuksen kansainvälistyminen koskee kaikkea opetuksen sisältöä sekä yliopistojen akateemista henkilökuntaa ja kaikkia opiskelijoita. Näin opiskelijoiden näkemyksessä korostuu myös kansainvälistymisen jokapäiväisyys, joka samalla häivyttää näkyvistä kansainvälistymisen taustalla vaikuttavat toimijat.

Over the past decades, internationalisation has become one of the key issues in higher education. Respectively, the topic has gained prominence as a subject of academic research. According to various studies, the internationalisation of higher education is a multifaceted and controversial process. In this article, internationalisation is approached from student perspective. The empirical data were gathered among the students of Expertise in Russian and Eastern European Studies (ExpREES). The data were gathered by an e-survey made up of open questions. Close reading was used to analyse the data. According to the results, students frame both languages and academic mobility as core issues of internationalisation and challenge their special role by emphasising that internationalisation concerns all curricula as well as all academic staff and students. Hereby, internationalisation is dealt with as an inherent part of everyday academic life, whilst the various actors behind the policy of internationalisation and their impact on the internationalisation process become blurred.

During past decades, the EU has responded to a variety of 'crises' by promoting a common cultural heritage to advance European identity and belonging. This article analyses identity politics conducted in the framework of the EU's flagship heritage action, the European Heritage Label. I borrow from 'banal nationalism' to scrutinise the usage of 'we' and 'us' in the promotional videos of the European Heritage Label sites as subject positions offered for identification in this heritage discourse. Analysis shows that the subject positions are constituted by an emphasis on the national level, preservation of the past for future generations and the key role of experts in the process of heritage. Although the heritage agents talk about Europe (representation) they do not identify with that as 'us'. By making the lack of 'banal Europeanness' in the videos visible the article shows the ambiguities of European identity politics. ; peerReviewed

Kaasik-Krogerus scrutinizes the European Heritage Label (EHL) as an authorized heritage discourse (AHD) in the making. She analyses how the discourse is formed in a politics of mobility and stability between the local, national, and European scales resulting from the interplay of europeanization (of the national and local) and domestication (of the European). The chapter asks how this politics of mobility and stability is conducted to manage the scalar dissonance in one of the sites, the Great Guild Hall in Tallinn, Estonia. Kaasik-Krogerus argues that the politics conducted in the exhibitions works in two controversial ways: legitimizing mobility and stability as natural and simultaneously challenging these as problematic. The analysis illuminates the dissonance between the national-scale intents and their consequences on the European scale concerning power relations, multiscalarity, and future imaginaries. ; peerReviewed

In this article, we scrutinize the use and institutionalization of the concept of 'dialogue' in the cultural politics of the European Union. Our focus is on how dialogue is understood in the context of the European Union's flagship heritage action, the European Heritage Label, that aims to strengthen citizens' sense of belonging to the Union. Since heritage has gained increasing prominence in the European Union international relations, we also discuss how 'dialogue' is institutionalized in the European Heritage Label as part of the European Union's heritage diplomacy. We approach dialogue in the context of the European Heritage Label as a floating signifier; an ideal seldom explicitly defined and never fully achieved but actively used to organize society and power relations. The empirical data consist of official European Heritage Label reports and interviews conducted with European Union officials and members of the European Heritage Label panel in charge of the selection and awarding of European Heritage Label sites.

This article explores the politics of solidarity in the framework of constructing a common cultural heritage of the European Union. The politics of solidarity stems from the notion of solidarity embedded to European heritage. We use critical heritage studies as a theoretical approach that understands heritage as an inherently dissonant social construct, produced by various actors according to political, economic and social interests. The study analyses empirical data from the European Heritage Label (EHL), a flagship heritage action of the EU that communicates shared values and a sense of identification to European citizens. Our empirical data includes ethnographic observation as well as interviews with experts and visitors at two EHL sites, the Hambach Castle (Germany) and the European Solidarity Centre (Poland). The sites specifically mediate the notion of solidarity to the visitors as a bottom-up process that has a strong potential to produce societal change. Our analysis shows how the EHL conducts twofold politics of solidarity. First, by designating the label to this kind of site, solidarity is embedded into European heritage. Second, by heritagising solidarity, the EHL endeavours to evoke a sense of solidarity among contemporary Europeans. ; peerReviewed

Geopolitical interests and identities play an integral part in the Ukraine conflict, which for many observers has marked an end to hopes of Russia's successful integration into Western political and security structures. This article observes how Finnish and Estonian newspaper editorials reproduce and mobilise geopolitical representations and identities in their commentary on the Ukraine conflict and related articulation of national foreign policy prescriptions. The critical discourse analysis reveals that both Finland and Estonia are geopolitically positioned by the newspapers into (Western) Europe, on one hand, and into Russia's neighbourhood, on the other. Nevertheless, in dealing with the apparent fears and anxieties prompted by the latter position, the newspapers adopt highly diverging discursive strategies closely associated with the differing foreign policy orientations and histories of the two countries. Based on the analysis, we argue that studying newspapers as key agents in popular geopolitics contributes to a better understanding of the role of the newspapers in national foreign policy formation as well as in shaping political responses to the Ukraine conflict. ; Peer reviewed

Th is article investigates the genealogy of the concept of heritage in the European Commission's (EC) policy discourse from 1973 to 2016. Based on conceptual analysis of 2,412 documents gathered from the EUR-Lex database, the uses of the concept in the EC's policy discourse were categorized into seven thematic areas: nature, environment, and biodiversity; human habitats; economy and employment; agricultural products and foodstuffs; promotion of societal development and stability; audiovisuality and digitalization; and European identity and integration. In the EC's discourse, heritage develops in the context of intertwined phases of EU integration and cultural Europeanization. The study indicates how the EC governs heritage mostly through implicit cultural policies included in diverse policy sectors other than culture.

This article investigates the genealogy of the concept of heritage in the European Commission's (EC) policy discourse from 1973 to 2016. Based on conceptual analysis of 2,412 documents gathered from the EUR-Lex database, the uses of the concept in the EC's policy discourse were categorized into seven thematic areas: nature, environment, and biodiversity; human habitats; economy and employment; agricultural products and foodstuffs; promotion of societal development and stability; audiovisuality and digitalization; and European identity and integration. In the EC's discourse, the concept of heritage develops in the context of intertwined phases of EU integration and cultural Europeanization. The study indicates how the EC mostly governs heritage through implicit cultural policies included in diverse policy sectors other than culture. ; peerReviewed

The so-called 'refugee crisis' has added urgency to the social dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in European societies. This study explores how emotions figure in this politics of belonging by studying their discursive mobilization in Finnish and Estonian public debates on asylum seekers. Focusing on presidential speeches addressing the refugee issue, on the one hand, and their reception by online commenters on popular tabloid news sites, on the other, the comparative analysis highlights both similarities and differences in how emotional expressions are employed in these two countries with very different experiences of taking refugees. Despite employing common discursive elements in their speeches, the diverging national contexts prompted the two presidents to emphasize contrasting emotional positions: the insecure Finn, threatened by abusive asylum seekers, and the compassionate Estonian, capable of identifying with the plight of refugees. In contrast, the reactions to speeches by Finnish and Estonian citizens on tabloid news sites demonstrated highly converging emotional positions. Online comments in both countries revealed deep anger and distrust of political elites among tabloid news audiences, articulating a complex relationship with the nation as a divided and exclusive political community. ; peerReviewed