4. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL LAYERS: FROM LIFE
4.6 Analytical focus and guiding hypothesis
Migration is a complex and challenging field of research. There is no ultimate grand theory which can explain the phenomenon exhaustively (Kytö 1998), nor is there only one scientific way to identify the essential features of the phe-nomenon. There are some established foci in researching migration, however.
Studies often concentrate on migration numbers, flows and directions, or on the migration rates of labourers. Statistical analyses of in- and out-migration flows between different cities, districts and countries are quite commonly made for administrative purposes. On the other hand, there are also studies which concen-trate on both statistical analysis and on reasons for migration (see, e.g., Kytö 1998; Jurvansuu 2000; Rantala 2002), or studies which have a qualitative focus on migration together with other social phenomena, such as perceptions of life, ordinary daily life, education or working life (see, e.g., Viinamäki 1999; Kurikka 2000; Soininen 2002).
The complexity of studying migration lies in the fact that every individual has his/her own special combination of factors dealing with features of one’s place of residence or personal life, which cause that person either to migrate or to stay. Migration and migration alacrity can be seen as a flow which is constructed of various streams of reasons (Kytö 1998, 67). One must agree with Arango (2000, 295), who has written that “the greatest difficulty in studying migration lies in its extreme diversity in terms of forms, types, processes, actors, motiva-tions, socio-economic and cultural contexts.” According to this, individual rea-sons for migration, and also migration alacrity, may vary because of changes in environment, individual needs and in the course of one’s life. Variations may also be caused by, for instance, individualistic life politics and future goals. In addition, place attachment may cause different patterns in migration intentions.
In a nut shell, reasons for migration differ from individual to individual, from age group to age group and from region to region.
However, it can be assumed that there are some people who are more open to migration plans and ideas for changing their living environment than the others;
those who migrate are not just a random selection of the population (White &
Woods 1980, 12). For example, young people are considered as the most mobile group in our society (Jonsson 2003, 3). On the other hand, it can be assumed that there are also some places which generate more migration plans in the minds of their inhabitants than others. Peripheral areas, such as the Barents Region, can be regarded as such. By concentrating only on this region and this age group (14-30-year-old young people) it is possible to gain deeper information about the phenomenon, than would be the case with a broader research setting.
It should be stressed that migration alacrity rates are not the most important focus of the analysis. The numeral data here rather serves to point out what the basic features are which characterize a person eager to migrate, and an area from which many plan to migrate. The most important part of this analysis is to find those factors which create eagerness to migrate on the level of personal experi-ence. Individual representations and experiences of the living environments are the keys to understanding the origins of the migration alacrity. Representations
63
and beliefs connected to regional and local well-being have been said to in-creasingly guide people towards settling in certain places (Kytö 1998, 57).
Because of the complexity of the phenomena and the nature of the research questions, the data analysis is two-fold: quantitative and qualitative. The quanti-tative analysis here concentrates only on describing migration alacrity as a phe-nomenon in the Barents Region by using numbers and answering the first re-search question: “How high is migration alacrity among young people in dif-ferent parts of the Barents Region?” Straightforward proportions/frequency distribution and cross tabulations have been utilised in the analysis (Procter 1993, 241, 244). There is no possibility to use other, more sophisticated, statisti-cal analysis, because variables are still nominal in sstatisti-cale34 (Heikkilä 1999, 79;
Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias 1996, 159).
Quantitative analysis has also been used to support the qualitative analysis.
This is done by looking first at the straightforward proportions/frequency distri-butions of the relevant questions to get an overview and starting point for quali-tative analysis. The qualiquali-tative analysis was carried out in practice by reading through the open-ended questions and classifying answers by counting mentions of different issues arising in the data. A rough categorisation was made accord-ing to the theoretical framework before actually readaccord-ing through the answers.
However, that classification made by the researcher was moulded by new aspects and ideas found in the data itself (see Appendix 4).
The analyses are based on the premise that an individual migration plan can be divided into different parts, or components. These components have been de-fined above in terms of the three essential components of place, which following Agnew (1993, 263) are labelled as location, locale and sense of place (see chap-ter 2). Thus the decision to migrate is made on the grounds of different aspects of the living environment, ranging from direct perception of the living environment to experiences on a more personal level, i.e. place attachment. It can be argued that fundamentally migration plans are all about a question of balance between personal (many times individualistic) wishes and components of place, of which each component represents different sides of the place of residence and thus lo-cal everyday life.
Due to the different roles of each component of place, finding answers for the second research question, “What factors affect willingness to migrate – and how?” requires three different approaches in the analysis, in a way that each approach corresponds with one of Agnew's components of place.
Under each of those three approaches different factors will be investigated. In addition to that, the data will be examined through a theoretical frame of refer-ence so that each theoretical layer is linked to certain relevant parts of the data.
The relevancy of each answer is determined using analytical units (Mäkelä 1990, 57-59). Analytical units help to identify the respondent’s references to issues dealing with either components of place or theoretical frame of reference. By using analytical units, it is possible to treat data which came in response to structured questions and that from open-ended questions as complementary. This means that those parts of answers to structured questions which relate to the
34 According to Töttö (2004, 10-11) data which is on nominal scale can be classified as qualita-tive rather than quantitaqualita-tive from a purely statistical point of view.
64 same analytical units as answers to certain open-ended questions will be taken together and used in a complementary manner in the analysis.
Typical analytical units are words which, in their context, clearly relate to the components of place and theoretical layers mentioned above. For example, such words and contexts which relate to how young people see their future possibili-ties, arrange their life politics, set individual(istic) goals and regard local possi-bilities in working life and education will be regarded as analytical units in rela-tion to locarela-tion. Young people’s opinions about political participarela-tion and deci-sion making will also be investigated as part of the same unit.
Locale, the social component of place, will be traced on the basis of analyti-cal units constructed from answers which deal with social interaction, in both formal and informal situations. Analysis related to locale also includes relation-ships with family members, other relatives and possible romantic partners. This approach also aims to investigate respondents’ experiences of social acceptance or control. These analytical units are connected typically with place attachment.
Analytical units of sense of place focus on respondents’ experiences and feelings regarding their place of residence, mostly in terms of place attachment.
Those feelings may be reflected in subjective views in relation to, e.g., meaning-ful events, proud feelings and chains of generations.
Finally, before moving on to the actual analysis and the empirical part of this study, it would be reasonable to state some basic starting hypotheses. These were arrived at by combining the local, peripheral context of Barents Region with the theoretical points presented in the previous chapters. While the guiding hypothe-sis of a study may give ideas suggestive of the results (Alasuutari 1996, 376-377), theory itself does not (or should not) predict the actual results; it only sug-gests a particular framework within which the details of the data can be assessed.
Therefore it is useful to outline those factors which, prior to the empirical inves-tigation, were hypothetically seen as having a potential influence on migration plans. The following hypotheses have been developed both by following the re-sults of previous studies and considering the theoretical concepts described in this chapter. On these bases, the main claims that analysis will investigate are:
1. Young people’s migration plans are not constructed solely on the basis of education and work.
2. Local features of living environment and opportunity structure affect young people’s attitudes that are manifested in migration plans.
3. Migration alacrity reflects young people’s future orientations, because there is unbalance between individual wishes and local realities.
65