To conclude my research, I draw together my observations on my research. I set out to study the language policy of the UEF with two hypotheses: that English would be the only language used when dealing with international matters and that there would be aspects in the language practices of the UEF that the international students may find impractical. Based on the results of this thesis, I argue that both of these hypotheses were at least partly correct. English is certainly the main language used when communicating with international students in a larger context, but it is possible to use other languages at the Joensuu campus of the UEF as well – if only with multilingual colleagues. During the interviews with international doctoral degree students, it became apparent that there are aspects in the language practices of the UEF that do not perhaps serve their purpose in the best possible way. In my opinion, one major problem is the idea of translating everything from Finnish into English (as is mentioned in the former Language Policy of the UEF), but not following through with this practice in all areas of the UEF’s services and material.
Having inspected the website of the UEF before the actual interviews with the doctoral students enabled me to form a clear picture of the strategies and policies of the UEF. I also analysed a selected portion of UEF’s English sites. Although I think that the image of the UEF is certainly very much internationally oriented, I find it disturbing that the amount of information provided on the doctoral degree programmes (all of which are international) varies so much. I have to assume that there are no specific instructions as to what kind information needs to be provided on all doctoral degree programmes. During the discourse analysis of my study, I came across several pages of the old website behind some of the links in the current website, but none of the interviewees mentioned this during our discussions. Notably, the interviewed international students had all entered the UEF before the update and redesign of the entire UEF brand (published in 2015), so all of them were familiar with the old version of the UEF website.
Interestingly, the interviewees did not seem bothered by the existence of two different versions of the website layout and structure, but mentioned to have noticed the difference in content that is provided in the Finnish version of the website compared to the English site. Considering the English language of the website, none of the interviewees mentioned the change of the English variant (British vs. American), but said to have noticed the influence of ELF (although they did not specify the type of ELF occurrence).
60
The interviewees were mostly in agreement with having English as the main language of the UEF, but one of them suggested that providing the website in other major languages (such as French or Spanish) would attract more international applicants. Another interviewee questioned the UEF’s strong emphasis on Russian studies, and proposed that the focus of international studies would not only lean towards the east. Here I would have to disagree on this notion, since there are certainly other areas of the world that are a part of the UEF’s international cooperation.
As I describe on Section 2.2.3, according to the most recent Internationalisation Policy of the UEF (university of Eastern Finland 2012b: 10–11), cooperation in research and education reach Europe, North America, North-West Russia, China, India and Southern Africa. Also, it must be noted that the geographical location of Joensuu and the UEF certainly makes it natural for the university to specialize in Russian studies. However, I do agree with the interviewee on the fact that research needs to current and that international research could cover more areas of the world.
During the discussions, we also considered the language of academia from a wider perspective.
Although international students recognize the threat that English poses for smaller languages, it is clearly still regarded as the rightful main language of HE– especially at doctoral level.
However, opinions regarding the power and status of ELFA are still contradictory. On one hand, it is a threat to smaller languages, and on the other, it is the language of the academia.
Furthermore, having impeccable ELFA skills is a necessity for the language user to be taken seriously in the academic world. This puts pressure especially on countries that have small native languages to offer EMI. As the EU citizens are expected to know at least two other languages in addition to English, being a good citizen of the EU means being multilingual. Even if multilingualism is a highly perceived goal in Europe and there are considerably more NNES speakers in the world than there are NES, the latter are still regarded as guardians of what is the correct way of using the language.
There are variable opinions on the level of English language skills of the staff and students at the Joensuu campus of the UEF. On one hand, some thought that everyone should improve their English skills, but on the other is was also understood why it would be uncomfortable for some lecturers to function in a language that is foreign to them. For the most part, the language skills of the staff and students at the UEF was considered sufficient. It seems there are not as much problems at the academic setting of the university, but more so when the interviewees visit
61
some other service providers in Joensuu. Some interviewees even questioned whether the international students should also take initiative in learning other languages and not expect everything to be provided in English.
Fortunately, there seemed not to be any problems with the quality of the English language used in the electronic services of the UEF. What seems to cause most confusion seems to be the inconsistency of arranging courses in different languages and providing material in either Finnish or English. In addition, the interviewees were confused by the variation of having everything translated from Finnish into English (such as all course descriptions in WebOodi even if the international students would not be able not attend these courses) and occasionally providing limited information in English (such as open vacancies on the website of the UEF).
All of the interviewees said to rely on the online machine translation tool Google Translate whenever facing such problems. As the most surprising example, the interviews mentioned getting the infosessions of EU funded programmes and “Horizon 2020” only in Finnish. It seems peculiar that the international students would be provided with Finnish language material when they are clearly a part of the target group of such programmes. The interviewees did not have a consensus on whether they should make the effort of learning Finnish (although one of the interviewees had clearly tried and maintained that this had been a terrible experience).
Language policy of HE institutes is based on the legislation of each country. According to Sajavaara et al. (2007: 25), the language of instruction at Finnish universities may be Finnish, Swedish or both – and in the case of UEF, the language of instruction is Finnish. However, The Universities Act 558/2009 ensures the universities with the right to use other languages in instruction and examination, which means that there are different policies and regulations regarding languages in the Finnish HE institutes. Up until the end of the year 2015, the UEF followed three official policies which included language aspects (Language Policy, Communication Policy and Internationalisation Policy), but by the time this thesis is published, there are no valid policies in action regarding language issues. Based on these former policies, at the UEF, staff members are guided towards better language awareness and researchers are encouraged to publish their findings in English. Moreover, all course descriptions are deliberately provided in both Finnish and English, even if an entire degree programme or a separate course would only be arranged in Finnish. There are surely different reasons behind this decision – for one, it might be a way for the university to attract and invite more
62
international students. Then again, perhaps the reason lies behind the objective of receiving the ECTS Label, since having all course information translated into English is a part of the official guidelines of the ECTS. However, there is no certainty for this assumption, since the ECTS Labels have not been granted after the year 2013.
An unexpected discovery was that the international students had such varied opinions regarding the issue of the tuition fees. At the time of the actual focus group discussion, the proposal of the tuition fees had not been accepted by the Finnish parliament, but the doctoral students could still imagine the possible scenarios and what would mean to the future of the Finnish HE. Some thought it would be unfortunate if a part of the image and reputation of the free and high-quality Finnish education is lost in the form of tuition fees. For the most part, the interviewees seemed to think that the suggested amount of €1,500 would not be too high for international students, but still estimated that setting the tuition fees would decrease interest in the UEF as an international university. As I have discussed in the introduction part of this thesis, the number of international students, the student exchange and the number of international doctoral degrees have been important even in the funding model of the university, but their importance might be changing in the future. Therefore, I think that the UEF will have to be very scrupulous in their future approach in this area if they aim to offer an attractive option in the international HE market. I would imagine that the legislative changes are going to cause at least some sort of update to the funding model of the UEF, but at the time this thesis is published, I cannot be sure as to what extent.
The interviews also led to a discussion on the Finnish society, the Finnish academic culture and the struggles of finding employment especially from a foreigner’s point of view. Although this matter is not very closely related to the language policy of the UEF – and in the English language used at the Joensuu campus of the UEF – I think it still affects how international students, who have become a remarkable asset in the European HE institution market, make decisions when applying to HE institutions. One of the interviewees pointed out that it might be smart to move away from Finland since the students can carry out their doctoral degrees from a remote distance anyway, and the education is, for now, free of charge. Consequently, the decision to set tuition fees might pose another major challenge for the UEF to attract international students. The effects of such decision shall be revealed later, and it would be
63
interesting to see if the interviewees of this research were right in expecting there to be a decrease in the number of international applicants due to the tuition fees.
All in all, my personal opinion on the UEF and their aim at being an internationally active university is that the goals come very close to what Foskett (2012: 44–45) defines as being an internationally focused university, where the level of achievement in internationalisation is strong in many dimensions (see Section 2.2). However, it must be said that the practical realization of these goals have not quite been met yet. Perhaps the goals have been really ambitious or there has not been a clear plan as to how to reach those goals. As was discussed with the doctoral degree students, some practices are clearly confusing to the students. This study leaves plenty of room for further research. More relevant information on the English language used at the Joensuu campus of the UEF would be produced if the research included the view of the exchange students and international master’s degree students. However, due to the limitations of a MA thesis I have chosen only one target group for this study, and at this stage it was the doctoral degree students who, most likely, have spent more time at the UEF than exchange students or master’s degree students. Also, the experiences of the international students may vary according to their field, which is why comparative research on the same matter could be in order. Furthermore, it would be interesting to explore the image that the UEF strives to create in comparison with the practices that are actually in place.
64
References
Research material
UEF 2016. The UEF Website. Available at <www.uef.fi>
Works cited
Alexander, R. 2008. “‘International’ programmes in the German speaking world and englishization: A critical analysis.” In Wilkinson, R. and V. Zegers (eds). Realizing Content and Language Integration in Higher Education. Maastricht: Maastricht University Language Centre. 77−95. Also available at:
<http://digitalarchive.maastrichtuniversity.nl/fedora/get/guid:7a48d841-788b-44b1-add7-c0878081ffd7/ASSET1>
Ammon, U. and G. McConnell. 2002. English as an Academic Language in Europe: A Survey of its Use in Teaching. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Backhaus, P. 2012. “Language policy at the municipal level.” In Spolsky, B. (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: The University Press. 226–242.
Blommaert, J., J. Collins and S. Slembrouck. 2005. “Spaces of Multilingualism.” Language &
Communication 25:3, 197–216.
Bloor, M., J. Frankland, M. Thomas and K. Robson (eds). 2001. Focus Groups in Social Research. London: SAGE Publications.
Chromy, J. 2008. “Snowball sampling.” In Lavrakas, P. (ed.). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. California: SAGE Publications. 823–824.
Cronin, M. 2006. Translation and Identity. Oxford/New York: Routledge.
Crystal, D. 2003 (1997). English as a Global Language. Second edition. Cambridge: The University Press.
Eskola, J. and J. Suoranta 1998. Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Eskola, J. and J. Vastamäki 2007 (2001). ”Teemahaastattelu: Opit ja opetukset.” In Aaltola, J.
and R. Valli (eds). Ikkunoita tutkimusmetodeihin I. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus. 25–43.
Fairclough, N. 2012. “Critical discourse analysis.” In Gee, J. P. and Handford, M. (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 9–20.
Ferguson, G. 2007. “The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP:
questions of equity, access and domain loss.” Ibérica 13:1, 7–38.
Foskett, N. 2012 (2010). “Global markets, national challenges, local strategies: the strategic challenge of internationalization.” In Foskett, N. and F. Maringe (eds). Globalisation and Internationalisation in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 35–50.
Harris, S. 2011. The University in Translation – Internationalizing Higher Education.
London: Continuum.
Hartikka, M. 2012. Tampereen kaupungin verkkosivujen virtuaalinen kielimaisema.
Unpublished MA thesis. University of Tampere, School of Language, Translation and Literary Studies.
Hellekjær, G. 2010. “Language matters. Assessing lecture comprehension in Norwegian English-medium higher education.” In Dalton-Puffer, C., T. Nikula and U. Smit (eds).
Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 233–
258.
65
Hewson, L. 2009. “Brave New Globalized World? Translation Studies and English as Lingua Franca.” Revue française. de linguistique appliquée. 2009:1. 109–120. Also available at
<http://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-linguistique-appliquee-2009-1-page-109.htm>
Hirsjärvi, S. and H. Hurme 2009. Tutkimushaastattelu: Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö.
Helsinki: Gaudeamus Helsinki University Press.
Hornberger, N. 2006. “Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning.” In Ricento, T. (ed.). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method: Malden, MA: Blackwell. 24–41.
House, J. 2003. English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7/4: 556–578.
Hughes, R. 2007. “Internationalisation of Higher Education and Language Policy: Questions of Quality and Equity.” Higher Education Management and Policy 20/1: 102–119. Also available at <http://www.oecd.org/site/imhe2006bis/37464216.pdf>
Hultgren, A., F. Gregersen and J. Thøgersen (eds). 2014. English in Nordic Universities – Ideologies and practices. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. 2012. “English for academic purposes and discourse analysis.” In Gee, J. and M.
Handford (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
412–423.
Hyppönen, T. 2007. “The ABC of Joint Degrees – Some Statements and Personal
Reflections.” In Laine, J., B. Petersson, S. Prozorov and H. Rytövuori-Apunen (eds).
The Bologna Process on the Ground: Experiences of Nordic-Baltic-Russian
Cooperation in Higher Education. CFE Conference Paper Series; No. 1. Lund: Lunds universitet. 11–15.
Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2013. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
Johansson, M., P. Nuolijärvi and R. Pyykkö. 2011. Kieli työssä – Asiantuntijatyön kielelliset käytännöt. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Kachru, B. 1985. “Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle.” In Quirk, R. and H. Widdowson (eds). English in the World –
Teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge University Press. 11–
30.
Kachru, Y. and L. Smith. 2008. Cultures, Contexts, and World Englishes. New York:
Routledge.
Kangasharju, H., R. Piekkari and R. Säntti 2010. “Yritysten kielipolitiikka – missä se piilee?”
In Lappalainen, H., M. Sorjonen and M. Vilkuna (eds). Kielellä on merkitystä – Näkökulmia kielipolitiikkaan. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. 136–157.
Karppinen, E. 2013. ”Monikielisyyden tilat tamperelaisessa työyhteisössä.” In Koskinen, K.
(ed.). Tulkattu Tampere. Tampere University Press.
Klimpfinger T. 2010. “ʻShe’s mixing the two languages together’ – Forms and functions of code-switching in English as Lingua Franca.” In Mauranen, A. and E. Ranta (eds).
English as Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 348–371.
Knox, J. 2007. Visual-verbal communication on online newspaper homepages. Visual Communication 6/1: 19–53 Also available at <http://vcj.sagepub.com/content/6/1/19>
Koskinen, K. (ed.). 2013. Tulkattu Tampere. Tampere University Press.
66
Kress, G. 2012. “Multimodal discourse analysis.” In Gee, J. and M. Handford (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 35–50.
Kytömäki, J. and A. Savinen. 1993. Terveisiä katsojilta. Palautetutkimuksen televisiota koskevien keskustelujen analyysi. Helsinki: YLE, tutkimus- ja kehitysosasto.
Lappalainen, H., M. Sorjonen and M. Vilkuna. 2010. Kielellä on merkitystä – Näkökulmia kielipolitiikkaan. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Lehikoinen, A. 2004. “Foreign-language-medium education as national strategy.” In Wilkinson, R. (ed.). Integrating Content and Language: Meeting the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education. Maastricht University Press. 41–48.
Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meierkord, C. 1996. Englisch als Medium der interkulturellen Kommunikation.
Untersuchungen zum non-native-/non-native speaker—Diskurs. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.
Melchers, G. and P. Shaw 2003. World Englishes: An Introduction. London: Oxford University Press.
Metsämuuronen, J. 2008. Laadullisen tutkimuksen perusteet. Publications in the Metodologia no 4. Helsinki: Methelp.
Morgan, D. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Papina, M. 2007. Comparing the Finnish and the Russian Educational Systems – a Student’s Perspective. In Laine, J., B. Petersson, S. Prozorov and H. Rytövuori-Apunen (eds). The Bologna Process on the Ground: Experiences of Nordic-Baltic-Russian Cooperation in Higher Education. CFE Conference Paper Series; No. 1. Lund: Lunds universitet. 31–
34.
Pauwels, L. 2012. A multimodal framework for analysing websites as cultural expressions.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17: 247–265. Also available at:
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01572.x/epdf]
Phillipson, R. 2008. “The new linguistic imperial order: English as an EU lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia?” Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies 1:2, 189–2003. Also available at
<http://www.serwis.wsjo.pl/lektor/1783/R20%20Phillipson%202008%20English%20in
%20EU%20lingua%20frankensteinia.pdf>
Pyykkö, R., U.-K. Tuomi, T. Juurakko-Paavola and U. Fiilin. 2007. ”Uutta yhteistyötä ja profiilien terävöittämistä: Korkeakoulujen kielikoulutus” In Pöyhönen, S. and M.-R.
Luukka (eds). 123–152.
Pöyhönen, S. and M.-R. Luukka (eds). 2007. Kohti tulevaisuuden kielikoulutusta.
Kielikoulutuspoliittisen projektin loppuraportti [The national project on Finnish Language Education Policies]. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Centre for Applied Language Studies. Also available at
<https://www.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/solki/tutkimus/projektit/kiepo/projektin_loppuraportti /KIEPOn_loppuraportti.pdf>
Ranta, E. 2010. “Syntactic Features in Spoken ELF – Learner Language or Spoken
Grammar.” In Mauranen, A. and E. Ranta (eds). English as Lingua Franca: Studies and
Grammar.” In Mauranen, A. and E. Ranta (eds). English as Lingua Franca: Studies and