Evaluation of the study

This study aimed to explore new immigrants’ acculturation in Finland. This study summoned the perspectives of the new immigrants to explain the initial process of acculturation,

particularly from those who either have been involved in the official integration plan or had at least one year of the Finnish for foreigners course. Moreover, this study extends the current literature’s capacity to understand refugees, immigrants, and as well as returnees’ experiences in the initial phase of acculturation in Finland.

Guba and Lincoln’s “responsive constructivist evaluation” (1989, as cited in Patton, 2002) led in the study. This method permitted the author to be especially sensitive to the differing perspectives of various participants, to identify issues and concerns based on direct personal observation and face to face contact with the participants, to collect data and report finding with those differing perspectives clearly in mind. Moreover, this study has followed a systematic process and has achieved authenticity in terms of fairness in depicting

constructions in the sociocultural and psychological aspects from the 11 participants.

The study, based on the participants’ responses to the semi-structured questions in the interviews, provided a thorough and culturally competent description of the initial process of acculturation. One potential limitation of the study is the nature of the sample, which was composed of 11 participants from 8 countries and aged from 18 to 46. Of the eleven participants, all are located in the Pirkanmaa region and Central Finland. None of the respondents came from Lapland or the Helsinki area or came from the continents of North America and East Europe. Age in this sample could also impact the outcome: none of them begin acculturation in the retirement. Kim (2001) declared age to be a significant factor in cross-cultural adaptation because of its close linkage to openness to change. Older

immigrants may not have an open personality structure due to their original cultural identities

and old cultural habits which have become solidified. Thus, this sample may contain features that impact the transferability of these findings.

A second potential limitation of the study is the new immigrants have not been observed over time to measure the effects of acculturative stress. Though the Finnish language deficiency may constrain their expression fully, a very complex acculturation was found from the participant D to exemplify this. This 18 year-old female from Afghanistan illustrated how acculturative stress was accumulated and presented in her life. In spite of her Finnish language skills, she exhibited a disruptive effect on her psychological and

physiological well-being. Next she undertook the parenting role by being a translator and information broker in the family which was illustrated as the model of dissonant acculturation.

She has carried a burden since her parents and children within the family could not

acculturate to the Finnish culture at the same pace. Then she encountered conformity stress at school. She chose to wear a veil in order to represent her religion and identity, and this

seemed to constrain friendship building with Finns. The last but not least is the risk of adolescents born of immigrant parents may experience conflicts between their parents’

cultural values and those of the host culture. Thus, longer observation may help to identify potential confusion with language and explore further the impacts and problems in the process of acculturation. However, it is still possible that researchers or interpreters may influence the participants’ responses.

A third potential limitation of this study is the differences in cultural norms and values, which are probably the most common issue that cross-cultural interviewing has faced. When different norms and values govern an individual’s perspective and cross-cultural interactions, such a variable adds its challenge in the face to face interview. Based on the nationality, there are 8 nations involved. Thus, these differences across nations allowed room for

interpersonally different interpretation. For example, participant J, a female from the Congo,

expressed first that she had no negative experience in Finland. But when she talked about her life in Mikkeli, she suddenly described her encounter of been blocked on the road on the way home. According to her statement, she did not think those Finns, who yelled at her with prejudicial words on the street discriminated her and her family. She interpreted it simply as a group of drunken people who behaved badly.

Overall, the methodology used in the data collection was very positive in providing the participants with an opportunity to utter their responses in a wide-ranging manner. In general, the interviews with these participants went smoothly, except to catch the same timeline for interview with new immigrants from Africa. But the outcome of the data collection was fruitful. The small group interview session either formally or informally also created a positive synergy in generating rich data. In addition to the semi-structured

questionnaires used in the interviews, the presence of the interviewer’s role as an ‘insider’

with ‘outsider’ experience also fostered rapport with those participants from the adult education center. By the stimulation of the author’s experience in Finland, most of the participants were more willing to yield much information and their opinions and experience in the process of acculturation.