After the coding the instances of values in each speech, these instances were counted and the counts were transformed in percentages per each speech in order to maintain the comparability across all the samples regardless of the length of the single speech.
Thus for every speech the numerical values ascribed to the value items refer to the percentage this particular value occupied in that single speech, therefore the numerical values vary from 0-100 (although in reality as no speech consists of only one kind of value expression the highest numerical value is never 100). The numerical values have been given to one decimal. All statistical analyses were performed on numerical values thus obtained.
In addition, longitudinal variation was also calculated based on mean percentages per decade. The data was furthermore analyzed according to time, type of speech and ruler. For each of these categories the objective was to create meaningful ways of comparison by changing the focus and thus the grouping of the data.
6.3.1 TIME
Two main ways of looking at the data from the time perspective were used.
First of all the mean percentage for each value across speeches for each decade was calculated. The mean percentages were then compared for the rank order value priorities across decades, for the distribution of value dimensions per decade as well as for the distribution of SVT values vs. Non – SVT values.
Secondly, the data was divided in to two groups according to the political structure in vigor: Grand Duchy (1809-1917) and Independence (1917-2000).
The mean percentage of values across speeches was calculated along this division. The results were again compared for the distribution of values and for value rank order priorities.
6.3.2 SPEECH TYPE
The speeches were divided according to each speech type into the four categories: Prayer Day Declarations (PDD), from 1812-1999; Parliament Opening Speeches (POS), from 1809-2000; New Year’s Speeches (NYS), from 1935-2000, and, lastly, Other Speeches (OTH), from 1894-1918. Mean percentage of values in each type of speech was calculated, and the speeches were grouped for further comparison by period (Grand Duchy vs.
Independence) as well as per decade. As with the time-focus, with speech type-focus as well the data was looked at in terms of presence of values, the distribution of value dimensions, SVT vs. Non-SVT values.
6.3.3 RULERS
There were 5 Czars and 10 Presidents included in the study. There were also speeches held by General Governors, the Senate, and the Government, and by Prime Ministers, and by one future president (Svinhufvud) as the Speaker of Parliament (altogether N = 17), these speeches were excluded from this part of the analysis, whilst being included in the previous analyses.
For each ruler a value profile was compiled by calculating the mean percentage of values across all speeches held by each ruler. Rank order of values was calculated based on these means. Changes in rank order priorities were also analyzed year by year. Mean percentage of values was also
calculated across each speech type to permit comparison across speaker and across type of speech.
The following table illustrates the division of speeches per ruler.
Table 14. Rulers and speech types
Ruler
In power PDD POS NYS OTH Total N CZARS
Alexander I 1809-25 11 2 13
Nikolai I 1825-55 32 32
Alexander II 1855-81 27 4 31
Alexander III 1881-94 13 4 17
Nikolai II 1894-1917 8 6 3 17 Total
N= 91 16 3 110
PRESIDENTS
Ståhlberg 1919-25 5 5
Relander 1925-1931 1 8 9
Svinhufvud
1917-18,
1931-37 5 9 3 17
Kallio 1937-40 4 3 3 10
Ryti 1940-44 3 4 2 9
Mannerheim
1918-19,
1944-46 1 2 3
Paasikivi 1946-56 10 11 11 32
Kekkonen 1956-82 26 25 25 76
Koivisto 1982-94 13 14 12 39
Ahtisaari 1994-2000 6 6 6 18
Total
N= 69 87 61 218
Note: PDD = Prayer Day Declarations, POS = Parliament Opening Speeches, NYS =New Year’s Speeches , OTH = the following three speeches held by Nicholas II: Declaration of Ascension to the throne, 1894, Declaration of an Additional Prayer Day, 1894, and the Declaration of Finland’s Unity with Russia 1899, i.e. the so called February Manifesto.
7 RESULTS IN CONTEXT
In order to do justice to the data and to answer the research questions as comprehensively as possible, the data was looked at from different point of views with both qualitative as well as quantitative considerations taken into account. 153 The qualitative results are presented first in order to capture more of the richness of the data, answering questions such as: what was actually said? As each of the value categories154 is rather broad, were some value items within the value categories more present in the speeches than others? What aspects of values (or singular values) were mentioned? How were the opposing values handled?
These results are then followed by the general descriptive statistics, the ratio between SVT values and the Non-SVT values, and the occurrence of value mentions in the speeches.
The quantative results are organized according to time, speech type and speaker. Firstly, the results are looked at from the point of time and therefore also polity. Which values are present at which historical period? Is there a difference between the period of Grand Duchy (1809-1917), when Finland was an autonomous part of the Russian empire, and Independence (1917-2000), when Finland was a democratic Republic? Secondly, the focus is on the speech types: are there differences in the endorsed values between the different speech types (considering that it was almost always the same person holding the all speeches each year)? Thirdly, the viewpoint of the rulers themselves: which values does each one of them prioritize?
Interwoven with the presentation of results as was outlined above, there will also be an emphasis on the presence (or the lack thereof) of the values not belonging to Schwartz Value Theory (SVT) found in previous Finnish studies (namely Work-related values, Spirituality, and Education).155 What role do they play? Are they really necessary to capture the whole picture? Are they present solely when the speakers are Finns (i.e. Finnish Presidents vs.
Russian Czars)? Are there time-based differences?
As was already mentioned in chapter 4, it is not possible to actually know who wrote each speech, even though there are some textual and other indications e.g. concerning some of the Prayer Day Declarations (Sjöblom, 1995; Vuorela, 1980), but they are outside the scope of the present study.
153 Similar approach is advocated by Karasz & Singelis (2009) for e.g. cross cultural research.
154 The value categories themselves are made up of several distinct values, e.g. Universalism consists of values promoting peace, preservation of nature as well as social tolerance and equality. See chapter 2.
155 The Non-SVT Finnish values are derived from previous studies; see e.g. Helkama & Seppälä (2006), Jaari (2004), Myyry & Helkama (2001), and Verkasalo et al. (2004).
Therefore the results are presented in the name of the ruler to which the speeches can be ascribed to, without implying that they actually wrote them in person. This is especially so for the 19th century material (mostly consisting of Prayer Day Declarations, all of which are part of and included in the Finnish Laws and Statutes).