Uusien opiskelijoiden integroituminen yliopistoon : Sosiaalipsykologinen näkökulma

The first year at the university is critical in shaping the student s future academic development. Student integration has been shown to affect learning, motivation, persistence, and ultimately, graduation. Most importantly, however, integration affects how students academic expertise develops. In this study a social-psychological assumption was made: one cannot grow into academic expertise in isolation, without interaction with teachers and peers. Integration happens via engagement. In this research, social and academic integration among Finnish freshmen was studied. How much did freshmen interact with their teachers and peers; how interested did they think their teachers were in students; how committed did they feel; and how did they assess their own academic development? In addition to integration, students were asked about their identification with the university and the frequency of actual contacts with teachers and peers. Lastly, students personal epistemologies were studied to see if they were related to integration or frequency of contacts. The data was collected at the University of Helsinki in the autumn of 2001 and spring of 2002 at three faculties: the faculty of Social Sciences, Humanities and Science. In the autumn, 270 freshmen, and in the spring, 400 freshmen, completed the questionnaire. In addition to the cross-sectional data a longitudinal data was formed from 77 of the respondents. The results showed differences in how students were integrated. Freshmen at the faculty of Science were the least integrated whereas freshmen at the faculty of Humanities were the most integrated. Identification to the university was positively related to integration. The frequency of contacts with faculty and peers was positively related to integration and identification. A more developed personal epistemology was also positively related to integration and frequency of contacts. Differences were also found between the sexes in frequency of peer interaction and level of epistemology. This study has both theoretical and practical implications. Positive correlations between integration, identification, frequency of contacts and personal epistemology were found. The guiding assumption of the significance of social interaction was thus supported. The practical relevance of the study is for how teaching is carried out. In this data, over 50% of new university students at the end of their first year said they had never received feedback from an exam, never had a discussion with their teacher about a scientific topic, and had never discussed with a teacher how their studies were going.

Society by Numbers : Studies on Model-Based Explanations in the Social Sciences

The aim of this dissertation is to provide conceptual tools for the social scientist for clarifying, evaluating and comparing explanations of social phenomena based on formal mathematical models. The focus is on relatively simple theoretical models and simulations, not statistical models. These studies apply a theory of explanation according to which explanation is about tracing objective relations of dependence, knowledge of which enables answers to contrastive why and how-questions. This theory is developed further by delineating criteria for evaluating competing explanations and by applying the theory to social scientific modelling practices and to the key concepts of equilibrium and mechanism. The dissertation is comprised of an introductory essay and six published original research articles. The main theses about model-based explanations in the social sciences argued for in the articles are the following. 1) The concept of explanatory power, often used to argue for the superiority of one explanation over another, compasses five dimensions which are partially independent and involve some systematic trade-offs. 2) All equilibrium explanations do not causally explain the obtaining of the end equilibrium state with the multiple possible initial states. Instead, they often constitutively explain the macro property of the system with the micro properties of the parts (together with their organization). 3) There is an important ambivalence in the concept mechanism used in many model-based explanations and this difference corresponds to a difference between two alternative research heuristics. 4) Whether unrealistic assumptions in a model (such as a rational choice model) are detrimental to an explanation provided by the model depends on whether the representation of the explanatory dependency in the model is itself dependent on the particular unrealistic assumptions. Thus evaluating whether a literally false assumption in a model is problematic requires specifying exactly what is supposed to be explained and by what. 5) The question of whether an explanatory relationship depends on particular false assumptions can be explored with the process of derivational robustness analysis and the importance of robustness analysis accounts for some of the puzzling features of the tradition of model-building in economics. 6) The fact that economists have been relatively reluctant to use true agent-based simulations to formulate explanations can partially be explained by the specific ideal of scientific understanding implicit in the practise of orthodox economics.

From Habits to Social Structures : Pragmatism and Contemporary Social Theory

Pragmatism has sometimes been taken as a catchphrase for epistemological stances in which anything goes. However, other authors argue that the real novelty and contribution of this tradition has to do with its view of action as the context in which all things human take place. Thus, it is action rather than, for example, discourses that should be our starting point in social theory. The introductory section of the book situates pragmatism (especially the ideas of G. H. Mead and John Dewey) within the field and tradition of social theory. This introductory also contextualizes the main core of the book which consists of four chapters. Two of these chapters have been published as articles in scientific journals and one in an edited book. All of them discuss the core problem of social theory: how is action related to social structures (and vice versa)? The argument is that habitual action is the explanation for the emergence of social structures from our action. Action produces structures and social reproduction takes place when action is habitualized; that is, when we develop social dispositions to act in a certain manner in familiar environments. This also means that even though the physical environment is the same for all of us, our habits structure it into different kinds of action possibilities. Each chapter highlights these general insights from different angles. Practice theory has gained momentum in recent years and it has many commonalities with pragmatism because both highlight the situated and corporeal character of human activity. One famous proponent of practice theory is Margaret Archer who has argued that the pragmatism of G. H. Mead leads to an oversocialized conception of selfhood. Mead does indeed present a socialized view of selfhood but this is a meta-sociological argument rather than a substantial sociological claim. Accordingly, one can argue that in this general sense intersubjectivity precedes subjectivity and not the other way around. Such a view does not indicate that our social relation would necessarily "colonize" individual action because there is a place for internal conversations (in Archer s terminology); it is especially in those phases of action where it meets obstacles due to the changes of the environment. The second issue discussed has the background assumption that social structures can fruitfully be conceptualized as institutions. A general classification of different institution theories is presented and it is argued that there is a need for a habitual theory of institutions due to the problems associated with these other theories. So-called habitual institutionalism accounts for institutions in terms of established and prevalent social dispositions that structure our social interactions. The germs of this institution theory can be found in the work of Thorstein Veblen. Since Veblen s times, these ideas have been discussed for example, by the economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson. His ideas on the evolution of institutions are presented but a critical stance is taken towards his tendency of defining institutions with the help of rules because rules are not always present in institutions. Accordingly, habitual action is the most basic but by no means the only aspect of institutional reproduction. The third chapter deals with theme of action and structures in the context of Pierre Bourdieu s thought. Bourdieu s term habitus refers to a system of dispositions which structure social fields. It is argued that habits come close to the concept of habitus in the sense that the latter consists of particular kinds of habits; those that are related to the reproduction of socioeconomic positions. Habits are thus constituents of a general theory of societal reproduction whereas habitus is a systematic combination of socioeconomic habits. The fourth theme relates to issues of social change and development. The capabilities approach has been associated with the name of Amartya Sen, for example, and it underscores problems inhering in economistic ways of evaluating social development. However, Sen s argument has some theoretical problems. For example, his theory cannot adequately confront the problem of relativism. In addition, Sen s discussion lacks also a theory of the role of the public. With the help of arguments derived from pragmatism, one gets an action-based, socially constituted view of freedom in which the role of the public is essential. In general, it is argued that a socially constituted view of agency does not necessarily to lead to pessimistic conclusions about the freedom of action.

Arrested Drunk Drivers : Trends, social background, recidivism and mortality

The aim of this study was to examine the trends, incidence and recidivism of drunken driving during a 20-year period (1988 - 2007) using the data on all suspected drunken driving in this period. Furthermore, the association between social background and drunken driving, and the mortality of drunk drivers were studied by using administrative register data provided by Statistics Finland. The study was completely register-based. In 1989 - 1991, every year 30,000 drivers were suspected of drunken driving, but the number fell to less than 20,000 by 1994, during the economic recession. The changes in the arrest incidence of the youngest age groups were especially pronounced, most of all in the age group of 18 - 19-year olds. Even though the incidence among youth decreased dramatically, their incidence rate was still twice that of the general population aged 15 - 84 years. Drunken driving was associated with a poor social background among youth and working-aged men and women. For example, a low level of education, unemployment, divorce, and parental factors in youth were associated with a higher risk of being arrested for drunken driving. While a low income was related to more drunken driving among working-aged people, the effect among young persons was the opposite. Every third drunk driver got rearrested during a 15-year period, whereas the estimated rearrest rate was 44%. Findings of drugs only or in combination with alcohol increased the risk of rearrest. The highest rearrest rates were seen among drivers who were under the influence of amphetamines or cannabis. Also male gender, young age, high blood alcohol concentration, and arrest during weekdays and in the daytime predicted rearrest. When compared to the general population, arrested drunk drivers had significant excess mortality. The greatest relative differences were seen in alcohol-related causes of death (including alcohol diseases and alcohol poisoning), accidents, suicides and violence. Also mortality due to other than alcohol-related diseases was elevated among drunk drivers. Drunken driving was associated with multiple factors linked to traffic safety, health and social problems. Social marginalization may expose a person to harmful use of alcohol and drunken driving, and the associations are seen already among the youth. Recidivism is common among drunk drivers, and driving under the influence of illicit and/or medicinal drugs is likely to indicate worse substance abuse problems, judging from the high rearrest rates. High alcohol-related mortality in this population shows that drunken driving is clearly an indicator of alcohol abuse. More effective measures of preventing alcohol-related harms are needed, than merely preventing convicted drunk drivers from driving again.