Siperiaa sanoiksi - uralilaisuutta teoiksi : Kai Donner poliittisena organisaattorina sekä tiedemiehenä antropologian näkökulmasta

The doctoral dissertation, entitled Siperiaa sanoiksi - uralilaisuutta teoiksi. Kai Donner poliittisena organisaattorina sekä tiedemiehenä antropologian näkökulmasta clarifies the early history of anthropological fieldwork and research in Siberia. The object of research is Kai Donner (1888-1935), fieldworker, explorer and researcher of Finno-Ugric languages, who made two expeditions to Siberia during 1911-1913 and 1914. Donner studied in Cambridge in 1909 under the guidance of James Frazer, A. C. Haddon and W. H. R. Rivers - and with Bronislaw Malinowski. After finishing his expeditions, Donner organized the enlistment of Finnish university students to receive military training in Germany. He was exiled and participated in the struggle for Finnish independence. After that, he organized military offensives in Russia and participated in domestic politics and policy in cooperation with C. G. E. Mannerheim. He also wrote four ethnographic descriptions on Siberia and worked with the Scandinavian Arctic areas researchers and Polar explorers. The results of this analysis can be sum up as follows: In the history of ethnographic research in Finland, it is possible to find two types of fieldwork tradition. The first tradition started from M. A. Castrén's explorations and research and the second one from August Ahlqvist's. Donner can be included in the first group with Castrén and Sakari Pälsi, unlike other contemporary philologists, or cultural researcher colleagues, which used the method of August Ahlqvist. Donner's holistic, lively and participant-observation based way of work is articulated in his writings two years before Malinowski published his thesis about modern fieldwork. Unfortunately, Donner didn't get the change to continue his researche because of the civil war in Finland, and due to the dogmatic position of E. N. Setälä. Donner's main work - the ethnohistorical Siberia - encloses his political and anthropological visions about a common and threatened Uralic nation under the pressure of Russian. The important items of his expeditions can be found in the area of cultural ecology, nutritional anthropology and fieldwork methods. It is also possible to prove that in his short stories from Siberia, there can be found some psychological factors that correlate his early life history.

United We Stand - Divided We Fall : A Standard Model of Unit Cohesion

Research on unit cohesion has shown positive correlations between cohesion and valued outcomes such as strong performance, reduced stress, less indiscipline, and high re-enlistment intentions. However, the correlations have varied in strength and significance. The purpose of this study is to show that taking into consideration the multi-component nature of cohesion and relating the most applicable components to specific outcomes could resolve much of the inconsistency. Unit cohesion is understood as a process of social integration among members of a primary group with its leaders, and with the larger secondary groups of which they are a part. Correspondingly, included in the framework are four bonding components: horizontal (peer) and vertical (subordinate and leader) and organizational and institutional, respectively. The data were collected as part of a larger research project on cohesion, leadership, and personal adjustment to the military. In all, 1,534 conscripts responded to four questionnaires during their service in 2001-2002. In addition, sociometric questionnaires were given to 537 group members in 47 squads toward the end of their service. The results showed that platoons with strong primary-group cohesion differed from other platoons in terms of performance, training quality, secondary-group experiences, and attitudes toward refresher training. On the sociometric level it was found that soldiers who were chosen as friends by others were more likely to have higher expected performance, better performance ratings, more positive attitudes toward military service, higher levels of well-being during conscript service, and fewer exemptions from duty during it. On the group level, the selection of the respondents own group leader rather than naming a leader from outside (i.e., leader bonding) had a bearing not only on cohesion and performance, but also on the social, attitudinal, and behavioral criteria. Overall, the aim of the study was to contribute to the research on cohesion by introducing a model that takes into account the primary foci of bonding and their impact. The results imply that primary-group and secondary-group bonding processes are equally influential in explaining individual and group performance, whereas the secondary-group bonding components are far superior in explaining career intentions, personal growth, avoidance of duty, and attitudes toward refresher training and national defense. This should be considered in the planning and conducting of training. The main conclusion is that the different types of cohesion components have a unique, positive, significant, but varying impact on a wide range of criteria, confirming the need to match the components with the specific criteria.