Riikka Sirkko, Katja Sutela, Marjatta Takala

Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden tuen tarve opintopsykologien kertomana

Introduction

Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden tuen tarve opintopsykologien kertomana. Tutkimus syventyy korkeakouluopiskelijoiden tuen tarpeisiin opintopsykologien kuvaamana diskurssianalyysin kautta. Löydä kriisi-, haaste-, tarve- ja vaatimusdiskurssit.

Abstract

Tässä artikkelissa esittelemme tuloksia tutkimuksestamme, jossa tarkasteltiinkriittisen diskurssianalyysin keinoin, millaisin diskurssein korkeakouluissatyöskentelevät opintopsykologit kuvaavat opiskelijoiden tuen tarpeita ja mitennämä diskurssit asettavat opiskelijoita erilaisiin asemiin. Tutkimukseen osallistuiyhteensä 22 opintopsykologia ja tutkimuksen aineisto on kerätty kyselyllä sekäteemahaastattelulla. Aineistossa esiintyi neljä diskurssia: kriisi-, haaste- tarve- javaatimusdiskurssit, jotka positioivat opiskelijoita eri tavoin. Tässä tutkimuksessaymmärrämme diskurssin kulttuurisesti jaettuina puhe- ja ajattelutapoina, jotkamuokkaavat puheen kohdetta.

Review

This article presents a timely and highly relevant investigation into how university study psychologists articulate the support needs of higher education students. Employing critical discourse analysis, the study aims to uncover the various discourses utilized by 22 participating psychologists and, crucially, how these discourses position students in differing ways. The research is grounded in a robust methodological approach, combining survey data with in-depth thematic interviews, offering a comprehensive look into professional perspectives on student well-being. A significant strength of this work lies in its innovative application of critical discourse analysis, moving beyond simply identifying types of support needed to examining the underlying linguistic and conceptual frameworks. The explicit definition of discourse as culturally shared ways of speaking and thinking that shape the subject provides a solid theoretical foundation. The identification of four distinct discourses – crisis, challenge, need, and demand – represents a key contribution, highlighting the nuanced and potentially varied understandings professionals hold regarding student difficulties. These findings offer valuable insights for institutions striving to enhance student support services and for the training of professionals in this field. While the abstract effectively outlines the study's scope and initial findings, the full paper would benefit from a more detailed elaboration on the specific implications of how each identified discourse "positions students in different ways." This aspect is central to critical discourse analysis and promises to reveal the power dynamics inherent in professional narratives. Further discussion on the practical recommendations stemming from these identified discourses, and how they might inform policy or practice within higher education institutions, would also enhance the paper's impact. Overall, this study offers a compelling foundation for understanding the complex interplay between professional perspectives and student support needs.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.