**1. Introduction**

Integration of immigrants is one of the most important items on the agenda of social and political discussions taking place in the European Union. Many experts and leaders of some countries have acknowledged that the integration policy thus far pursued has been unsuccessful. It is expected that immigration will follow an upward path in the future, requiring more effective policy for managing it. To implement a targeted integration policy, those who develop it need to have a clear understanding of the integration process. Therefore, studies aimed at gathering information on the integration process, identifying obstacles to integration and measuring its success gain importance with each day. With global migration picking up, research pays increasing attention to acculturation, as integration is one of acculturation strategies.

Acculturation is often understood as a one-way path from heritage culture to host culture. Such understanding is based on the conceptualisation of acculturation observed in the first half of the twentieth century [1, 2]. According this conceptualisation, acculturation occurs "when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups" ([2] p. 149). Such understanding means that an immigrant would have to decide whether to accept host culture or remain faithful to heritage culture. In the first half of the twentieth century, biculturalism was rejected, as it was believed that it causes conflicts, stress, isolation and identity confusion [3]. By contrast, today biculturalism is understood as a positive psychological and social type of adaptation [4].

Nowadays, acculturation is understood in a different way: as a choice between "origin" and "destination" cultures ([5] p. 626), emphasising its two-way movement determined by the extent to which immigrants want to preserve their heritage culture and the level of their interest in familiarising themselves with and integrate into host culture [6, 7]. Depending on immigrants' attitudes, acculturation occurs according to several strategies: assimilation, separation, integration and marginalisation [8]. Taking into account the diversity of strategies, the definition of acculturation can be summarised as follows: "the ways people prefer to live in intercultural contact situations" [9]. Assimilation means that immigrants abandon their heritage culture and adopt host culture. Separation is observed when immigrants practise traditions of their heritage culture and do not accept host culture. Integration takes place when immigrants practise their cultural traditions and take over traditions of the host culture simultaneously. Marginalisation arises if immigrants do not retain links with their heritage culture and avoid host culture. The latter acculturation strategy is the least preferred one, but integration can take place if the host country accepts multiculturalism.

Finland, like other European countries, faces challenges posed by immigrant acculturation. Although Finland was not part of migratory routes for a long time, today population with immigrant background represents 8.5% of its population [10]. Arrival of Chilean refugees and Vietnamese in Finland started in the 1970s [11]. The 1990s saw a higher influx of immigrants when the implementation of the migration programme launched by Finnish President Mauno Koivisto started. It was aimed at people who had ethnic Finnish Ingrian ancestry and who inhabited the territories that became part of the USSR after World War II (Ingria – the current Leningrad region). As a result of this programme (1990–2016), so-called rights to resettle were used by approximately 30 thousand people [10].

A series of studies focusing on acculturation of immigrants in Finland have been carried out to find data-based solutions. The impact of acculturation on psychological well-being has been studied by measuring teenagers' acculturative stress, behavioural problems, self-esteem, life satisfaction and sense of mastery [12, 13]. Being well aware of the fact that problems do not arise only after taking up residence in Finland, researchers have explored the ways in which immigrants' well-being is affected not only by postmigration factors but also by premigration issues [14]. To investigate the process of immigrants' psychological, sociocultural and socio-economic adaptation, data on immigrants from the USSR were collected for eight years (1961–1976). Findings show that the success of immigrants' adaptation is driven by sociocultural adaptation measured as the proficiency in understanding, speaking, reading and writing Finnish [15]. Taking account of the fact that the process of acculturation is affected by attitudes of both immigrants and the host society, it has been analysed

#### *Acculturation Orientations among Russian Youth in Finland DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110303*

whether the acculturation orientations of the immigrants and the hosts are concordant or discordant [16]. It is a comparative study analysing the data collected in Germany, Israel and Finland. The study concludes that the acculturation profiles of hosts and immigrants are discordant in Finland.

Discussions on the process of immigrant acculturation in Finnish society gained pace after the refugee crisis (2015), heightening academic interest in this issue as well. Although the acculturation orientations are most frequently explored from the perspective of immigrants, there are examples of studies carried out from a different angle. When exploring the attitude of Finnish society, focus is placed on the question concerning the immigrant acculturation orientations preferred by Finnish teenagers [17]. When investigating the relationship between feelings of prejudice and support for acculturation preferences, it has been concluded that Finnish teenagers are inclined towards supporting integration rather than assimilation of Russian immigrants. The comparative study on the impact of media use on acculturation conducted in the Russian communities of Finland and Latvia should be mentioned among the most recent studies. The findings show that Russian immigrants in both countries scored closer to biculturalism than monoculturalism [18].

Russian-speaking immigrants make up one of the largest groups of immigrants in Finland. This has been driven by Finland's geographic location adjacent to Russia and particularly by the above migration programme. Given that the reasons behind migration are manifold, the Finnish Immigration Service distinguishes between three types of immigrants, using different terms: returnees (in Finnish – *paluumuuttaja*), refugees (*pakolainen*) or forced immigrants and voluntary immigrants (*maahanmuuttaja*). Those who moved to Finland from the USSR or the Russian Federation within the migration programme offered by the state can be referred to as returnees from the legal point of view. However, social sciences consider them voluntary immigrants. They face identical immigrant acculturation problems, as they moved to Finland after they had already lost the cultural ties (first and foremost—the language) with the country of origin of their ancestors. Therefore, the term *Russian immigrants* is used in this chapter without making a distinction between ethnic identity and linguistic identity. From a historical point of view, in this particular case, we cannot talk about returnees, as ethnic Finnish Ingrians, who inhabited the territories incorporated into the USSR, moved to Finland. Despite their ethnic origin, people who moved to Finland from the USSR or the Russian Federation continue to speak Russian within the family and consume products of Russian media and culture, as well as establish organisations whose purpose is to preserve Russian culture. Taking account of the fact that Finland remains an attractive destination for immigrants, particularly after the war started by Russia against Ukraine (2022), it is expected that the number of the Russian immigrants will increase further.

The quantitative research approach has been mostly used when exploring both attitudes of immigrant acculturation and expectations of the host society. The qualitative approach is applied rather infrequently when conducting studies. The authors of this chapter hope to contribute to raising awareness on the acculturation of immigrants in Finland based on their experience analysed using qualitative research methods. One peculiarity of the chapter is that immigrants are given their chance to have a voice. Another peculiarity relates to the analysis of the of immigrants' experience gained from celebrating festivities.

The central research question of the chapter is: how does a dialogue between the heritage culture and the host culture develop when celebrating festivities? An essential part of models for the integration of immigrant culture [19] is customs,

traditions and novelty of celebration. Today, anthropologists pay particular attention to festivities as social or religious rituals that strengthen social ties [20, 21]. Research into festive culture plays a role in exploring immigrant communities, allowing identification of the network of social ties which reflects the connection of immigrants with both the host culture and the origin culture. The interviews with young people conducted during the fieldwork provide an insight into the festivities celebrated in their families and the way it is done, how the Russian community preserves its traditions of celebrating festivities and what the manifestations of the interaction between Russian and Finnish festive culture are in Finland. The answers to these questions help identify the acculturation orientations of the younger generation coming from the Russian community.

## **2. Data collection and the research methodology**

The study among Russian youth living in Finland was carried out from 1 October to 31 December, 2021. A city located in the central part of Finland was chosen as a study site. The city is home to 144 thousand people, of which 136 thousand use Finnish, 293—Swedish, 16—Sami and 8052—other languages in a family environment on a daily basis. Study participants believe that approximately 2000 Russians live in this Finnish city (Olga, female, 52 years old, group leader, 26 October, 2021).

To ensure the anonymity of study participants, the chapter reveals neither the location where the study was conducted nor the group names. Meanwhile, references to interviews include the pseudonyms chosen by study participants themselves, and all data that could disclose their identity directly or indirectly have been anonymised.

The sample was selected using the non-probability sampling technique. Study participants were chosen by means of both purposive sampling and the snowball method. Purposive sampling was employed when selecting groups of Russian immigrants living in Finland; these groups have emerged around cultural activities and involve young people. The snowball method was used to identify Russianspeaking youth who arrived in Finland in early childhood or who were born in this country. These young people find themselves in Finland as a result of their parents' choice who used the Finnish migration programme to resettle to Finland from the USSR, later – the Russian Federation.

The sample consisted of Russian-speaking young people – members of groups where the Russian language is a tool of communication and intergenerational transmission of cultural traditions: in the religious community, in the group of learning Russian and two groups dedicated to the preservation of cultural traditions. It was important for the researcher to seek support from gatekeepers at the beginning of field work. Group leaders understood the relevance of the study and provided their support to the researcher by emailing the informed consent forms containing the researcher's contact information to all their group members. Due to the positive attitude of group leaders, the researcher could participate in group events and make ethnographic observations. The informal socialisation between the researcher and group members played a crucial role in the fieldwork, as the young people whom the researcher had approached personally during events agreed to be interviewed rather than those who had received information from group leaders. The informal socialisation led to a high response rate: all young people approached by the researcher agreed

#### *Acculturation Orientations among Russian Youth in Finland DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110303*

to be interviewed, except one person who changed his/her mind to participate in the interview and showed no willingness to contact the researcher.

The major obstacles to recruiting interviewees were: first, young people's busy schedules (work, studies, social, cultural and sports activities) and second, the Covid-19 pandemic. Although Finland had not introduced gathering restrictions during the fieldwork and group activities were not restricted as long as epidemiological safety regulations were complied with, an account had to be taken of the fact that the epidemiological situation could change abruptly. Interviews were planned carefully for weeks ahead. Only one of them was a face-to-face interview, but others were conducted via the Zoom platform because of the uncertain epidemiological situation. All interviewees, except one, turned on the video camera and contacted the researcher face-to-face during the interview.

The key research instruments used were participatory observation and interviews. Participatory observation was made on a regular basis over a three-month period, several times a week, peaking on Saturdays and Sundays. 16 individual qualitative interviews were carried out during the fieldwork: 3 group leaders (aged 46–51) and 13 young people most of whom were 19–23 years old were interviewed, but the ages of two interviewees were 34 and 35. The dominant presence of females in the groups led to the following breakdown of interviewees by gender: 12 women and 4 men.

Interviews with group leaders were conducted in a narrative form; that is, they were unstructured interviews allowing group leaders to tell their story. This provided the opportunity for group leaders to express their opinion and to elaborate on the topics and problems of concern to them. Semi-structured interviews were used for working with the young people; that is, these were undertaken and followed previously developed sets of questions, frequently changing their sequence and posing more in-depth questions [22]. The interviews took place in the language used within the young people's families, that is, Russian, with their average length being one hour. These were recorded in an audio format and later transcribed into the Russian language, noting emotions and longer pauses in the text and observing the accepted norms for transcription in research [23]. The interviews were listened to again after transcription to avoid mistakes, with the anonymisation of data being carried out simultaneously.

No ethically dubious situations arose during the course of the study. Having familiarised themselves with the information on the purpose of the study, its performance, interviewees' rights, data anonymisation and storage rules, all interviewees confirmed their participation in the study. Before each interview, young people were encouraged to ask questions concerning the information sheet, and the answers provided were open and meaningful.

Qualitative content analysis, which is not strictly regulated, was used as a research instrument [24] and provided the opportunity for the researcher to be flexible [25, 26]. Acculturation indicators which were the object of the analysis were clearly defined on the commencement of the content analysis, and a word, sentence or several sentences which formed a unified concept were used as a unit of analysis [26]. As the number of interviews was not large, they were coded manually: the main categories or codes were initially identified and were then divided up into subcategories or subcodes. In this way, analysis was done by following the text [27]. Codes were created based on interview data, and in turn, after reviewing the created codes, they were evaluated according to their correspondence to the conceptual framework, the goals of the research and the research questions. In this way, a deductive and inductive method was applied to the data analysis [24].
