Everyday negotiations of belonging : making Mexican masks together with unaccompanied minors in Finland

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjys20 Journal of Youth Studies ISSN: 1367-6261 (Print) 1469-9680 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjys20 Everyday negotiations of belonging - making Mexican masks together with unaccompanied minors in Finland Kristiina Korjonen-Kuusipuro, Anna-Kaisa Kuusisto & Jaakko Tuominen To cite this article: Kristiina Korjonen-Kuusipuro, Anna-Kaisa Kuusisto & Jaakko Tuominen (2019) Everyday negotiations of belonging - making Mexican masks together with unaccompanied minors in Finland, Journal of Youth Studies, 22:4, 551-567, DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2018.1523539 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1523539 © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 20 Sep 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 414 View Crossmark data Everyday negotiations of belonging - making Mexican masks together with unaccompanied minors in Finland Kristiina Korjonen-Kuusipuro, Anna-Kaisa Kuusisto and Jaakko Tuominen Faculty of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland ABSTRACT In this paper we discuss how art workshops can be used to examine dimensions of belonging. We draw on our findings of collaborative ethnographic fieldwork with unaccompanied refugee minors in Finland. The practical aim of the art project was to offer a platform for transcultural communication and interaction, and to support mutual understanding and solidarity among the refugee minors and Finnish pupils. The collaborative ethnographic approach gave us an opportunity to meet the young people through working together and be equally active members of the group sharing the same classroom. Theoretically we aim to enlarge the understanding of the sense of belonging and the role of the subjective agency of the unaccompanied minors, including everyday participation. We highlight the practices through which the minors can be supported in an embracing manner in their everyday lives in new host societies. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 16 February 2018 Accepted 6 September 2018 KEYWORDS Unaccompanied refugee minors; belonging; ethnography; collaborative research; Finland Introduction The year 2015 brought a sudden increase in numbers of unaccompanied minors when more than 3 000 claimed asylum in Finland. Before 2015, roughly 150 to 200 unaccompanied refugee minors had arrived in Finland each year. The new social and political situation revealed that unaccompanied refugee minors are exposed to the fragility and limitations of nationally standardised solutions of institutional care, schooling and social services. Refugee minors are also often perceived as victims of their own past, which continues to define their care needs in many institutional settings. Unaccompanied minors end up living in a ‘limbo of waiting’for several years, and this open-ended waiting may have long-standing effects on their later lives (Kohli and Kaukko 2017). Many of them experience loneliness and some suffer from post-traumatic stress or other psychological conditions. These young people have a limited possibility to live like other young people, since they are overwhelmed by the experiences of fleeing from home, journeying and the asylum process in the new host country. Their experiences of uncertainty are further amplified when they meet with institutional mistrust or there is a lack of trustworthy adults in their daily social environment (Kuusisto-Arponen 2015,2016a; see also © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. CONTACT Kristiina Korjonen-Kuusipuro kristiina.korjonen-kuusipuro@uta.fi JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 2019, VOL. 22, NO. 4, 551–567 https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1523539 Björklund 2015; Herz and Lalander 2017; Kaukko and Wernesjö 2017; Kohli 2011). Whereas new psychosocial interventions are currently being developed to help children and young people with trauma memories (e.g. Peltonen and Punamäki 2010), novel ways to deal with the loss and alteration of important social and spatial relations are needed (see also Kuusisto-Arponen 2014,2016b). In the contemporary world, the struggles over inclusion and exclusion of groups of people have increased immensely. Therefore, in this paper, we ask how we could support transcultural subjectivities and solidarities in institutional settings such as school. Further, we illustrate practices through which the unaccompanied minors can be supported in an embracing manner in their new host societies. The embracing manner includes the distribution of hope for the future, which is one of the crucial mechanisms of societies, as the anthropologist Hage (2003) argues. Moreover, he stresses that ‘the kind of affective attachment (worrying or caring) that a society creates among its citizens is intimately connected to its capacity to distribute hope’(Hage 2003, 3). This capability and socio-political willingness of caring in societies has become segregative and conditioned to ‘right’nationality during the recent years of high-level mobility, whether voluntary or forced. Thus, the affective attachments of many European societies have become dominated by increasing nationalistic rhetoric and strict governing of nationals versus newcomers. This has also rigorously promoted polarisation tendencies, such as segregated housing and education, within societies. Several NGOs, ad hoc solidarity groups and individual citizens have acted in order to help the refugee and migrant populations in many European countries. Simultaneously, far right movements have gained political influence with their populistic demands for closing borders and deporting asylum-seekers back to their countries of origin. In the post-2015 Europe, these claims are harshly targeted at unaccompanied minors as well, affecting their future life perspectives and opportunities in the new host society (Kuusisto-Arponen and Gilmartin 2019). Wimelius et al. (2017, 143–144) argue that for example in Sweden, which is one of the largest recipients of unaccompanied minors in Europe, reception faces challenges such as a lack of contacts between actors, an absence of shared political visions of integration, and a lack of follow-ups and evaluations. The same structural and governing challenges exist in Finland. However, we argue here that in order to promote social integration, it is important to recognise the lived experiences of these minors both at the micro and socio-political levels. The theoretical aim of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the centrality of social encounters engendering transcultural belonging. We focus particularly on the encounters that illustrate the negotiations of agency among unaccompanied minors. In this paper, we draw on our experiences and findings of the fieldwork with unaccompanied refugee minors in Finland. The ethnographic fieldwork was conducted in autumn 2016. Methodologically, we ask how art workshops as a data gathering method can be used to address the narrated and embodied dimensions of belonging (on embodied belonging, see also Korjonen-Kuusipuro and Kuusisto-Arponen 2012; Kuusisto-Arponen & Savolainen 2016). We stress the importance of the collaborative aspect in ethnographic fieldwork: for us, this ‘doing with’meant that we worked together with the young people who were the subjects of our research. We found this method very fruitful, as it helped to build trust between the researchers and the participants and to open our minds to fresh and often unexpected ideas coming from the participants, and thus move towards more 552 K. KORJONEN-KUUSIPURO ET AL. collaborative knowledge-making processes (See e.g. Beck and Maida 2013; Bergold and Thomas 2012). Previous research on unaccompanied minors highlights the existential loneliness of unaccompanied minors. For example, the social network these young people have can be limited to the institution where they live (Herz and Lalander 2017, 1067). This means that their daily social ties are mainly based on relationships with co-travellers, adult caregivers and several state-related authorities, but not with the wider society. As Herz and Lalander (2017) aptly criticise, even the term ‘unaccompanied minor’is itself excluding and isolating. Protection that is based on categorising these minors as having no familial ties further reinforces the sense of loneliness (Kuusisto-Arponen and Gilmartin 2019). Thus, the resilience of the unaccompanied children needs to be supported via various protective factors (such as a safe environment, possibility to success in education), and with the help of individuals, families and communities. Simultaneously, it is vital to maintain stable and loving ties to home (Nardone and Correa-Velez 2016, 3). Therefore, our paper also makes a practical contribution to the field of institutional care: we present ideas to support social belonging facilitated through artistic methods in the school environment that is one of the key pro-social organisations in these minors’lives. Approaches to identity, agency and belonging In this article, we discuss the everyday lives of the unaccompanied minors and the practices of belonging. Basically, human life can be understood as consisting of complex, interconnected spheres, and a self is always culturally and socially embedded and connected to other people (Smart 2007 > cited in May 2011, 364). Furthermore, for instance Nsamenang (2008,17–18) describes self-identity as an agentic core of personality, which gives meaning to life and perspective to human efforts. Through identity, individuals see themselves belonging to a distinct culture, place, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or culture. In the case of displacement like forced migration, these socio-spatial connections to culture, people and places alter, meaning that for example refugee minors must form new ties and sites of belonging. One of the biggest hopes of an unaccompanied minor is to create friendships among the peers in their new society. This goal, however, is sometimes very hard to achieve. The difficulty arises from several issues such as a lack of knowledge about and social trust towards foreign-looking young people. Sometimes even adults in the new host society might be suspicious about the motives of these young people (Gustafsson, Fioretosand, and Norström 2012; Kaukko and Wernesjö 2017). Ni Raghallaigh (2014,91– 92) describes this ‘climate of mistrust’as one of the key factors hindering the minors from gaining trust in social relations and in society at large. This atmosphere prevails not only in institutional settings such as migration governance but also in daily relationships. Current research on identities and identifications stresses the need to recognise and accept the existence of multidirectional identities. Critical identity theories have highlighted identification as an ongoing process rather than something stable or fixed (Lähdesmäki et al. 2016). Fortier (2000, 2) sees ‘identity as threshold …a location that by definition frames the passage from one space to another’. In the lives of migrant youth, this constant shifting and ambiguity of the identity-making becomes very obvious. Some scholars have discussed ‘migrant identities’through (trans)formation, (re)construction and negotiation during migration processes (see for example Jackson 2014; La Barbera 2015; McAreavay JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 553 2017). Migrants are constantly producing themselves ‘through the combined process of being and becoming’(Fortier 2000, 2), or being in liminal spaces, somewhere ‘in between’(Huot, Dodson, and Rudman 2014; Kaukko and Wernesjö 2017). Here inbetweenness refers to the socio-spatial contexts where young migrants have to operate, adjust and re-role themselves on a daily basis, and thus, in-betweenness should not be seen as referring to the existential subjectivity of a human being. Moreover, the belonging of unaccompanied minors is based on translocal realities and transcultural ties of existence where different languages, physical and virtual places, and social contexts all play significant roles (see also Kaukko and Wernesjö 2017; Yuval-Davis 2006). The (re-)birth of active agency is crucial for young people to be able to gain an experience of belonging to new societies. Agency refers here to young people’s evolving capacity to act and influence their own life and to be active and participate (Nsamenang 2008, 211; Lau Clayton 2013). Guo and Dalli (2016, 255) define agency as ‘a discourse which contributes to the processes of construction and constitution of children as social beings’. For them, agency clarifies the dynamics of the various connections between children, their self and others, and the socio-cultural practices around them. This means that actions that aim to support agency are always embedded in situations where desires and needs of children are influenced by their learning resource, which also includes the spaces and people around them. Based on this view, the ‘self’dimension of agency can be seen closely connected to the socio-cultural environment. In our fieldwork, this meant for example young people’s attempts to adjust to different gender roles in their new host society or aims to understand the roles, rights and responsibilities of children, which all affect the self-dimension of agency. Furthermore, analysing these kinds of factors may require that we look beyond the aspects of identities and focus more on the degree of control young people’s actions can have over their life (See also Ensor and Goździak 2010; Rollason 2017; Valentine, Sporton, and Nielsen 2009). Earlier research has shown that the unaccompanied minors lack power in the decisionmaking that concerns them. They are perceived as a group of young people who are constantly seen as victims or passive beneficiaries, even though seeing them as active agents with multiple capabilities and resources would advance their sense of social belonging and integration (Kaukko and Wernesjö 2017; Kohli 2006). Studies concentrating on belonging quite often study people who are considered vulnerable in terms of distribution of power in society (Lähdesmäki et al. 2016, 240). In addition, vulnerability may also be determined from the viewpoint of care. Kuusisto-Arponen and Gilmartin (2019) have defined ‘geographies of care’as practices and actions of institutional and individual actors who aim to provide protection, support and well-being. This caring may be based on compassionate engagements, but simultaneously it may posit the recipients of care as passive victims (see also Conradson 2003; Kuusisto-Arponen and Gilmartin 2019). Criticising the ethos of vulnerability and victimising does not mean that these young people would not need care and support. Even though we speak for active participation and agency of refugee minors, our focus here is not on ‘formal’participatory practices, such as local youth parliaments or other such organisatory models (on these see e.g. Percy-Smith 2010). However, we argue, as Kaukko and Wernesjö (2017) point out, it is also important to understand that formal participation in society may be a challenging practice itself. For refugee minors, too much independence and high expectations at an early age may restrict the willingness to take 554 K. KORJONEN-KUUSIPURO ET AL. responsibility later in life (Kaukko and Wernesjö 2017; Kuusisto-Arponen and Gilmartin 2019). These young people may benefit more from such support mechanisms and practices that recognise the multiple agencies in social encounters. As Kuusisto-Arponen (2016c), Kaukko and Wernesjö (2017) and Valentine, Sporton, and Nielsen (2009) have identified, there is a gap of knowledge on how to support the subjective sense of everyday participation and the belonging of unaccompanied minors in the realm of institutional care, such as school, residential units and youth work. The meanings of the concept of belonging vary from public-oriented official membership in a community (e.g. citizenship) to an informal subjective feeling of belonging (e.g. a sense of being socially accepted), being ‘in place’or ‘out of place’. Belonging consists of social locations, subjective identification and emotional attachments to various groups. It also relates to ethical and political value systems through which societies construct ‘us’and ‘them’(Cresswell 1996; Fortier 2000; Valentine, Sporton, and Nielsen 2009; Yuval-Davis 2006, 199–204). Lähdesmäki et al. (2016, 241) have described the concept as being ‘best understood as an entanglement of multiple and intersecting, affective and material, spatially experienced and socio-politically conditioned relations’. It is notable, that the concept of belonging always requires contextualised definitions because of its situational and cultural relations. According to May (2011, 367), concentrating on belonging allows us to examine the reciprocal influence between self and society. This concept offers a dynamic approach on people as active participants in society. It stresses the enabling role of everyday practices as creative and innovative, but also points to encounters that are controlled and enforce more controlling. Thus, we understand belonging as emotional attachment, which becomes visible in various embodied practices, language and material encounters like works of art (See also Gilmartin and Kuusisto-Arponen 2019; Jackson 2014; Korjonen-Kuusipuro and Kuusisto-Arponen 2012; Korjonen-Kuusipuro and Meriläinen-Hyvärinen 2016). Making Mexican masks together In autumn 2016, we conducted ethnographic fieldwork in Finland with 14–16-year-old unaccompanied refugee minors and Finnish secondary school pupils. The unaccompanied minors were all young males from Afghanistan and Iraq. Two thirds of the Finnish art class students were females. The number of pupils in the workshops varied from 11 to 23. We participated in five art workshops organised by two experienced visual artists, Finnish Anne Lihavainen and Mexican Rosamaria Bolom, to create traditional Mexican paper masks. All workshops included four phases: a short introductory game, designing, making and painting of a Mexican mask. Participants could design their own mask or work in pairs or small groups. Four workshops were carried out in the secondary school’s art class and one workshop was organised in a family group home, the institution where the unaccompanied minors are housed during the asylum process. Each workshop lasted for four to six hours. The data from the workshops consist of 94 pages of ethnographic field notes, 73 min of videos and approximately 600 photographs. Utilising a ‘third culture approach’by introducing traditional Mexican mask making for all pupils was a way to learn about different cultural traditions without connecting it to Finland or the home countries of the migrant youth. The art project offered a platform for transcultural communication and interaction, and for supporting mutual JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 555 understanding and solidarity among the young people. The unaccompanied minors formed a coherent and solid group right from the beginning of the workshop, because in addition to going to school together, they lived in the same housing unit. The art workshops also aimed at facilitating contacts between the Finnish pupils and the unaccompanied refugee minors who were studying in a preparatory class. These two groups have normally little interaction with each other in classroom situations due to separated teaching arrangements (see also Ramirez and Matthews 2008, 86). For us, the collaborative method meant that we were making masks together with the pupils. Besides that, we worked as helping hands for artists and teachers. This allowed us to be fully present in art making, and not act only as observers. Our disciplinary background as research team was in cultural anthropology, political geography and regional studies, and this naturally guided our gazes in the field. We all had previous experience in ethnographic fieldwork and facilitating workshops, and we also have pedagogical training. In the workshops, the artists were responsible for the artistic visions and group facilitation. All participants were fully aware of our research and had filled in a written consent form before attending the workshop. Our methodological approach, which we named ‘doing with’, is based on ethnography. Ethnography is understood as a way of knowing and a knowledge-making process in which the personalities of participants and researchers, as well as the choices made during fieldwork and later during analysis and writing, play an important role (Korjonen-Kuusipuro and Meriläinen-Hyvärinen 2016, 28). Thus, we wrote down in our field notes both the oral dialogues and detailed reflections of emotions and embodied presences of the young people and ourselves. Both of these descriptions have been used as the empirical data of this paper. For analytical purposes, we used a ‘two-columntactics’in our fieldwork diaries and separated general description and reflection. This was useful for two reasons. First, this was done to analytically separate the practice description (observations of what we did) from emotional reflections (personal experiences and reactions). Second, this was done to direct enough focus on the non-verbal, kinaesthetic and embodied knowledge-making of the youth (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw 2001; Kuusisto-Arponen 2016c). In addition, our research material includes photographs and videos. One of the greatest benefits of the ‘doing with’method was that we could overcome many of the language barriers, because artistic methods were based on nonverbal communication and embodiment. In our fieldwork, the relationship between the researchers and the researched was blurred, and we encountered our research partners as knowing subjects. In practice, this meant that we could adopt ideas, topics and views that our research participants presented to us and could modify the course of our research according to these, if necessary (see also Bergold and Thomas 2012). The collaborative approach gave us an opportunity to meet young people through making art together and be equally active members of the group sharing the same classroom. In a way, we became insiders and this ‘seeing from the inside’considerably strengthened our understanding of young people’s encounters. The fact that we researchers were of different age and sex had a clear effect on the interaction with the youth, also further affecting the knowledge we gained from the field. The advantage of the collaborative methodology was that we had very few expectations beforehand of where the art workshop would lead us, what kind of knowledge we could achieve, and what kinds of results we would harvest. Our aim was also to make the multiple voices of our participants more 556 K. KORJONEN-KUUSIPURO ET AL. visible and build on the reciprocity of the knowledge production (Gatt and Ingold 2013; Marcus 1995). In the collaborative way of doing ethnography, it is necessary that researchers are aware of themselves as instruments of research. During our research, we wrote our reflections down in our field diaries and discussed afterwards for example how gender roles or age affected the way the youth regarded us and also the way we saw various situations and contexts (see also Bergold and Thomas 2012). Our active role in the art process enabled us to build a high level of trust and establish rapport with the youth, in a relatively short time. For the collaborative ethnography to be an analytical method, it is also crucial that the researcher is present, available and interested in young people’s lives and the issues they wish to discuss. This compassionate method also helped the participants to recognise issues they themselves considered important to share with the researchers (see also Herz and Lalander 2017, 1063). Our research engagement was emotionally and ethically demanding. We encountered several situations that showed how burdensome the daily lives of the unaccompanied minors can be and how hard these young try to cope with a new culture. They seemed to need a great deal of care and support, especially when memories from the ceded home surfaced. We also had constant negotiations with ethical issues concerning our research, for example in which social situations we could photograph and how we should use the photos later in research publications. During our fieldwork, there were several moments when we needed to evaluate very quickly how our research might affect young people’s life. The following reflections from the field notes are examples of how we pondered those moments afterwards in our field diaries. I realise that I am very careful in many situations. For example: I am at ease with the Afghan boys, but I have great difficulties talking to the Finnish girls. I don’t seem to find any common interests to share with them. I would not like to talk only to the Afghan boys, but to all the pupils. (Field diary, reflection 24 October 2016) I ask Kristiina to take a picture when the boys are painting this text. R is first a little bit aware of the camera, but relaxes again when he notices that Kristiina is photographing only the mask he is making. He does not ask her to stop [photographing]. (Field diary, reflection 24 October 2016) 1 After each workshop day, we tried not to talk to one another about the events and our emotions before all of us had written in our field diaries. When compiling these to a shared document, we often started to speak about our experiences and reflected on how we should adjust our fieldwork for the next workshop meeting. This way we reacted to the knowledge we gained from the field and could focus better on the themes that seemed important to our participants. In the next chapter, we will discuss in more detail how lingual, embodied and material dimensions of belonging appeared in our fieldwork. Encountering belonging Language Language is still often considered a core factor of our identity (Valentine, Sporton, and Nielsen 2009), but some researchers, especially in non-western cultures, have shown that developments such as transnational communication, migration and digital JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 557 communication have created multilingual interactions that may challenge our paradigm of language learning and the importance of languages in communication (e.g. Canagarajah and Wurr 2011). In everyday life, language skills are seen as one of the most important factors in social interaction and upholding agency. In the context of contemporary migration governance, this means an emphasis on learning the language of the new host society as part of the integration schemes, whereas the recognition of multilingual encounters is not often supported in institutional settings such as schools. The unaccompanied minors attending the art workshops had started studying in a preparatory class some six months before our fieldwork. We were told that their Finnish language skills had improved rapidly, and some spoke Finnish rather well during the time of our fieldwork. Learning the basic skills in Finnish did not resolve the problems of social loneliness and isolation, which surfaced several times during the workshops. In our interviews with the principal of the school and the teacher of the preparatory class, they explained that at first the unaccompanied youth were rather isolated in the school, too: they studied in their own classroom and were taken back to their home by bus immediately after school. Gradually, the communication between the Finnish pupils and the unaccompanied minors grew, as some of them had an opportunity to attend integrated classes in some subjects. Informal chatting and conversations were very much encouraged by their own teacher: The [classroom] door is open and if anyone shows interest, I will ask them to come in and talk to us. […] I told them [the Finnish pupils] to talk to the boy next to them and ask about all the basic stuff, hobbies, birthdays, etc. During our fieldwork, we observed how interactions between the two groups slowly started to emerge in the art class. The mask project connected the two youth groups, which were usually separated and only knew each other by sight. Therefore, it was especially interesting to follow how and in which situations the communication between these two groups evolved and slowly strengthened. Each workshop meeting began with diverse introductory games based on non-verbal communication so that everyone had a fair opportunity to participate. This made the atmosphere socially acceptable for all pupils. We noticed, however, that the misinterpretation about a lack of common language also seemed an obstacle for starting the conversation. In the first workshop meeting, one of us researchers asked the Finnish girls whether they had already made friends with these boys. The girls said ‘not really’because the boys do not yet speak fluent Finnish. They, however, considered talking to them after their Finnish had become more fluent: ‘Maybe in a couple of years’time the boys of the preparatory class will have learnt Finnish, so that we can more easily chat with them’, they said. Our researcher wrote in her field diary that: ‘I was left with the feeling that the language was the only barrier of communication’(Field diary, reflection 10 October 2016). This notion is interesting in two ways. First, the Finnish pupils had a very strong assumption about the level of the Finnish language that needs to be there before joint conversation is possible. Second, the girls, however, had no other reason not to communicate with the newcomers. This example clearly indicates why social encounters need to be actively facilitated and encouraged especially in the formal school setting and rather fixed syllabus structure. Studying in the same building is not a guarantee of coming together socially. 558 K. KORJONEN-KUUSIPURO ET AL. contribute to and realise their own sense of agency in everyday life contexts instead of having an emphasis on formal participation, such as institutionalised public decision-making processes. 3. In a conversation with Dimitris Papadopoulos (Hage and Papadoupoulos 2004), Ghassan Hage stresses inclusion and exclusion in a nation state context: ‘Thus there will always be a question of who is included in the distributional network: i.e. who perceive themselves as receiving some kind of hope from it: who is in and who is out.’In our view this is also true within everyday life contexts. Acknowledgements Ethics Committee of the Tampere region has approved the research plan, statement 49/2016. Funding Academy of Finland, projects SA266161 and SA304146. References Beck, Sam, and Carl A. Maida. 2013.“Introduction: Towards Engaged Anthropology.”In Toward Engaged Anthropology, edited by Sam Beck, and Carl A. Maida, 1–14. New York: Berghahn Books. Bergold, Jarg, and Stefan Thomas. 2012.“Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion.”FORUM Qualitative Social Research 13 (1): 1–21. Berry, Michael. 2011.“Communicating the Cultural Richness of Finnish Hiljaisuus (Silence).”CercleS 1 (2): 399–422. Björklund, Krister. 2015.Unaccompanied Refugee Minors in Finland: Challenges and Good Practices in a Nordic context. Turku: Institute of Migration C26. Canagarajah, A. Suresh, and Adrian J. Wurr. 2011.“Multilingual Communication and Language Acquisition: New Research Directions.”The Reading Matrix 11 (1): 1–15. Carbaugh, Donal, and Michael Berry. 2006.“Coding Personhood through Cultural Terms and Practices - Silence and Quietude as a Finnish “Natural Way of Being”.”Journal of Language and Social Psychology 25 (3): 1–18. Conradson, David. 2003.“Geographies of Care: Spaces, Practices, Experiences.”Social and Cultural Geography 4 (4): 451–454. Cresswell, Tim. 1996.In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology and Transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 2001.“Participant Observation and Fieldnotes.”In Handbook of Ethnography, edited by Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, and Lyn Lofland, 352–368. Los Angeles: SAGE. Ennis, Gretchen Marie, and Jane Tonkin. 2017.“‘It’s Like Exercise for Your Soul’: How Participation in Youth Arts Activities Contributes to Young People’s Wellbeing.”Journal of Youth Studies,doi:10. 1080/13676261.2017.1380302. Ensor, Marisa O., and Elźbieta M. Goździak. 2010.“Introduction: Migrant Children at the Crossroads.” In Children and Migration: At the Crossroads of Resilience and Vulnerability, edited by Marisa O. Ensor, and Elźbieta M. Goździak, 1–13. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave & Macmillan. Fortier, Anne-Marie. 2000.Migrant Belongings: Memory, Space, Identity. Oxford: Berg. Gatt, Caroline, and Tim Ingold. 2013.“From Description to Correspondence: Anthropology in Real Time.”In Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice, edited by Wendy Gunn, Ton Ton Otto, and Rachel Charlotte Smith, 139–158. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Gilmartin, Mary, and Anna-Kaisa Kuusisto-Arponen. 2019.Borders and Bodies: Siting Critical Geographies of Migration. Handbook of Critical Geographies of Migration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Goffman, Erwin. 1959.The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 565 Guo, Karen, and Carmen Dalli. 2016.“Belonging as a Force of Agency: An Exploration Of Immigrant Children’s Everyday Life In Early Childhood Settings.”Global Studies of Childhood 6 (3): 254–267. Gustafsson, Kristina, Ingrid Fioretosand and Eva Norström. 2012. Between Empowerment and Powerlessness: Separated minors in Sweden. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 136: 65–77. Hage, Ghassan. 2003.Against Paranoid Nationalism: Searching for Hope in a Shrinking Society. Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press. Hage, Ghassan, and Dimitris Papadopoulos. 2004.“Ghassan Hage in Conversation with Dimitris Papadopoulos: Migration, Hope and the Making of Subjectivity in Transnational Capitalism.” International Journal for Critical Psychology 12: 95–117. Herz, Marcus, and Philip Lalander. 2017.“Being alone or Becoming Lonely? The Complexity of Portraying ‘Unaccompanied Children’as being alone in Sweden.”Journal of Youth Studies 20 (8): 1062–1076. Huot, S., B. Dodson, and D. L. Rudman. 2014.“Negotiating Belonging Following Migration: Exploring The Relationship Between Place and Identity in Francophone Minority Communities.”The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 58 (3): 329–340. Jackson, Lucy. 2014.“The Multiple Voices of Belonging: Migrant Identities and Community Practice in South Wales.”Environment and Planning A 46: 1666–1681. Kaukko, Mervi, and Ulrika Wernesjö. 2017.“Belonging and Participation in Liminality: Unaccompanied Children in Finland and Sweden.”Childhood 24 (1): 7–20. Kohli, S. Ravi. 2006.“The Sound of Silence: Listening to What Unaccompanied Asylum-seeking Children Say and Do Not Say.”British Journal of Social Work 36: 707–721. Kohli, S. Ravi. 2011.“Working to Ensure Safety, Belonging and Success for Unaccompanied Asylumseeking Children.”Child Abuse Review 20: 311–323. Kohli, S. Ravi, and Mervi Kaukko. 2017.“The Management of Time and Waiting by Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Girls in Finland.”Journal of Refugee Studies.doi:10.1093/jrs/fex040. Korjonen-Kuusipuro, Kristiina, and Anna-Kaisa Kuusisto-Arponen. 2012. Emotional Silences: The Rituals of Remembering the Finnish Karelia. In Painful Pasts and Useful Memories. Remembering and Forgetting in Europe. Conference Paper Series No. 5, edited by B. Törnquist-Plewa and N. Bernsand, 109–126. Lund: Lund University. Korjonen-Kuusipuro, Kristiina, and Anneli Meriläinen-Hyvärinen. 2016. Living with the Loss: Emotional Ties to Place in the Vuoksi and Talvivaara regions in Finland. Emotion, Space and Society 20: 27–34. Kuusisto-Arponen, Anna-Kaisa. 2014.“Silence, Childhood Displacement, and Spatial Belonging.”An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 13 (3): 434–441. Kuusisto-Arponen, Anna-Kaisa. 2015. Ajatuksia myötätunnosta ja kivusta. Terra 127 (2): 83–89. Kuusisto-Arponen, Anna-Kaisa. 2016a.“Perheettömiksi suojellut: yksin tulleiden alaikäisten oikeus perheeseen.”In Perheenyhdistäminen, edited by Fingerroos, et al., 89–109. Tampere: Vastapaino. Kuusisto-Arponen, Anna-Kaisa. 2016b.“Relating Self, Place and Memory: Spatial Trauma among the British and Finnish War Children.”In Geographies of Children and Young People: Conflict, Violence and Peace, edited by Harker, et al., 307–325. Singapore: Springer. Kuusisto-Arponen, Anna-Kaisa. 2016c.“Myötätunnon politiikka ja tutkimusetiikka Suomeen yksin tulleiden maahanmuuttajanuorten arjen tutkimisessa.”Sosiologia 53 (4): 396–415. Kuusisto-Arponen, Anna-Kaisa, and Mary Gilmartin. 2019.Embodied Migration and the Geographies of Care: the Worlds of Unaccompanied Refugee Minors. Handbook on Critical Geographies of Migration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Kuusisto-Arponen, Anna-Kaisa, and Ulla Savolainen. 2016.“The Interplay of Memory and Matter: Narratives of Former Finnish Karelian Child Evacuees.”Oral History 44 (2): 59–68. La Barbera, MariaCaterina. 2015.“Identity and Migration: An Introduction.”In Identity and Migration in Europe: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. International Perspectives on Migration. Vol. 13., edited by MariaCaterina La Barbera, 1–13. Cham: Springer. Lähdesmäki, Tuuli, Tuija Saresma, Kaisa Hiltunen, Saara Jäntti, Nina Sääskilahti, Antti Vallius, and Kaisa Ahvenjärvi. 2016.“Fluidity and Flexibility of ‘‘Belonging’’: Uses of the Concept in Contemporary Research.”Acta Sociologica 59 (3): 233–247. 566 K. KORJONEN-KUUSIPURO ET AL. Lau Clayton, Carmen. 2013.“British Chinese Children: Agency and Action.”The Journal of Early Adolescence 33 (2): 161–183. Marcus, George. 1995.“Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography.”Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117. May, Vanessa. 2011. Self, Belonging and Social Change. Sociology 45 (3): 363–378. McAreavay, Ruth. 2017.“Migrant Identities in a New Immigration Destination: Revealing the Limitations of the ‘Hard working’Migrant Identity.”Population, Space and Place 24 (6). doi:10. 1002/psp.2044. Nardone, Marianna, and Ignacio Correa-Velez. 2016.“Unpredictability, Invisibility, and Vulnerability: Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Minors’Journeys to Australia.”Journal of Refugee Studies 29 (3): 295–314. Ni Raghallaigh, Muireann. 2014.“The Causes of Mistrust among Asylum Seekers and Refugees: Insights From Research With Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Minors Living in the Republic of Ireland.”Journal of Refugee Studies 27 (1): 82–100. Nsamenang, A. Bame. 2008. Constructing Cultural Identity in Families. In Developing Positive Identities: Diversity and Young Children, edited by L. Brooker and M. Woodhead, 17–32. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Peltonen, Kirsi, and Raija-Leena Punamäki. 2010.“Preventive Interventions among Children Exposed to Trauma of Armed Conflict: A Literature Review.”Aggressive Behavior 36: 95–116. Percy-Smith, Barry. 2010.“Councils, Consultations and Community: Rethinking the Spaces for Children and Young People’s Participation.”Children’s Geographies 8(2): 107–122. Probyn, Elspeth. 1996.Outside Belongings. London: Routledge. Ramirez, Marcela, and Julie Matthews. 2008.“Living in the Now: Young People from Refugee Backgrounds Pursuing Respect, Risk And Fun.”Journal of Youth Studies 11 (1): 83–92. Rollason, Will. 2017.“Youth, Presence and Agency: The Case of Kigali’s Motari.”Journal of Youth Studies 20 (10): 1277–1294. Smart, Carol. 2007.Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking. Cambridge: Polity. Valentine, Gill, Deborah Sporton, and Katrine Bang Nielsen. 2009.“Identities and Belonging: A Study of Somali Refugee and Asylum Seekers Living in the UK and Denmark.”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27: 234–250. Wimelius, Malin, Malin Erikson, Joakim Isaksson, and Mehdi Ghazinour. 2017.“Swedish Reception of Unaccompanied Refugee Children –Promoting Integration?”Journal of International Migration and Integration 18: 143–157. Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2006.“Belonging and the Politics of Belonging.”Patterns of Prejudice 40 (3): 197–214. JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 567