Gradupuhetta tutkielmaseminaarissa

Abstract

Leena Penttinen tarkasteli tutkielmaseminaaria opinnäytteen tekemisen ja ohjaamisen näyttämönä. Tutkielmaseminaarissa melkein maisterit käyvät akateemista keskustelua. Seminaarit ovat myös osa opinnäytteiden ohjausprosessia ja niiden vetäjänä toimii useimmiten opiskelijoiden graduohjaaja. Penttinen analysoi sitä, mistä opiskelijat puhuvat, kun he puhuvat seminaarissa gradustaan ja mistä ohjaajat puhuvat, kun he puhuvat gradusta ja tutkimuksen tekemisestä. Lisäsi hän analysoi seminaarilaisten puhetta opiskelijakollegoidensa opinnäytteistä.

The purpose of the study was to explore the undergraduate research seminar as a social situation centred on the thesis process and thesis supervision. Seminar discussion was approached from a discourse analytical perspective. The research task was to describe how students, supervisors and discussants talk about the thesis and research process in the seminar and what kind of identities (both student and supervisor) are constructed in their talk.The data consisted of eight undergraduate research seminars drawn from two disciplines, education and economics. Repertoire analysis was applied to identify the variety of the descriptions of the thesis process produced by the participants.Students used eight different repertoires in describing their own thesis process. Supervisors produced nine recurrent repertoires. Four of the supervisor repertoires resembled teacher talk in classrooms. Three of the supervisor repertoires were those of a study counsellor who shows appreciation of and supports students in their research efforts. The remaining two supervisor repertoires were categorized as researcher talk, as in these repertoires the supervisor assumed the role of an expert in a particular field. The discussants used six different repertoires. Some of those repertoires functioned as generators of critical discussion, some had the role of providing collegial support. Discussants also used fewer academically challenging repertoires. Although two disciplines were represented in the data, there seemed to be more shared features than disciplinary differences. Discourse analysis appeared to produce fruitful interpretations of the social action taking place in an undergraduate research seminar. Further research would throw more light on the different kinds of study discourses that emerged.