Fire fighters in Finland have experienced significant changes to their profession over the last 100 years as their roles have professionalized and become more defined by risk analysis and strategic planning. This research examines how fire fighters construct a shared understanding of their past and present work, community, and identity through discourse. Analysis of meetings between fire fighters identified two main discourses: one views their work as a way of life centered around emergency response, while the other construes their work in the context of societal changes. Both discourses co-exist as parallel ways for fire fighters to define their work, community, and identity in relation to others and amid changing conditions.

1. Fire Fighter'sProfessionasWorkand as a Way of Life
Voluntary -basedrescue services of Finland have professionalisedand alteredintoameasurable,
marketing-definedactivityduringthe last100 years.While in1960s’ and 1970s’ fire fighters’ tasks
consistedof extinguishingfiresandreacting toaccidents, the tasksof contemporaryfire fighter-providers
inemergentandnon-emergentservices are beingsteeredbyriskanalysesandstrategies. Also,the
evolutionof fire fighter’soccupation reflectsinterestinglythe construction andalteration of the Finnish
welfare societyandit’ssince the 1980s’.
The central interestof the researchisto examine how fire fighters buildacommonunderstandingof their
past andpresent work,communityand identity.Inthis research identity isunderstoodasa verbinsteadof
a substantive,whichbrings enablesmultiple ways inwhich toforman identityinshareddiscourse.
The researchdata consistsof seriesof meetings(25meetingsaltogether),heldinthree rescue departments
that aimedat developingnovel tasksforfire fighters.The datawascollectedin2001-2002, inthe afterheat
of fire fighters’ strikes.The workingmethodusediscalledchangelaboratory. Discourse analysisand
narrative analysisare used asthe methodsof analysis.
The researchshows, that fire fighters’experiencesof theirworkare contradictory:dependingon the view
point,the same taskcan be seen asa futile orfluentpartof the fire fighters’work.The mainfindingof the
research istwo discourses relatedtofire fighters’work,communityandidentity. Infirstdiscourse, fire
fighters’work isconstructed asa way of life.Inthisdiscourse fire fightersanalyse theirworkin the context
of livedwork,meaningthatworkisviewedincomparisontothe contentof the 1970s’ and 1980s’ work.
The discourse islinkedtosports, totasks performed atthe base or thingsdone togetherforfun of it.
Change of work isviewedprimarilyfromthe view pointof the fire fighter,andthe workof the fire fighter
means“gigs”,basically emergency missions.Changes inworkare constructed asstemmingfromthe own
organisation’sinternal issues.Identityis constructed bydifferentiating betweenfire fightersandothers
e.g.by meansof juxtapositionandbyaccentuatingthe firmnessof owncommunity.
The Second discourse (workdiscourse)emergesfromthe speechthathandlesissuesandchanges related
to the Finnishsocietyinthe 1990s’. In theirtalk fire fightersintroduce anew wayof constructingand
understanding fire fighter’swork,communityandidentity. Inotherwords,the wayof constructingthe fire
fighter’sworkchanges.Inthisdiscourse the workisanalysedprimarilyinthe contextof society-level
changes and the operational environment. Inthe Way of life –discourse onotherhand,the definingfactors
of fire fighter’sworkare the fire fighterhim/herself,emergencymissionsand servicesperformed atthe
base.In the workdiscourse fire fighter’sworkisdefinedfromthe pointof view of societaldevelopment
and changes.Changeisthe central amplifier:e.g.the patronage of the ambulance haschangedsince the
society haschanged. While the Wayof life -discourse the relationshipisstructuredbydifferentiation, inthe
workdiscourse the relationshipisconstructedbystructuringanew.
However,bothdiscoursesappearasparallel waysof constructingwork,communityandidentity.
The data showsthat Fire fightersuse differentstrategiesintheirspeech:contradictions,externalisations,
belongingsanddifferentiationswhendefiningtheiridentityinrelationshiptoothers.E.g.attributesof
belongingsuchas workingatthe same time,“livinginashift”,equality,stabilityandunderstandingthe
special traitsof the work shift.Differentiationisproducedbyseparatinggroups(we –them),pointingout
hierarchiesanddifferencesof tasksandbybelittlingthe tasksandknow-how of the othergroup.E.g.the

2. The lessthe actionsof volunteers threatenthe professionalstatusof fire fighters,the more theyare
appreciated
The Fire fightersalsotalkabouttheirowncommunity, itsproceduresandvalues,andbydoingthisthey
define andnegotiatethe status,hierarchiesandpowerwithinthe community. Talkthatconsidersfire
fightersacommunity,ateam, is constructedina Way of life –discourse.Twoseparate functions canbe
identified within.The firstfunctionof team-talkislobbying,ensuring thatthe fire fighters’ benefitin
comparisontootheremployees.Lobbyingisdone intalk byjuxtaposingthe 1970-80s’ and the 1990s’ work.
Confrontationisproducedinrelation towhoare workinginthe work community(the firmnessof ateam),
inrelation towork distributionandmanpower,andinrelation tothe sense of community. The second
functionof team-talkcanbe described ascontrol, whichisusedin the fire fighters’ communityfor
constructingsharedviews,waysof beingandwaysof workingin the community.Inotherwords,where
lobbyingis rehearsed between fire fightersandothers,control is enactedbetweenfire fightersthemselves.
Here fire fighterse.g.speakandnegotiate about “do’sanddon’ts”of the community.
Thisstudyopensa windowtothe everydaylife of a fire fighter’sworkand fire fighters’waysof structuring
theirworkand the changesinvolved.Itoffersanovel way foranalysingthe change of fire fighter’swork
and workingcommunity.Atthe same time itnarratesthe experiencesandchangesinthree work
communitiesfrom1970s’ to the beginningof millennium.