1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«This project focused on how children of École Voyageur, in particular children of military families, perceive their relationship with their peers, the military, the French-speaking minority, and their communities of origin. My goal was to explore the ways in which semiotic registers, patterns of mobility, and language affiliations, influence how these children experience their social environments.» (p. 49)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«The main research question leading my enquiry was the following: How do children of French-speaking military families in Cold Lake experience their community? This meant documenting how they felt about issues such as the military, their mobile lifestyle, their school, and their linguistic identity. This initial interest gave rise to a number of secondary questions. Most important among these were: What roles do children and youth play in defining community experience, what is their role in processes of cultural production and reproduction, and what are the main factors influencing their experience of community?» (p. 4)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
L’étude est basée sur la participation de 61 résidents francophones (24 hommes et 37 femmes, dont 18 enfants de l’École Voyageur) de la ville de Cold Lake dans la province de l’Alberta.

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien semi-directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«First of all, the experience of mobility can be individual while also taking place in a collective context. As described, the mobility of military families is framed by a continuing relationship with the military institution. Every relocation, every move to a new base and town, often across Canada, is supported and facilitated by an organisation that presents a similar identity in every location. Military members and their families belong to a group for whom mobility is an accepted and expected part of life, and which constitutes a rallying point between members. […] Even though every military family has a unique relocation history, their relationship with the military institution provides them common ground. […] Secondly, […] the experience of mobility by children cannot be subsumed to that of the family. While they are generally aware of what motivates their mobility and the assessment that their parents make of the multiple communities in which they lived and are living in, they also make their own assessment and create their own connections and interpretations of locality. While the military institution is always in the background for children of military families, unless they live on the base, it does not provide the same level of continuity it does for their parents.» (p. 205-206)