You are here

Home » Content

SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ

ACCOUNTABILITY AS A POLITICAL ISSUE IN SOCIAL RESEARCH AND RESEARCH EXPERIENCES

Journal Name:

  • International Journal of Political Studies

Publication Year:

  • 2017

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Despite we come accross “accountability” as a concept in relation to politics and public administration, accountability is one of the sources of legitimation not only for political and managerial practices but also for various ones. Discussion of accountability in terms of “power” and “trust” relations is the main reason of it. Topics based on deliberation and dialogue regarding these relations, are also available tools for interpretation of social sciences. James Bohman, especially, is an eminent one in linking a “power” based forge between democracy and social research. In this framework, first of all, accountability is taken into account as a political practice and it is followed by seeking for comprehensing its meaning in social sciences through Bohman’s discussion of democracy. Finally it is asserted that research experiences can be handled as means of accountability by mentioning its meaning in qualitative researches -interviews as face to face ones, in particular- related to dialogue and deliberation
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Hesapverebilirlik kavramı daha çok siyaset ve kamu yönetimi tartışmalarında karşımıza çıksa da sadece siyaset ve onla ilişkili olarak yönetimin değil pek çok başka pratiğin meşruiyet kaynaklarından biridir. Bunun ana nedeni ise hesapverebilirliğin “iktidar” ve “güven” ilişkisi temelinde tartışılmasıdır. Söz konusu ilişkilerin gündeme geldiği müzakere ve diyalog temelli konular, sosyal araştırmaların açıklanması noktasında da elverişlidir. Özellikle James Bohman, demokrasi ve sosyal araştırma arasındaki “iktidar” temelli geçişi sağlamada önemli bir isimdir. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada öncelikle kısaca politik bir pratik olarak hesapverebilirlikten bahsedilecek, sonrasında ise James Bohman’ın demokrasi tartışması aracılığıyla bunun sosyal araştırmalar için ne anlama geldiği anlaşılmaya çalışılacaktır. Diyalog ve müzakerenin söz konusu olduğu nitel araştırmalarda -özellikle görüşmeler gibi yüz yüze gerçekleşenlerde- hesapverebilirliğin anlamına değinilerek araştırma deneyimlerinin görüşme temelli nitel araştırmalarda hesap verebilirlik için bir araç olabileceği önerisinde bulunulacaktır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-sosyal-arastirmalarda-politik-bir-mesele-olarak-hesapverebilirlik-arastirma-deneyimleri.pdf
  • 1
1
16
  • Turkish

JEL Codes:

REFERENCES

References: 

Ahmad, Reyaz (2016). “Re-Conceptualization of Accountability: From Government to Governance”,
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach&Studies, C.3, S.5, ss. 1-11.
Auerbach, Carl F. ve Lousie B. Silverstein (2003). Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and
Analysis, New York University Press, New York ve Londra.
Ballinger, Claire (2008). “Accountability”, The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods,
Edt: Lisa M. Given, C:1&2, Sage, Los Angeles ve Londra, pp.3-4.
Barbour, Rosaline S. ve John Schostak (2005). “Interviewing and Focus Groups”, Research Methods in
the Social Sciences, Edt: Bridget Somekh ve Cathy Lewin, Londra, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
ve New Delhi, ss. 41-48.
Behn, Robert D. (2001). Rethinking Democratic Accountability, Brookings Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Bloor, Michael ve Fiona Wood (2006). Keywords in Qualitative Methods: A Vocabulary of Research
Concepts, Sage, Londra ve New Delhi.
Bohman, James (2009). “Epistemic Value and Deliberative Democracy”, The Good Society, C.18, S.2,
ss. 28-34.
Bohman, James (2007a). Democracy Across Borders: From Demos to Demoi, MIT.
Bohman, James (2007b). “Political Communication and Epistemic Value of Diversity: Deliberation and
Legitimacy in Media Societies”, Communication Theory, S.17, ss. 348-355.
Bohman, James (2005). “We, Heirs of Enlightenment: Critical Theory, Democracy and Social Science”,
International Journal of Philosophical Studies, C.13, S.3, ss. 353-377.
Bohman, James (2004). “Realizing Deliberative Democracy as a Mode of Inquiry: Pragmatism, Social
Facts, and Normative Theory”, Journal of Speculative Democracy, C.18, S.1, ss. 23-43.
Bohman, James (2003). “Critical Theory as Practical Knowledge: Participants, Observers, and Critics”,
The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Edt: Stephen P. Turner ve Paul A. Roth,
Blackwell, ss. 91-109.
Bohman, James (2001). “Participants, Observers, and Critics: Practical Knowledge, Social Perspectives,
and Critical Pluralism”, Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: The Transformation of Critical Theory
(Essays in Honor of Thomas McCarty),Edt: William Rehg ve James Bohman, the MIT Press, Cambridge
ve Londra.
Bohman, James (2000). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy, MIT.
Bohman, James (1999). “Democracy as Inquiry and Inquiry as Democratic: Pragmatism, Social Science,
and Cognitive Divison of Labor”, American Journal of Political Science, C.43, N.2, ss. 590-607.
Bohman, James (1997a). “The Public Spheres of the World Citizen”, Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s
Cosmopolitan Ideal, Edt: James Bohman ve Matthias Lutz-Bachman, MIT, ss. 179-200.
Bohman, James (1997b). “Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities,
Resources, and Opportunities”, Essays on Reason and Politics: Deliberative Democracy, Edt: James
Bohman, ve William Rehg, MIT, Cambridge ve Londra.
Bohman, James (1995). “Public Reason and Cultural Pluralism: Political Liberalism and the Problem of
Moral Conflict”, Political Theory, C.23, S.2, ss. 253-279.
Bohman, James (1993). New Philosophy of Social Science: Problems of Indeterminacy, MIT.
E.M.Gülener / Accountability As A Political Issue In Social Research And Research Experiences
15
International Journal of Political Studies, April 2017, Vol 3, Issue 1
Bovens, Mark. Thomas Schillemans ve Robert E. Goodin (2014). “Public Accountability”, The Oxford
Handbook of Public Accountability, Edt: Bovens, Mark. Thomas Schillemans ve Robert E. Goodin,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, ss. 1-22.
Bovens, Mark (2010). “Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a
Mechanism”, West European Politics, C:33, S:5, ss. 946-967.
Cheung, Philip (2007). Public Trust in Medical Research?: Ethics, Law and Accountability, Redcliffe
Publishing, Oxford ve New York.
Coşkun, Emel (2016). “ ‘Bunların Gerçek Olduğuna İnanıyor Musunuz?’: Araştırma Etiğine Dair
‘Yukarıdan’ Notlar”, Etnografik Hikayeler: Türkiye’de Alan Araştırması Deneyimleri, Edt: Rabia
Harmanşah ve Z. Nilüfer Nahya, Metis, ss. 103-117.
Dowling, Maura (2005). “Reflexivity”, The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Edt:
Lisa M. Given, C:1&2, Sage, Los Angeles ve Londra, pp.747-748.
Etherington, Kim (2004). Becoming a Reflexive Researcher: Using Ourselves in Research, Jessica
Kingsley Publishers, Londra ve Philadelphia.
Fry, Sara T. (1981). “Accountability in Research: The Relationship of Scientific and
HumanisticValues”, Advances in Nursing Science, C:4, S:1, ss. 1-13.
Grabolle-Çeliker, Anna (2016). “Gelin, Anne, Yabancı ve Araştırmacı: Türkiye’deki Kürt İşgücü Göçü
İncelemesinde Konumsallık”, Etnografik Hikayeler: Türkiye’de Alan Araştırması Deneyimleri, Edt:
Rabia Harmanşah ve Z. Nilüfer Nahya, Metis, ss. 137-150.
Gür, Faik (2015). “Araştırma Sürecini Açmak: Bir Vaka ve Sosyoloji Araştırması”, folklor/edebiyat,
C:21, S:84, ss. 73-81.
Frodeman, Robert (2011). “Interdisciplinary Research and Academic Sustainability: Managing
Knowledge in an Age of Accountability”, Environmental Conversation, C:38, S:2, ss. 105-112.
Haynes, Kathyryn (2012). “Reflexivity in QualitativeResearch”, Qualitative Organizational Research:
Core Methods and Current Challenges, Sage, Londra ve New Delhi.
Iphofen, Ron (2011). Ethical Decision-Making in Social Research: A Practical Guide, Palgrave
MacMillan.
Martin, Brian (1999). “Suppressing Research Data: Methods, Context, Accountability, and Responses”,
Accountability in Research, C:6, S:4, ss. 333-372.
McNeill, Patrick ve Steve Chapman (2005). Research Methods, 3. Baskı, Routledge, Londra ve New
York.
Mulgan, Richard (2003). Holding Power to Account, Palgrave.
Nahya, Nilüfer Z. ve Rabia Harmanşah (2016). “Kendini ve Ötekini Yazmak: Alan Araştırması ve
Deneyim”, Etnografik Hikayeler: Türkiye’de Alan Araştırması Deneyimleri, Edt: Rabia Harmanşah ve
Z. Nilüfer Nahya, Metis, ss. 17-35.
Piper, Heather ve Helen Simons (2005). “Ethical Responsibility in Social Research”, Research Methods
in the Social Sciences, Edt: Bridget Somekh ve Cathy Lewin, Londra, Thousand Oaks ve Yeni Delhi,
Sage Publications, ss. 56-64.
Resnik, David B. (2012). “Ethical Virtues in Scientific Research”, Accountability in Research, C:19,
S:6, ss. 329-243.
Robertson, David (2004). “Accountability”, The Routledge Dictionary of Politics, Üçüncü
Baskı,Routledge, Londra ve New York, s. 3.
E.M.Gülener / Sosyal Araştırmalarda Politik Bir Mesele Olarak Hesapverebilirlik ve Araştırma Deneyimleri
16
Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Nisan 2017, Cilt 3, Sayı 1
Ruane, Janet M. (2005). Essentials of Research Methods: A Guide to Social Science Research,
Blackwell Publishing.
Silverman, David ve Amir Marvasti (2008). Doing Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Guide,
Sage, Los Angeles ve Londra.
Stake, Robert E. (2010). Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work, The Guilford Press, New
York ve Londra.
Yin, Robert K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, The Guilford Press, New York ve
Londra.
“Difference Between Research and Inquiry”, MacQuarie University (Sydney/Australia),
http://www.mq.edu.au/lih/altc/ug_research/diff_research_inquiry.htm, Erişim Tarihi:19.03.2017.
“RCR Framework of Investigation”, Government of Canada, http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policypolitique/
interpretations/inquiry-enquetes/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2017.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com