BibTex RIS Cite

MANIFESTATIONS OF GENDERED ENGINEERING CULTURE IN TURKEY: DIFFERING EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN AND MEN ENGINEERS / TÜRKİYE'DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ MÜHENDİSLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN TEZAHÜRLERİ: KADIN VE ERKEK MÜHENDİSLERİN FARKLILAŞAN DENEYİMLERİ

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 4, 229 - 245, 26.12.2015

Ezgi Pehlivanlı Kadayifci

Abstract

This study aims to understand manifestations of professional culture in engineering which comforts men more than women and differing experiences of women and men engineers in contemporary Turkey by using a theoretical tool called “Gendered Engineering Culture”. In order to reach this aim, ethnographic studies were conducted in one factory and two workshops in Ankara by participant observation technique. In addition, forty three in-depth interviews were accomplished with women and men engineers. Respondents were purposefully selected to constitute two main cohorts who were under and over age forty. Interviews were interpreted in regard to respondents’ profesional perceptions, reactions they get from the society, education and work life experiences.

Key Words:  Gendered Engineering Culture, Women and Men Engineer, Turkey, Participant Observation, In-depth interview.

 

Bu çalışma,“Toplumsal Cinsiyet Temelli Mühendislik Kültürü” kavramsal aracını kullanarak, yakın zaman Türkiye’sinde erkek mühendislere var olma kolaylığı sağlayan toplumsal cinsiyet temelli mühendislik kültürünün tezahür biçimlerini, kadın ve erkek mühendislerin farklılaşan mesleki deneyimlerini temel alarak anlamaya çalışmaktadır. Bu kapsamda, Ankara’da bir fabrika ve iki atölyede katılımcı gözlem metoduyla etnografik çalışmalara ek olarak, kırk üç adet kadın ve erkek mühendis ile derinlemesine mülakat yapılmıştır. Cevaplayıcılar, esas olarak 40 yaş ve üstü ve 40 yaş ve altı olmak üzere iki yaş grubundan gelmektedir. Mülakatlar, katılımcıların meslekleri hakkındaki algıları, toplumdan aldıkları tepkiler, okul ve iş hayatı deneyimleri kapsamında değerlendirilmiştir.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler:    Toplumsal Cinsiyet Temelli Mühendislik Kültürü, kadın ve erkek mühendis, Türkiye, katılımcı gözlem, derinlemesine mülakat.

References

  • References
  • AMELINK, Catherine. T., & CREAMER, Elizabeth. G. Gender differences in elements of the undergraduate experience that influence satisfaction with the engineering major and the intent to pursue engineering as a career. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 2010, 81-92.
  • ARTUN, Ali. Fordizmin ve mühendisin dönüşümü. TMMOB,
  • ARTUN, Ali. “Mühendis, 1975-2000”. Toplum ve Bilim, 85 Yaz: 47-60, 2000.
  • BAKER, Sarah., TANCRED, Peta. & WHITESIDES, Sue. Gender and Graduate School: Engineering Students Confront Life after the B. Eng. Journal of Engineering Education, January, pp.41-47, 2002.
  • BASTALICH, W., FRANZWAY, S., GILL, J., MIllS, J. and SHARP, R..Disrupting Masculnities Women Engineers and Engineering Workplace Culture.Australian Feminist Studies, 22/54, pp. 385-400, 2007.
  • BAYRAKÇEKEN-TÜZEL, G. Being and Becoming
  • Professional: Work and Liberation through Women’s
  • Narratives in Turkey (Doctoral dissertation, MIDDLE
  • EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY), 2004.
  • BERAUD, A. A European research on women and Engineering Education (2001-2002). European journal of engineering education, 28(4), 435-451.
  • BRANDTH, Berit, & KVANDE, Elin. Flexible work and flexible fathers. Work, Employment & Society, 15(2), 251-267, 2001.
  • CECH, E. A. Understanding the Gender Schema of Female Engineering Students: A Balanced Sex-Type and an Ideal of Autonomy. Women in Engineering ProActive Network, 2005.
  • CECH, E. A., & WAIDZUNAS, T. J. Navigating the heteronormativity of engineering: The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Engineering Studies, 3(1), 1-24, 2011.
  • COCKBURN, Cynthia. Material of Male Power. Feminist Review, 9: 41-57, 1981.
  • COCKBURN, C. Brothers: Male Dominance and Technical
  • Change, London: Pluto Press, 1983.
  • COCKBURN, C Cynthia. Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men and Technical Know-how London: Pluto Press, and Boston: North Eastern University Press, 1985.
  • COCKBURN, Cynthia. Caught in the wheels: the high cost of being a female cog in the male machinery of engineering. In MCkenzie, D. A. & Wajcman, J. The social Shaping of Technology. Philedelphia: Open University Press, 1987.
  • COCKBURN, Cynthia. & ORMROD, Susan. Gender and
  • Technology in the Making. London ;Thousand Oaks,
  • Calif. : Sage,1993.
  • COCKBURN, Cynthia. On the Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men, and Technical Know-How. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 37/ 1 & 2, pp. 269-273, 2009.
  • COLLINSON, D. L. Managing the shopfloor: Subjectivity, masculinity and workplace culture (Vol. 36). Walter de Gruyter, 1992.
  • COLLINSON, D.L. 'Engineering humour': masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floor relations. Organization Studies, 9(2), 181-199, 1998.
  • EDWARDS, P. “Industrial Genders: Soft/Hard” in Lerman et al. Gender and Technology: A Reader. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London, 2003.
  • FAULKNER, W. The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for “making gender stick” to engineers. Science, Technology & Human Values,25(1), 87-119, 2000.
  • FAULKNER, W. Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 759-792, 2000.
  • FAULKNER, W. Nuts and Bolts and People'Gender-Troubled Engineering Identities. Social studies of science, 37(3), 331-356, 2007.
  • FAULKNER, W. Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. I. Observations from the field. Engineering Studies, 1(1), 3-18, 2009.
  • FAULKNER, W. Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox. Engineering Studies, 1(3), 169-189, 2009.
  • FOX-KELLER, Evelyn. Reflections on Gender and Science. Yale
  • University Press: New Haven, 1985.
  • FOX-KELLER, Evelyn. & LONGINO, Helen. E. (ed.) Feminism
  • and Science. Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York,
  • GÖLE, Nilüfer. Mühendisler ve İdeoloji: Öncü Devrimcilerden
  • Yenilikçi Seçkinlere. 4th Edition. İstanbul: Metis
  • Yayınları, 2008.
  • HACKER, Sally. L. The culture of engineering: Woman, workplace and machine. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 4(3), 341-353, 1981.
  • HACKER, Sally. L. Pleasure, Power and Technology: Some Tales of Gender, Engineering and the Cooperative Workplace. Unwin Hyman: Boston, 1989.
  • HARDING, S. The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell
  • University Press: USA,1986.
  • HARDING, S. (ed.) Feminism and Methodology: Social Science
  • Issues. Indiana University Press: USA.
  • Harding, S. &O’Barr, J. (ed.).(1987). Sex and Scientific Inquiry.
  • Chicago University Press: Chicago, 1987.
  • HARDING, S. G. Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking
  • from women's lives. Cornell University Press,1991.
  • HARDING, S. G. (Ed.).The feminist standpoint theory reader:
  • Intellectual and political controversies. Psychology Press,
  • HARTMAN, Harriete, & HARTMAN, Moshe. How undergraduate engineering students perceive women’s (and men’s) problems in science, math and engineering. Sex roles, 58(3-4), 251-265, 2008.
  • KÜSKÜ, F., Özbilgin, M. and Özkale, L. Against the Tide: Gendered Prejudice and Disadvantage in Engineering. Gender, Work and Organization, 14/ 2, pp.109-129, 2007.
  • KENT, Philip & NOSS, Richard. “The Mathematical Components of Engineering Expertise: The Relationship Between Doing and Understanding Mathematics”. IET,pp:39, 2002.
  • KÖSE, Ahmet. & ÖNCÜ, A. “Türkiye’de Mühendis ve Mimarların Sınıfları ve İdeolojileri”. Toplum ve Bilim, 85 Yaz: 8-36, 2000.
  • KÖSE, Ahmet H. & ÖNCÜ, A. Kapitalizm, İnsanlık ve
  • T Mühendislik: Türkiye’de Mühendisler Mimarlar.
  • Ankara: MMOB, 2000.
  • LERMAN, N. E. , Oldenziel, R. & Mohun, A. P. (eds.) Gender
  • and Technology: A Reader. The Johns Hopkins University
  • Press: Baltimore and London, 2003.
  • MELLSTRÖM, U. Patriarchal machines and masculine embodiment.Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(4), 460-478, 2002.
  • MELLSTRÖM, U. Machines and Masculine Subjectivity Technology as an Integral Part of Men’s Life Experiences. Men and masculinities, 6(4), 368-382, 2004.
  • MILLER, G. The frontier, entrepreneurialism, and engineers: Women coping with a web of masculinities in an organizational culture. Culture and organization, 8(2), 145-160, 2002.
  • NICHOLSON, P. (1996), Gender, Power and Organizations,
  • Routledge, London, N.Y.
  • MCILWEE, Judith S., & ROBINSON, J. Gregg. Women in
  • engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture.
  • SUNY Press, 1992.
  • MILLER, G. E. Frontier masculinity in the oil industry: The experience of women engineers. Gender, Work & Organization, 11(1), 47-73, 2004.
  • NAUTA, Margaret M., EPPERSON, Douglas. L., WAGGONER, Kathleen. M. Perceived Causes of Success and Failure: Are Women’s Attributions Related to Persistence in Engineering Majors? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36/6, pp. 663–676, 1999.
  • OLDENZIEL, Ruth. Making Technology Masculine. Amsterdam:
  • Amsterdam University Press, 1999.
  • RAPOPORT, R., Bailyn, Lutte, FLETCHER, J.K. and PRUITT,
  • B.H. Beyond Work–Family Balance. San Francisco, CA:
  • SMITHA, A. E. and Dengiz, B. Women in Engineering in Turkey - a large scale quantitative and qualitative examination. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35/1, pp. 45-57, 2010.
  • SONNERT, Gerhard, Fox, Marry, Frank. AND ADKINS, Kristen. Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Effects of Faculty, Fields, and Institutions over Time, Social Science Quarterly, 88/5, pp. 1333-1356, 2007.
  • TANTEKİN-ERSOLMAZ, B. Ş., Ekinci, E. & Sağlamer, G. Engineering Education and Practice in Turkey. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Summer, pp. 26-35, 2006.
  • TONSO, L. K. Teams that Work: Campus Culture, Engineer Identity, and Social Interactions. Journal of Engineering Education, January, pp. 25-37, 2006.
  • WACJMAN, Judy. Feminism Confronts Technology, The Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania, 1991.
  • WATTS, Jacqueline. H. ‘Allowed into a Man’s World’ Meanings of Work–Life Balance: Perspectives of Women Civil Engineers as ‘Minority’ Workers in Construction. Gender, Work and Organization. 16/1, pp. 37-57, 2009.
  • ZENGİN, Berna. “Women Engineers in Turkey: Gender,
  • education and professional life, a case study on Metu.”
  • Master of Science Thesis, Middle East Technical
  • University, 2000.
  • Eurostat, Labor Market Statistics, 2009,
  • http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat, (Retrieved on November, 2012).
  • National Science Foundation. Graduates Characteristics Masters, 2006. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08304/, (Retrieved on November, 2012).

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 4, 229 - 245, 26.12.2015

Ezgi Pehlivanlı Kadayifci

Abstract

References

  • References
  • AMELINK, Catherine. T., & CREAMER, Elizabeth. G. Gender differences in elements of the undergraduate experience that influence satisfaction with the engineering major and the intent to pursue engineering as a career. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 2010, 81-92.
  • ARTUN, Ali. Fordizmin ve mühendisin dönüşümü. TMMOB,
  • ARTUN, Ali. “Mühendis, 1975-2000”. Toplum ve Bilim, 85 Yaz: 47-60, 2000.
  • BAKER, Sarah., TANCRED, Peta. & WHITESIDES, Sue. Gender and Graduate School: Engineering Students Confront Life after the B. Eng. Journal of Engineering Education, January, pp.41-47, 2002.
  • BASTALICH, W., FRANZWAY, S., GILL, J., MIllS, J. and SHARP, R..Disrupting Masculnities Women Engineers and Engineering Workplace Culture.Australian Feminist Studies, 22/54, pp. 385-400, 2007.
  • BAYRAKÇEKEN-TÜZEL, G. Being and Becoming
  • Professional: Work and Liberation through Women’s
  • Narratives in Turkey (Doctoral dissertation, MIDDLE
  • EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY), 2004.
  • BERAUD, A. A European research on women and Engineering Education (2001-2002). European journal of engineering education, 28(4), 435-451.
  • BRANDTH, Berit, & KVANDE, Elin. Flexible work and flexible fathers. Work, Employment & Society, 15(2), 251-267, 2001.
  • CECH, E. A. Understanding the Gender Schema of Female Engineering Students: A Balanced Sex-Type and an Ideal of Autonomy. Women in Engineering ProActive Network, 2005.
  • CECH, E. A., & WAIDZUNAS, T. J. Navigating the heteronormativity of engineering: The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Engineering Studies, 3(1), 1-24, 2011.
  • COCKBURN, Cynthia. Material of Male Power. Feminist Review, 9: 41-57, 1981.
  • COCKBURN, C. Brothers: Male Dominance and Technical
  • Change, London: Pluto Press, 1983.
  • COCKBURN, C Cynthia. Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men and Technical Know-how London: Pluto Press, and Boston: North Eastern University Press, 1985.
  • COCKBURN, Cynthia. Caught in the wheels: the high cost of being a female cog in the male machinery of engineering. In MCkenzie, D. A. & Wajcman, J. The social Shaping of Technology. Philedelphia: Open University Press, 1987.
  • COCKBURN, Cynthia. & ORMROD, Susan. Gender and
  • Technology in the Making. London ;Thousand Oaks,
  • Calif. : Sage,1993.
  • COCKBURN, Cynthia. On the Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men, and Technical Know-How. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 37/ 1 & 2, pp. 269-273, 2009.
  • COLLINSON, D. L. Managing the shopfloor: Subjectivity, masculinity and workplace culture (Vol. 36). Walter de Gruyter, 1992.
  • COLLINSON, D.L. 'Engineering humour': masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floor relations. Organization Studies, 9(2), 181-199, 1998.
  • EDWARDS, P. “Industrial Genders: Soft/Hard” in Lerman et al. Gender and Technology: A Reader. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London, 2003.
  • FAULKNER, W. The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for “making gender stick” to engineers. Science, Technology & Human Values,25(1), 87-119, 2000.
  • FAULKNER, W. Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 759-792, 2000.
  • FAULKNER, W. Nuts and Bolts and People'Gender-Troubled Engineering Identities. Social studies of science, 37(3), 331-356, 2007.
  • FAULKNER, W. Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. I. Observations from the field. Engineering Studies, 1(1), 3-18, 2009.
  • FAULKNER, W. Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox. Engineering Studies, 1(3), 169-189, 2009.
  • FOX-KELLER, Evelyn. Reflections on Gender and Science. Yale
  • University Press: New Haven, 1985.
  • FOX-KELLER, Evelyn. & LONGINO, Helen. E. (ed.) Feminism
  • and Science. Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York,
  • GÖLE, Nilüfer. Mühendisler ve İdeoloji: Öncü Devrimcilerden
  • Yenilikçi Seçkinlere. 4th Edition. İstanbul: Metis
  • Yayınları, 2008.
  • HACKER, Sally. L. The culture of engineering: Woman, workplace and machine. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 4(3), 341-353, 1981.
  • HACKER, Sally. L. Pleasure, Power and Technology: Some Tales of Gender, Engineering and the Cooperative Workplace. Unwin Hyman: Boston, 1989.
  • HARDING, S. The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell
  • University Press: USA,1986.
  • HARDING, S. (ed.) Feminism and Methodology: Social Science
  • Issues. Indiana University Press: USA.
  • Harding, S. &O’Barr, J. (ed.).(1987). Sex and Scientific Inquiry.
  • Chicago University Press: Chicago, 1987.
  • HARDING, S. G. Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking
  • from women's lives. Cornell University Press,1991.
  • HARDING, S. G. (Ed.).The feminist standpoint theory reader:
  • Intellectual and political controversies. Psychology Press,
  • HARTMAN, Harriete, & HARTMAN, Moshe. How undergraduate engineering students perceive women’s (and men’s) problems in science, math and engineering. Sex roles, 58(3-4), 251-265, 2008.
  • KÜSKÜ, F., Özbilgin, M. and Özkale, L. Against the Tide: Gendered Prejudice and Disadvantage in Engineering. Gender, Work and Organization, 14/ 2, pp.109-129, 2007.
  • KENT, Philip & NOSS, Richard. “The Mathematical Components of Engineering Expertise: The Relationship Between Doing and Understanding Mathematics”. IET,pp:39, 2002.
  • KÖSE, Ahmet. & ÖNCÜ, A. “Türkiye’de Mühendis ve Mimarların Sınıfları ve İdeolojileri”. Toplum ve Bilim, 85 Yaz: 8-36, 2000.
  • KÖSE, Ahmet H. & ÖNCÜ, A. Kapitalizm, İnsanlık ve
  • T Mühendislik: Türkiye’de Mühendisler Mimarlar.
  • Ankara: MMOB, 2000.
  • LERMAN, N. E. , Oldenziel, R. & Mohun, A. P. (eds.) Gender
  • and Technology: A Reader. The Johns Hopkins University
  • Press: Baltimore and London, 2003.
  • MELLSTRÖM, U. Patriarchal machines and masculine embodiment.Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(4), 460-478, 2002.
  • MELLSTRÖM, U. Machines and Masculine Subjectivity Technology as an Integral Part of Men’s Life Experiences. Men and masculinities, 6(4), 368-382, 2004.
  • MILLER, G. The frontier, entrepreneurialism, and engineers: Women coping with a web of masculinities in an organizational culture. Culture and organization, 8(2), 145-160, 2002.
  • NICHOLSON, P. (1996), Gender, Power and Organizations,
  • Routledge, London, N.Y.
  • MCILWEE, Judith S., & ROBINSON, J. Gregg. Women in
  • engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture.
  • SUNY Press, 1992.
  • MILLER, G. E. Frontier masculinity in the oil industry: The experience of women engineers. Gender, Work & Organization, 11(1), 47-73, 2004.
  • NAUTA, Margaret M., EPPERSON, Douglas. L., WAGGONER, Kathleen. M. Perceived Causes of Success and Failure: Are Women’s Attributions Related to Persistence in Engineering Majors? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36/6, pp. 663–676, 1999.
  • OLDENZIEL, Ruth. Making Technology Masculine. Amsterdam:
  • Amsterdam University Press, 1999.
  • RAPOPORT, R., Bailyn, Lutte, FLETCHER, J.K. and PRUITT,
  • B.H. Beyond Work–Family Balance. San Francisco, CA:
  • SMITHA, A. E. and Dengiz, B. Women in Engineering in Turkey - a large scale quantitative and qualitative examination. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35/1, pp. 45-57, 2010.
  • SONNERT, Gerhard, Fox, Marry, Frank. AND ADKINS, Kristen. Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Effects of Faculty, Fields, and Institutions over Time, Social Science Quarterly, 88/5, pp. 1333-1356, 2007.
  • TANTEKİN-ERSOLMAZ, B. Ş., Ekinci, E. & Sağlamer, G. Engineering Education and Practice in Turkey. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Summer, pp. 26-35, 2006.
  • TONSO, L. K. Teams that Work: Campus Culture, Engineer Identity, and Social Interactions. Journal of Engineering Education, January, pp. 25-37, 2006.
  • WACJMAN, Judy. Feminism Confronts Technology, The Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania, 1991.
  • WATTS, Jacqueline. H. ‘Allowed into a Man’s World’ Meanings of Work–Life Balance: Perspectives of Women Civil Engineers as ‘Minority’ Workers in Construction. Gender, Work and Organization. 16/1, pp. 37-57, 2009.
  • ZENGİN, Berna. “Women Engineers in Turkey: Gender,
  • education and professional life, a case study on Metu.”
  • Master of Science Thesis, Middle East Technical
  • University, 2000.
  • Eurostat, Labor Market Statistics, 2009,
  • http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat, (Retrieved on November, 2012).
  • National Science Foundation. Graduates Characteristics Masters, 2006. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08304/, (Retrieved on November, 2012).
There are 87 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Tüm Sayı
Authors

Ezgi Pehlivanlı Kadayifci

Publication Date December 26, 2015
Submission Date October 15, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 2 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Pehlivanlı Kadayifci, E. (2015). MANIFESTATIONS OF GENDERED ENGINEERING CULTURE IN TURKEY: DIFFERING EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN AND MEN ENGINEERS / TÜRKİYE’DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ MÜHENDİSLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN TEZAHÜRLERİ: KADIN VE ERKEK MÜHENDİSLERİN FARKLILAŞAN DENEYİMLERİ. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 2(4), 229-245.
AMA Pehlivanlı Kadayifci E. MANIFESTATIONS OF GENDERED ENGINEERING CULTURE IN TURKEY: DIFFERING EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN AND MEN ENGINEERS / TÜRKİYE’DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ MÜHENDİSLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN TEZAHÜRLERİ: KADIN VE ERKEK MÜHENDİSLERİN FARKLILAŞAN DENEYİMLERİ. Akademik Hassasiyetler. December 2015;2(4):229-245.
Chicago Pehlivanlı Kadayifci, Ezgi. “MANIFESTATIONS OF GENDERED ENGINEERING CULTURE IN TURKEY: DIFFERING EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN AND MEN ENGINEERS / TÜRKİYE’DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ MÜHENDİSLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN TEZAHÜRLERİ: KADIN VE ERKEK MÜHENDİSLERİN FARKLILAŞAN DENEYİMLERİ”. Akademik Hassasiyetler 2, no. 4 (December 2015): 229-45.
EndNote Pehlivanlı Kadayifci E (December 1, 2015) MANIFESTATIONS OF GENDERED ENGINEERING CULTURE IN TURKEY: DIFFERING EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN AND MEN ENGINEERS / TÜRKİYE’DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ MÜHENDİSLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN TEZAHÜRLERİ: KADIN VE ERKEK MÜHENDİSLERİN FARKLILAŞAN DENEYİMLERİ. Akademik Hassasiyetler 2 4 229–245.
IEEE E. Pehlivanlı Kadayifci, “MANIFESTATIONS OF GENDERED ENGINEERING CULTURE IN TURKEY: DIFFERING EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN AND MEN ENGINEERS / TÜRKİYE’DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ MÜHENDİSLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN TEZAHÜRLERİ: KADIN VE ERKEK MÜHENDİSLERİN FARKLILAŞAN DENEYİMLERİ”, Akademik Hassasiyetler, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 229–245, 2015.
ISNAD Pehlivanlı Kadayifci, Ezgi. “MANIFESTATIONS OF GENDERED ENGINEERING CULTURE IN TURKEY: DIFFERING EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN AND MEN ENGINEERS / TÜRKİYE’DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ MÜHENDİSLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN TEZAHÜRLERİ: KADIN VE ERKEK MÜHENDİSLERİN FARKLILAŞAN DENEYİMLERİ”. Akademik Hassasiyetler 2/4 (December 2015), 229-245.
JAMA Pehlivanlı Kadayifci E. MANIFESTATIONS OF GENDERED ENGINEERING CULTURE IN TURKEY: DIFFERING EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN AND MEN ENGINEERS / TÜRKİYE’DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ MÜHENDİSLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN TEZAHÜRLERİ: KADIN VE ERKEK MÜHENDİSLERİN FARKLILAŞAN DENEYİMLERİ. Akademik Hassasiyetler. 2015;2:229–245.
MLA Pehlivanlı Kadayifci, Ezgi. “MANIFESTATIONS OF GENDERED ENGINEERING CULTURE IN TURKEY: DIFFERING EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN AND MEN ENGINEERS / TÜRKİYE’DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ MÜHENDİSLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN TEZAHÜRLERİ: KADIN VE ERKEK MÜHENDİSLERİN FARKLILAŞAN DENEYİMLERİ”. Akademik Hassasiyetler, vol. 2, no. 4, 2015, pp. 229-45.
Vancouver Pehlivanlı Kadayifci E. MANIFESTATIONS OF GENDERED ENGINEERING CULTURE IN TURKEY: DIFFERING EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN AND MEN ENGINEERS / TÜRKİYE’DE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET TEMELLİ MÜHENDİSLİK KÜLTÜRÜNÜN TEZAHÜRLERİ: KADIN VE ERKEK MÜHENDİSLERİN FARKLILAŞAN DENEYİMLERİ. Akademik Hassasiyetler. 2015;2(4):229-45.
 Download Cover Image

MAKALE DEĞERLENDİRME SÜRECİ

Yazar tarafından gönderilen bir makale, gönderim tarihinden itibaren 10 gün içinde dergi sekreteri tarafından makalenin, telif sözleşmesinin ve benzerlik raporunun (Turnitin programı) eksiksiz ve düzgün bir şekilde gönderilip gönderilmediği yönünden incelenir. İstenilen bu dosyalar eksiksiz ve düzgün bir şekilde gönderilmiş ise makale; ikinci aşamada derginin yayın çizgisine uygun olup olmadığı yönünden değerlendirilir. Bu süreçte makale yayın çizgisine uygun değilse yazara iade edilir. Makale yayın çizgisine uygun ise şablona uygun bir şekilde gönderilip gönderilmediği yönünden değerlendirilir. Şayet makale şablona uyarlanıp gönderilmemiş ise değerlendirme sürecine alınmaz. Bu süreçte yazarın derginin belirlediği şartlara uygun bir şekilde sisteme makale yüklemesi beklenir. Makale şablona uygun bir şekilde hazırlanıp gönderilmiş ise son aşamada makale derginin yayın ilkeleri, yazım kuralları, öz, abstract, extented abstract, kaynakça gösterimi vb. yönlerden incelenir. Bu ayrıntılarda makalede bir sorun varsa yazarın bu hususları tamamlaması istenir ve verilen süre içerisinde eksiksiz bir şekilde yeniden makaleyi göndermesi istenir.
Tüm bu aşamaları geçen makale, editör tarafından bilimsel yeterliliğinin denetlenmesi amacıyla ikinci 7 günlük süre içerisinde çalışmaya uygun iki hakeme değerlendirmeleri için gönderilir. Hakemlerin değerlendirme süreleri 15 gündür. Bu süre zarfında hakemlik görevini tamamlamayan bir hakem olursa ilgili hakeme değerlendirmeyi tamamlaması için 7 günlük ek süre verilebilir. Bu süre zarfında hakem görevini yerine getirmezse yerine yeni bir hakem ataması yapılır. En az iki hakemden gelen raporlar olumlu ise makale yayın aşamasına alınır. Hakem raporlarından birisi olumlu diğeri olumsuz ise makale üçüncü bir hakeme gönderilir. Üçüncü hakem raporu da olumsuz ise makale ret edilir. Üçüncü hakemin değerlendirmesi olumlu ise makaleyle ilgili hakem raporları dergi alan editörlerinden oluşan Editörler Kurulu tarafından incelenir. Makalenin yayınlanmasıyla ilgili nihai karar alan editörlerinden oluşan Editörler Kurulu tarafından verilir. Hakem raporlarının yetersiz ve tatmin etmekten uzak olması veya İngilizce editör tarafından abstract ve extented abstract’ın yetersiz görülmesi hallerinde de yine makaleyle ilgili son karar Editörler Kurulu tarafından verilir. Tüm bu aşamalardan geçen bir makale en yakın sayıya yayınlanmak üzere eklenir. İlgili sayıda yer kalmaması halinde makalenin yayımı bir sonraki sayıya kaydırılır. Bu durumda ve tüm değerlendirme sürecinde yazar isterse makalesini geri çekme hakkına sahiptir. Ancak bu durumu dergiye bildirmesi gerekir. Makale gönderim tarihinden makalenin yayına kabul tarihine kadar tüm bu işlemler için ortalama 3 aylık bir süre öngörülmektedir.