Sosyal Temsil Çalışmaları İçin Sistematik Bir Yöntem Olarak Argüman Analizi

Abstract

Bu makalenin amacı sosyal temsillerin argüman analizi yoluyla tespit edilmesine dayanan bir yöntemin ana hatlarını çizmektir. Bunun için önce sosyal temsiller teorisinin bazı dayanak noktaları ve kuramsal önermeleri özetlenmektedir. Bu özet temsillerin basit bir sınıflandırmasını (hegemonik, polemik ve özgürleşmiş temsiller) ve sosyal temsil çalışmalarına üç epistemolojik ve yöntemsel yaklaşımı (yapısal, genetik ve diyalojik) barındırmaktadır. Ardından söylemsel yaklaşımların ve özellikle pragma-diyalektik argüman analizinin sosyal temsillerin belirlen- mesinde faydalı olabileceği bir çerçeve örnekler verilerek sunulacaktır. Sonuç kısmında farklı temsil tiplerinin sistematik, hesap verilebilir, tekrarlanabilir ve güvenilir bir şekilde belirlenip ortaya konmasını sağlayan bir yöntemin ana hatları ortaya çıkarılmaktadır. 

Keywords

• sosyal temsiller, hegemonik, polemik, söylem, argüman, diyalojik yaklaşım, pragma-diyalektik

A Systematic Method For Studying Social Representations: Argumentation Analysis

Abstract

The aim in this paper is to emphasise the potential contributions of argumentation analysis to the study of social representations. To achieve this goal, first some theoretical propositions and principles of the theory of social representations are summarized. This summary involves a typology of social representations (hegemonic, polemical, emancipated representations), as well as the three approaches to the study of representations (structural, genetic and dia- logical). After setting forth some points of convergence between the dialogical approach and argumentation theory, a framework which pragma-dialectical argumentationanalysis can contribute to the identification of social representations is presented. The concluding section describes some of the basic assumptions of an argumentative method through which different types of representations can be systematically, accountably, repeatably and reliably identified. 

Keywords

• social representations,hegemonic,polemic,discourse,argumentation,dialogical approach,pragma-dialectics

References

1. Abric, J.C. (1993). Central system, peripheral system: Their functions and roles in the dynamics of social representations. Papers on Social Representations, 2, 75-78.
2. Bauer, M.W. ve Gaskell, G. (2008). Social representations theory: A progressive research program for social psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38, 335-353.
3. Bilgin, N. (2000). İçerik analizi. İzmir: Ege Universitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi yayınları.
4. Billig, M. (1993). Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. London: Sage.
5. Castro, P. (2003). Dialogues in social psychology, or how new are new ideas. J. Laszlo ve W. Wagner (Eds.), Theories and controversies in societal psychology (s. 32-55). Bu- dapest: New Mandate.
6. Castro, P. (2012). Legal innovation for social change: Exploring change and resistance to different types of sustainability laws, Political Psychology, 33, 105-121.
7. Castro, P. ve Mouro, C. (2011). Psycho-social processes in dealing with legal inno- vation in the community: Insights from biodiversity conservation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 362-373.
8. Cesur, S. (2003). 17 ağustos depremiyle ilgili sorumluluk atıfları. Psikoloji Çalışma- ları, 23, 43-68.

9. Dewey, J. (1929/1958). Experience and Nature. London: George Allen & Unwin.
10. Doise, W. (1986). Levels of explanation in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Doise, W. (1993). Debating social representations. G.M. Breakwell ve D.V. Canter (Ed.), Empirical approaches to social representations (s. 157-170). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
12. Doise, W., Clemence, A. ve Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1993). The quantitative analysis of social representations. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
13. Spini, D. ve Doise, W. (1998). Organising principles of involvement in human rights and their social anchoring in value priorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 603-622.
14. Doise, W., Spini, D. ve Clemence, A. (1999). Human rights studied as social repre- sentations in a cross-national context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1-29.
15. Durkheim, E. (1912/2001). Elementary forms of religious life. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press.
16. van Eemeren, F. H. ve Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2, 271–291.
17. van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst, R. ve Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumenta- tion: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. London, New Jersey: Lawrence Elbraum.
18. van Eemeren F.H. ve Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. van Eemeren F. H. ve Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Re- capitulation. Argumentation, 20, 381–392.
20. Elcheroth, G., Doise, W. ve Reicher, S. (2011). On the knowledge of politics and the politics of knowledge: How a social representations approach helps us to think the subject of political psychology, Political Psyschology, 32, 729-758.
21. Farr, R. M. (1998). From collective to social representations: Aller et retour. Culture Psychology, 4, 275-296.
22. Gerritsen, S. (2001). Unexpressed premises. F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.): Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (s. 56-84), Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
23. Guimelli, C. (1993). Concerning the structure of social representations. Papers on Social Representations, 2, 85-92.
24. Howarth, C. (2006). A social representation is not a quiet thing: Exploring the critical potential of social representations theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 65-86.
25. Jaspal, R. ve Nerlich B. (2014). When climate science became climate politics: British media representations of climate change in 1988. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 122-141.
26. Jesuino, J. C. (2008). Linking science to common sense. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38, 393-409.
27. Jodelet, D. (1991). Madness and social representations: Living with the mad in one French community. Berkeley: University of California Press.
28. Joffe, H. (2012). Thematic analysis. D. Harper ve A.R. Thompson (Eds.), Qualitative methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners (s. 209-224). Chichester: Wiley.
29. Jovchelovitch, S. (1996). In defense of representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 26, 121-135.
30. Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in context: Representations, community and culture. London, New York: Routledge.
31. Jovchelovitch, S. (2008). The rehabilitation of common sense: Social representations, science and cognitive polyphasia. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38, 431-448.
32. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Lon- don: Sage.
33. Lahlou, S. ve Abric, J. (2011). What are the “elements” of a representation? Papers on Social Representations, 20, 1-10.
34. Lewinski, M. ve Aakhus, M. (2014). Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical frame- work: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28, 161-185.
35. Markova, I. (2000). The individual and society in psychological theory. Theory and Psychology, 10, 107-116.
36. Markova, I. (2003). Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Markova, I. (2008). Epistemological significance of the theory of social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38, 461-487.
38. McKinlay, A. ve Potter, J. (1987). Social representations: A conceptual critique. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17, 471-478.
39. Moscovici, S. (1961/2008). Psychoanalysis: Its image and its public. Cambridge: Polity Press.
40. Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. R.M. Farr, S. Mos- covici (Ed.) Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Moscovici, S. (1985). The age of crowd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 211-250.
43. Moscovici, S. (1994). Social representations and pragmatic communication. Social Science Information, 33, 163-177.
44. Narter, M. (2003). Deliliğin sosyal temsilleri. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 3(7), 23-70.
45. Öner, B. (2002). Sosyal temsiller. Kriz, 10, 29-35.
46. Paker, K. O. (2005). Günlük düşüncede modernlik, din ve laiklik. Ankara: Vadi Yayınları.
47. Paker, K. O. (2011). Postmodern Bilgelik: Yeni Çağ Söyleminde Kişisel Gelişim ve ‘Ruhsal Alıştırmalar’. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 31, 61-98.
48. Paker, K. O. (2012). Sosyal bilimcilerin sosyal bilim ve üniversite temsilleri. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 32, 43-71.
49. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
50. Potter, J. ve Edwards, D. (1999). Social representations and discursive psychology: From cognition to action. Culture and Psychology, 5, 447-458.
51. Potter, J. ve Litton, I. (1985). Some problems underlying the theory of social represen- tations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 81-90.
52. Potter, J. ve Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
53. Raudsepp, M. (2005). Why is it so difficult to understand the Theory of Social Repre- sentations? Culture and Psychology, 11, 455-470.
54. Smith, N. ve Joffe, H. (2009). Climate change in the British press: The role of the visual. Journal of Risk Research, 12, 647-663.
55. Smith, N. ve Joffe H. (2013). How the public engages with global warming: A social representations approach. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 16-32.
56. Spini, D. ve Doise, W. (1998). Organizing principles of involvement in human rights and their social anchoring in value priorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 603-622.
57. Üzelgün, M. A. (2014). Science and Rhetoric in a Globalizing Public Sphere: Mediating systems of climate change knowledge and action. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Lisbon: University Institute Lisbon. https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/handle/10071/8839
58. Voelklein, C. ve Howarth, C. (2005). A review of controversies about social represen- tations theory: A British debate. Culture and Psychology, 11, 431-454.
59. Wagner, W., Valencia, J. ve Elejabarrieta, F. (1996). Relevance, discourse and the “hot” stable core of social representations: A structural analysis of word associations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 331-352.
60. Walton, D., Reed, C. ve Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.