Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The Second Sociology in Turkish Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 Introductory Sociology Textbooks

Year 2019, Issue: 59, 79 - 98, 03.07.2019
https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2018-0015

Abstract

There is a distinction between the literary forms of research-oriented scientific practice and those of scientific education, popularized in the early decades of the 20th century. This distinction emphasizes differences between “journal science”, whose audiences are mostly specialists, and “popular science” or “textbook science”, written for non-specialist public or students. In the early 2000’s, the term “two sociologies” was coined by Hamilton and Form to mark a similar differentiation in sociology. However, the disciplinary attention to this distinction and its problems can be traced back to the 1920s, and with the help of the existing research on sociology textbooks, some important solutions has been produced in Western academies. By stressing the difference between “two sociologies”, this research presents the findings of a quantitative content analysis on Turkish introductory sociology textbooks for higher education. The main objective of the study is to satisfy the need for such researches in Turkey and to describe the problems of the texts. The study results strengthen the argument that there is a link between standardization issues in the discipline and the textbook problems.

References

  • Agger, B. (1989). Do books write authors? A study of disciplinary hegemony. Teaching Sociology, 17(3), 365-369.
  • Anık, M. (2008). Lise sosyoloji ders kitapları üzerine eleştirel bir değerlendirme. Sosyoloji Dergisi/Journal of Sociology(16).
  • Babchuk, N., & Keith, B. (1995). Introducing the discipline: The scholarly content of introductory texts. Teaching Sociology, 215-225.
  • Becker, H. S. (1979). What’s happening to sociology? Society, 16(5), 19-24.
  • Berger, P. L. (1992). Sociology: A disinvitation? Society, 30(1), 12-18.
  • Best, J., & Schweingruber, D. (2003). First words: Do sociologists actually use the terms in introductory textbooks’ glossaries? The American Sociologist, 34(3), 97-106.
  • Bulut, Y. (2008). Türkçe’de yayınlanmış sosyolojiye giriş kitapları hakkında bibliyografik bir değerlendirme. Sosyoloji Dergisi/Journal of Sociology(16).
  • Chang, M., Chang, Y., & Tang, C. (2010). Indigenization, institutionalization, and internationalization: tracing the paths of the development of sociology in Taiwan. Facing an unequal world: challenges for a global sociology, 158-191.
  • Crothers, C. (2008). New Zealand sociology textbooks. Current Sociology, 56(2), 221-234. doi:10.1177/0011392107085032
  • Davis, J. A. (1994). What’s wrong with sociology? Paper presented at the Sociological Forum.
  • Ferguson, S. J. (2016). The center does hold. Teaching Sociology, 44(3), 163-176. doi:10.1177/0092055x16651478
  • Fuchs, S., & Turner, J. H. (1986). What makes a science’mature’?: Patterns of organizational control in scientific production. Sociological theory, 4(2), 143-150.
  • Hamilton, R. F., & Form, W. H. (2003). Categorical usages and complex realities: Race, ethnicity, and religion in the United States. Social Forces, 81(3), 693-714.
  • Harley, K., & Wickham, G. (2014). Australian sociology: Fragility, survival, rivalry: Springer.
  • Keith, B., & Ender, M. G. (2004). The sociological core: Conceptual patterns and idiosyncrasies in the structure and content of introductory sociology textbooks, 1940-2000. Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 19-36.
  • Kurtz, R. A., & Maiolo, J. R. (1968). Surgery for sociology: the need for introductory text opening chapterectomy. The American Sociologist, 39-41.
  • Lynch, M., & Bogen, D. (1997). Sociology’s asociological” core”: An examination of textbook sociology in light of the sociology of scientific knowledge. American sociological review, 481-493.
  • Manza, J., Sauder, M., & Wright, N. (2010). Producing textbook sociology. European Journal of Sociology, 51(02), 271-304. doi:10.1017/s0003975610000135
  • McDonald, D. G., & Dimmick, J. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of diversity. Communication Research, 30(1), 60-79.
  • McGee, R., Vaughan, C. A., & Baker, P. J. (1985). Introductory instruction for a discipline in decline: A crtique and proposals for reorientation. Teaching Sociology, 12-33.
  • Moore, T. (2002). Knowledge and agency: a study of ‘metaphenomenal discourse’in textbooks from three disciplines. English for specific purposes, 21(4), 347-366.
  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook: Sage.
  • Pereyra, D. E. (2008). Sociological textbooks in Argentina and Mexico, 1940—60. Current Sociology, 56(2), 267-287.
  • Perrucci, R. (1980). Sociology and the introductory textbook. The American Sociologist, 39-49.
  • Rule, J. B. (1997). Theory and progress in social science: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schrecker, C. (2008). Textbooks and sociology: A franco—British comparison. Current Sociology, 56(2), 201-219.
  • Schweingruber, D. (2005). Looking for the core in the wrong place. Teaching Sociology, 33(1), 81-89. doi:10.1177/0092055x0503300108
  • Sorokin, P. A. (1929). Some contrasts of contemporary European and American sociology: I. Social Forces, 8(1), 57-62.
  • Spiegel-Rösing, I. (1977). Science studies: Bibliometric and content analysis. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 97-113.
  • Wagenaar, T. C. (2004). Core as science or core as major? Impediments to identifying the core. Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 37-38.
  • Zald, M. N. (1991). Sociology as a discipline: Quasi-science and quasi-humanities. The American Sociologist, 165-187.

Türkiye’de Yükseköğretimde İkinci Sosyoloji: 30 Sosyolojiye Giriş Kitabının Nicel Bir Analizi

Year 2019, Issue: 59, 79 - 98, 03.07.2019
https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2018-0015

Abstract

Araştırmacı bilimsel pratiğin doğrudan ifadesi olan yazın ile bilimsel disiplinlerin eğitim amaçlı yazın türleri arasında geçen yüz yılın erken dönemlerinden bu yana bilinen bir ayrım vardır. Bu ayrım doğrudan uzman kitlesine yönelik olan “mecmua bilimi” ile “popüler bilim” veya “ders kitabı bilimi” arasındaki farklılıkları vurgulamayı amaçlar. 2000’ler ile birlikte sosyolojideki benzer bir ayrım Hamilton ve Form tarafından “iki sosyoloji” biçiminde adlandırılmıştır. Ancak bu yazın türleri arasındaki farklar ve yarattıkları sorunlara yönelik ilgi 1920’lere kadar gitmektedir ve mevcut araştırma birikiminin ışığında, Batı akademilerinde ders kitaplarındaki ciddi problemlerin çözümü ile ilgili halihazırda önemli adımlar atılmaya başlamıştır. Bu araştırma, “iki sosyoloji” ayrımını merkeze alarak Türkiye’de yükseköğretime yönelik yazılmış iki farklı döneme ait sosyoloji ders kitaplarının nicel bir içerik analizinin bulgularını ve karşılaştırmasını sunmaktadır. Bu sayede Türkiye’deki sosyoloji ders kitapları hakkında böylesi bir araştırmaya dönük ihtiyacı yanıtlamak ve sorunları belgelemek amaçlanmaktadır. Bulgular, ders kitaplarının içeriğindeki problemlerin disiplindeki standartlaşma sorunlarıyla ilişkili olduğu iddiasını güçlendirmektedir.

References

  • Agger, B. (1989). Do books write authors? A study of disciplinary hegemony. Teaching Sociology, 17(3), 365-369.
  • Anık, M. (2008). Lise sosyoloji ders kitapları üzerine eleştirel bir değerlendirme. Sosyoloji Dergisi/Journal of Sociology(16).
  • Babchuk, N., & Keith, B. (1995). Introducing the discipline: The scholarly content of introductory texts. Teaching Sociology, 215-225.
  • Becker, H. S. (1979). What’s happening to sociology? Society, 16(5), 19-24.
  • Berger, P. L. (1992). Sociology: A disinvitation? Society, 30(1), 12-18.
  • Best, J., & Schweingruber, D. (2003). First words: Do sociologists actually use the terms in introductory textbooks’ glossaries? The American Sociologist, 34(3), 97-106.
  • Bulut, Y. (2008). Türkçe’de yayınlanmış sosyolojiye giriş kitapları hakkında bibliyografik bir değerlendirme. Sosyoloji Dergisi/Journal of Sociology(16).
  • Chang, M., Chang, Y., & Tang, C. (2010). Indigenization, institutionalization, and internationalization: tracing the paths of the development of sociology in Taiwan. Facing an unequal world: challenges for a global sociology, 158-191.
  • Crothers, C. (2008). New Zealand sociology textbooks. Current Sociology, 56(2), 221-234. doi:10.1177/0011392107085032
  • Davis, J. A. (1994). What’s wrong with sociology? Paper presented at the Sociological Forum.
  • Ferguson, S. J. (2016). The center does hold. Teaching Sociology, 44(3), 163-176. doi:10.1177/0092055x16651478
  • Fuchs, S., & Turner, J. H. (1986). What makes a science’mature’?: Patterns of organizational control in scientific production. Sociological theory, 4(2), 143-150.
  • Hamilton, R. F., & Form, W. H. (2003). Categorical usages and complex realities: Race, ethnicity, and religion in the United States. Social Forces, 81(3), 693-714.
  • Harley, K., & Wickham, G. (2014). Australian sociology: Fragility, survival, rivalry: Springer.
  • Keith, B., & Ender, M. G. (2004). The sociological core: Conceptual patterns and idiosyncrasies in the structure and content of introductory sociology textbooks, 1940-2000. Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 19-36.
  • Kurtz, R. A., & Maiolo, J. R. (1968). Surgery for sociology: the need for introductory text opening chapterectomy. The American Sociologist, 39-41.
  • Lynch, M., & Bogen, D. (1997). Sociology’s asociological” core”: An examination of textbook sociology in light of the sociology of scientific knowledge. American sociological review, 481-493.
  • Manza, J., Sauder, M., & Wright, N. (2010). Producing textbook sociology. European Journal of Sociology, 51(02), 271-304. doi:10.1017/s0003975610000135
  • McDonald, D. G., & Dimmick, J. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of diversity. Communication Research, 30(1), 60-79.
  • McGee, R., Vaughan, C. A., & Baker, P. J. (1985). Introductory instruction for a discipline in decline: A crtique and proposals for reorientation. Teaching Sociology, 12-33.
  • Moore, T. (2002). Knowledge and agency: a study of ‘metaphenomenal discourse’in textbooks from three disciplines. English for specific purposes, 21(4), 347-366.
  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook: Sage.
  • Pereyra, D. E. (2008). Sociological textbooks in Argentina and Mexico, 1940—60. Current Sociology, 56(2), 267-287.
  • Perrucci, R. (1980). Sociology and the introductory textbook. The American Sociologist, 39-49.
  • Rule, J. B. (1997). Theory and progress in social science: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schrecker, C. (2008). Textbooks and sociology: A franco—British comparison. Current Sociology, 56(2), 201-219.
  • Schweingruber, D. (2005). Looking for the core in the wrong place. Teaching Sociology, 33(1), 81-89. doi:10.1177/0092055x0503300108
  • Sorokin, P. A. (1929). Some contrasts of contemporary European and American sociology: I. Social Forces, 8(1), 57-62.
  • Spiegel-Rösing, I. (1977). Science studies: Bibliometric and content analysis. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 97-113.
  • Wagenaar, T. C. (2004). Core as science or core as major? Impediments to identifying the core. Teaching Sociology, 32(1), 37-38.
  • Zald, M. N. (1991). Sociology as a discipline: Quasi-science and quasi-humanities. The American Sociologist, 165-187.
There are 31 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Sociology
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Hicabi Kaynak

Tuğça Poyraz Tacoğlu This is me

Publication Date July 3, 2019
Submission Date November 29, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2019 Issue: 59

Cite

APA Kaynak, H., & Poyraz Tacoğlu, T. (2019). The Second Sociology in Turkish Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 Introductory Sociology Textbooks. Journal of Economy Culture and Society(59), 79-98. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2018-0015
AMA Kaynak H, Poyraz Tacoğlu T. The Second Sociology in Turkish Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 Introductory Sociology Textbooks. Journal of Economy Culture and Society. July 2019;(59):79-98. doi:10.26650/JECS2018-0015
Chicago Kaynak, Hicabi, and Tuğça Poyraz Tacoğlu. “The Second Sociology in Turkish Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 Introductory Sociology Textbooks”. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, no. 59 (July 2019): 79-98. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2018-0015.
EndNote Kaynak H, Poyraz Tacoğlu T (July 1, 2019) The Second Sociology in Turkish Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 Introductory Sociology Textbooks. Journal of Economy Culture and Society 59 79–98.
IEEE H. Kaynak and T. Poyraz Tacoğlu, “The Second Sociology in Turkish Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 Introductory Sociology Textbooks”, Journal of Economy Culture and Society, no. 59, pp. 79–98, July 2019, doi: 10.26650/JECS2018-0015.
ISNAD Kaynak, Hicabi - Poyraz Tacoğlu, Tuğça. “The Second Sociology in Turkish Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 Introductory Sociology Textbooks”. Journal of Economy Culture and Society 59 (July 2019), 79-98. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2018-0015.
JAMA Kaynak H, Poyraz Tacoğlu T. The Second Sociology in Turkish Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 Introductory Sociology Textbooks. Journal of Economy Culture and Society. 2019;:79–98.
MLA Kaynak, Hicabi and Tuğça Poyraz Tacoğlu. “The Second Sociology in Turkish Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 Introductory Sociology Textbooks”. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, no. 59, 2019, pp. 79-98, doi:10.26650/JECS2018-0015.
Vancouver Kaynak H, Poyraz Tacoğlu T. The Second Sociology in Turkish Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis of 30 Introductory Sociology Textbooks. Journal of Economy Culture and Society. 2019(59):79-98.