HALKBİLİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA DİSİPLİNLERARASILIK: “NEDEN”, “NE ZAMAN”, “NEREDE” VE “NASIL”?

Year 2019, Volume: 12 Issue: 28, 925 - 944, 20.12.2019

Ahmet Keskin

https://doi.org/10.12981/mahder.630893

Cited By: 5

Abstract

Günümüzde müstakil bir disipliner yetkinliğe
ulaşmış bulunan halkbiliminin -zaman zaman ve yanlış bir şekilde- çeşitli
disiplinlere bağımlı ya da onların bir alt çalışma alanı imiş gibi
değerlendirilebildiği görülmektedir. Bunda, halkbiliminin inceleme alanına
giren konuları derlemek, incelemek ve çözümlemek için kullanabileceği kendine
özgü kuram ve yöntemleri oluşturmakta diğer disiplinlere görece hayli geç
kalmasının da etkisi büyük olmalıdır. Bu algının oluşmasında yine,
halkbiliminin inceleme alanına giren konuların uzun yıllar boyunca, farklı
disiplinlerde uzmanlaşmış araştırmacılar tarafından çalışılması da etkili
olmuştur.  Bireyin ve toplumun kültürel üretim ve tüketim biçimlerini
çeşitli yönleriyle ve kendine özgü yöntemlerle inceleyen halkbiliminin, insan
ve toplum bilimlerinin diğer disiplinleri ile yakından ilişkili olduğu
tartışmadan uzak bir konudur. Hatta halkbilimini, inceleme alanına giren
konuların incelenip çözümlenmesi süreçlerinde disiplinlerarası
etkileşimlere en açık disiplinlerden biri olarak tanımlamak yanlış
olmayacaktır.  Dolayısıyla da müstakil
bir disiplin olarak kendi kuramsal zeminini günden güne güçlendirerek konu
kadrolarını genişleten halkbilimi ile diğer insan ve toplum bilimleri ile
sosyal bilimler disiplinleri arasındaki ilişki ve etkileşimlerin kuramsal bir
çerçevede tartışılması artık bir gereklilikten çok zorunluluk halini almıştır.
Bu dikkatten hareketle çalışmada, halkbilimini disiplinlerarası kılan temel
nitelikler ile halkbilimi çalışmalarında disiplinlerarası yaklaşımlardan nasıl
yararlanılabileceği gibi konular üzerinde durulmuştur. Çalışmada ayrıca,
halkbiliminin müstakil bir disiplin olarak diğer kültür bilimi disiplinlerine
nasıl katkı sağlayabileceği de tartışılmıştır. Böylece, kültür bilimleri
alanında disiplinlerarasılık konusu, halkbilimi çalışmaları örnekleminde
çeşitli yönleriyle değerlendirilmiştir.

Keywords

kuram ve yöntem, Halkbilimi, disiplinlerarasılık, nedensellik

INTERDISCIPLINARYISM IN FOLKLORE STUDIES: WHY, WHEN, WHERE AND HOW?

Abstract

There is
little doubt that folklore, which has generally attained a sense of
self-disciplinary competence, can actually be regarded as being dependent on
various disciplines or as a sub-branch of other fields of study. There within
this, the fact that folklore has emerged relatively late in comparison to other
disciplines therefore has a considerable impact upon how it forms its own
unique theories and methods in which it uses compile, examine, and analyze
topics that fall within its broad umbrella. This perception has also been
influenced by the fact that the subjects within the field of folklore have long
been studied by researchers specializing in other disciplines.  Folklore examines the cultural production and
absorption of both individuals and societies alike from various angles using
its own unique methodology, and yet is closely related to other disciplines
that fall under the humanities and social sciences. In fact, it would not be
wrong to define folklore as being one of the most open to interdisciplinary
exchange when it comes to analyzing the array of topics that it deals
with.  In turn, as an independent
discipline, it has become a necessity to discuss the relationship and
interaction between folklore and other humanities/social sciences disciplines,
which not only strengthen it theoretical base but also continuously feeds and
therefore widens the range of subjects that it looks at. In accordance with
this notion, the article therefore focuses on the basic characteristics that
render folklore as being interdisciplinary branch of study, as well as looks
how interdisciplinary approaches are used in folkloric studies. Moreover, it
also attempts to discuss how folklore as an independent discipline can
contribute to other cultural disciplines. Thus, the issue of
interdisciplinaryism within the context of cultural sciences was analyzed using
examples collected from folklore studies as a point of reference.

Keywords

Folklore, interdisciplinaryism, theory and method, causality

References

• Abrahams, Roger D. (2005). Everyday Life: A Poetics of Vernacular Practices. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Alvargonzález, David (2011). “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, and The Sciences.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25 (4): 387-403.Austin, Timothy R. ve diğerleri (1996). “Defining Interdisciplinarity.” Modern Language Association of America, 111 (2): 271-282.Bauman, Richard (1996). “Folklore as Transdisciplinary Dialogue.” Journal of Folklore Research, 33 (1): 15-20.Ben-Amos, Dan (1972). “Toward a Definition of Folklore in Context.” A. Paredes ve R. Bauman (eds.). Toward New Perspectives in Folklore içinde. Austin: The University of Texas Press, ss. 3-15.Ben-Amos, Dan- Goldstein, Kenneth S. (1975). “Introduction.” D. B.-Amos- K. S. Goldstein (eds.). Folklore. Performance and Communication. The Hague-Paris: Mouton, ss. 1-7.Ben-Amos, D. (1976). “Analytical Categories and Ethnic Genres.” D. B.-Amos (ed.). Folklore Genres. Austin-London: University of Texas Press, ss. 215-242.Ben-Amos, Dan (1998). “The Name is the Thing.” The Journal of American Folklore, 111 (441): 257-280.Brenneis, Donald L. (1993). “Some Contributions of Folklore to Social Theory: Aesthetics and Politics in a Translocal World.” Western Folklore, 52 (2/3/4) (Theorizing folklore: Toward new perspectives on the politics of culture): 291-302.Çobanoğlu, Özkul (2000). “Bilim Felsefesi Bağlamında Halkbilimi ve Halkbilimsel Bilginin Teleolojik Serüveni.” Folklor/Edebiyat, 24 (4): 27-42.Darbellay, Frédéric ve diğerleri (2017). “Introduction: Thinking Creativity, Design and Interdisciplinarity in a Changing World.” F. Darbellay, vd. (eds.) Creativity in the Twenty First Century. Singapore: Springer, ss. xi-xxii.Darbellay, Frédéric (2015). “Rethinking Inter- and Transdisciplinarity: Undisciplined Knowledge and the Emergence of a New Thought Style.” Futures, 65: 163–174Graff, Harvey J. (2016). “The “Problem” of Interdisciplinarity in Theory, Practice, and History.” Social Science History, 40 (4): 775-803.Grahame, F. Thompson (2016). “Interdisciplinary Complexities.” Journal of Cultural Economy, 9 (3): 322-329.Gulbenkian Komisyonu (2016). Sosyal Bilimleri Açın. Sosyal Bilimlerin Yeniden Yapılanması Üzerine Rapor. (Çev.: Şirin Tekeli). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları (11. Baskı).Henkes, Barbara.-Johnson, Richard (2002). “Silences Across Disciplines: Folklore Studies, Cultural Studies, and History.” Journal of Folklore Research, 39 (2/3): 125-146.Honko, Lauri (1989). “Folkloristic Theories of Genre.” Anna-Leena Siikala (ed.), Studies in Oral Narrative. Special Issue of Studia Fennica, 33: 13-28. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Hrisztova-Gotthardt, Hrisztalina ve Varga, M. Aleksa (2015, eds). Introduction to Paremiology. A Comprehensive Guide to Proverb Studies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Hübenthal, Ursula (1994). “Interdisciplinary Thought.” Issues in Integrative Studies, 12: 55-75.Hymes, Dell (1972). “The Contribution of Folklore to Sociolinguistic Research.” A. Paredes-R. Bauman (eds.). Toward New Perspectives in Folklore. Austin: The University of Texas Press, ss. 42-50.Jacobs, Jerry A.-Frickel, Scott (2009). “Interdisciplinarity: a Critical Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology, 35: 43–65.Kaučič, Marjetka G. (2015). “Zoofolkloristics: First Insights Towards the New Discipline.” Narodna Umjetnost, 52 (1): 7-30.Klein, J. Thompson-Newell, William H. (1998). “Advancing Interdisciplinary Studies.” W.H. Newell, (ed.), Interdisciplinarity: Essays From the Literature. New York: College Board, ss. 3-22.Klein, J. Thompson (1990). Interdisciplinarity. History, Theory, & Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Klein, J. Thompson (1996). Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia.Klein, J. Thompson (2000). “A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science.” Weingart, P.- Stehr, N. (eds.) Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, ss. 25-41.Klein, J. Thompson (2001). “Interdisciplinarity and the Prospect of Complexity: The Tests of Theory.” Issues in Integrative Studies, 19: 43-57.Klein, J. Thompson (2004). “Interdisciplinarity and Complexity: An Evolving Relationship.” Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 6 (1/2): 2–10. Klein, J. Thompson (2010). “A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity.” R. Frodeman, vd. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, ss. 15-30.Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara (1983). “The Future of Folklore Studies in America: The Urban Frontier.” Folklore Forum, 16: 175-234Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara (1995). “The Aesthetics of Everyday Life.” Suzi Gablik (ed.) Conversations Before the End of Time. New York: Thames and Hudson, ss. 410-433Lam, Jacqueline C. K. ve diğerleri (2014). “Interdisciplinarity in Sustainability Studies: A Review.” Sustainable Development, 22 (3): 158–176.Mechling, Jay (1991). “Homo Narrans Across the Disciplines.” Western Folklore, 50 (1): 41-51.Medne, Kristīne-Muravska, Tatjana (2011). “Interdisciplinarity: Dilemmas Within the Theory, Methodology and Practise.” Muravska, T.-Ozoliņa, Ž. (eds.). Interdisciplinarity in Social Sciences. Riga: University of Latvia Press, ss. 66-86.Mieder, Wolfgang (2004). Proverbs: A Handbook. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.Mieder, Wolfgang (2006). “The Proof of the Proverb is in the Probing: Alan Dundes as Pioneering Paremiologist.” Western Folklore, 65 (3): 217-262.Mieder, Wolfgang (2008). Proverbs Speak Louder Than Words. Folk Wisdom in Art, Culture, Folklore, History, Literature, and Mass Media. New York: Peter Lang.Mieder, Wolfgang (2015, ed). Wise Words: Essays on the Proverb. New York: Routledge.Mieder, Wolfgang (2018). “The Humanistic Value of Proverbs in Sociopolitical Discourse.” Humanities (The Challenge of Folklore to the Humanities Special Issue), 7 (1), 28.National Academy of Science (2004). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington: National Academy Press.Newell, William H. (2001). “A theory of Interdisciplinary Studies.” Issues in Integrative Studies, 19/1: 1-25.Newell, William H. (2006). “Complexity and Interdisciplinarity. Knowledge Management, Organizational Intelligence and Learning, and Complexity.” Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. EOLSS Publishers,.Newell, William H. (2011). “The Road from Interdisciplinary Studies to Complexity.” World Futures, 67 (4): 330-342.Newell, William H. (2013). “The State of the Field: Interdisciplinary Theory.” Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 31: 22-43.Nicolescu, Basarab (1997). “The Transdisciplinary Evolution of Learning.” Proceedings of the International Congress on What University for Tomorrow? Towards a Transdisciplinary Evolution of the University, Locarno, 1-11. http://www.learndev.org/dl/nicolescu_f.pdf adresinden 3 Eylül 2019 tarihinde alınmıştır.Niles, John D. (1999). Homo Narrans: The Poetics and Anthropology of Oral Literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Nissani, Moti (1995). “Fruits, Salads, and Smoothies: A Working Definition of Interdisciplinarity.” Journal of Educational Thought, 29: 121–28.Norrick, Neal R. (1985). How proverbs mean. Semantic studies in English proverbs. Amsterdam: Mouton.Repko, Allen F.-Szostak, Rick (2017). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. Los Angeles: Sage.Schmidt, Jan C. (2008). Towards a Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity. An attempt to Provide a Classification and Clarification. Poiesis Prax, 5: 53–69.Stephenson, Janet ve diğerleri (2010). “The Practice of Interdisciplinarity.” The International Journal of Interdısciplinary Social Sciences, 5 (7): 271-282.Stock, Paul-Burton, Rob J. F. (2011). “Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-Trans-disciplinary) Sustainability Research.” Sustainability, 3: 1090-1113.Szostak, Rick (2002). “How to do Interdisciplinarity: Integrating the Sebate.” Issues in Integrative Studies, 20: 103-122.Szostak, Rick (2016). “Interdisciplinary Best Practices for Adapted Physical Activity.” QUEST, 68 (1): 69–90.Telban, Monika K. (2018). “The Donkey in the Narrative Culture and Changing Sociohistorical Epistemology.” Studia Mythologica Slavica, 21: 237-252.Van den Besselaar, Peter-Heimeriks, Gaston (2001). Disciplinary, Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, Concepts and Indicators. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics. Davis, M.-Wilson, C. S. (eds.). Vol. 2, ss. 705-716. The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.Zeitlin, Steven J. (2000). “I’m a Folklorist and You’re Not: Expansive versus Delimited Strategies in the Practice of Folklore.” The Journal of American Folklore, 113 (447): 3-19.