Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Sosyal Bilimler Alanındaki Akademisyenlerin Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Anlatıları

Year 2017, Volume: 4 Issue: 2 - Digital Narratives, 326 - 351, 15.12.2017

Abstract

“Sosyal Bilimler Alanında Çalışan Akademisyenlerin Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Deneyimleri” (Çetinkaya, 2017) başlıklı tamamlanmış doktora araştırmasının bir parçasını oluşturan bu çalışma, sosyal bilimler alanındaki akademisyenlerin gündelik hayatlarında bilgi iletişim teknolojileri (BİT) ile nasıl ilişkilendiklerine odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmanın temel konusu akademisyenlerin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerini geçmişten günümüze nasıl alımladıklarıdır. Çalışma boyunca BİT’e yönelik anlatılarda, dönüşen akademinin ve akademisyenin izleri sürülmüştür. Bu bağlamda Pierre Bourdieu’nun habitus kavramı, alan çalışmasına eşlik eden temel kavramlardandır. Çalışmada niteliksel odaklı çoklu yöntem ve diyakronik etnografi benimsenmiştir. Alan çalışması yarı yapılandırılmış derinlemesine görüşmeler, uzun dönemli katılımlı gözlemler ve yüz yüze anket görüşmeleriyle oluşturulmuştur. Araştırmanın sonucunda BİT’in çoğu akademisyenin gündelik hayatının merkezine yerleştiği, egemen akademik habitusun en önemli parçalarından biri olduğu görülmüştür. 


References

  • Archer, L. (2008). “Younger academics’ constructions of ‘authenticity’, ‘success’ and ‘professional identity’”. Studies in Higher Education. 33 (4): 385-403.
  • Boratav, K. (2013). Meslek olarak iktisat. Söyleşi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi. Katılım Tarihi: 17 Mayıs 2013.
  • Bourdieu, P. ve Passeron, J.C. (1970/ 2015). Yeniden üretim. Eğitim sistemine ilişkin bir teorinin ilkeleri. (A. Sümer, L. Ünsaldı ve Ö. Akkaya, Çev.). Ankara: Heretik.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1979/ 2015). Ayrım: Beğeni yargısının toplumsal eleştirisi. (D.F. Şannan ve A.G. Berkkurt, Çev.). Ankara: Heretik.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2016). Akademik aklın eleştirisi. Pascalca düşünme çabaları. (P. B. Yalım, Çev.). İstanbul: Metis.
  • Boyd, D. (2012). “Participating in the always-on lifestyle”. The Social Media Reader. (Ed: Michael Mandiberg). New York: New York University. 71 – 76.
  • Brosnan, M. J. (1998). Technophobia: The Psychological Impact of Information Technology. London: Routledge.
  • Castells, M. (2008). Enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür. Ağ toplumunun yükselişi. (E. Kılıç, Çev.). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
  • Çetinkaya, E. (2017). “Sosyal Bilimler Alanında Çalışan Akademisyenlerin Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Deneyimleri”. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
  • Costa, C. (2013). “The habitus of digital scholars”. Research in learning technology. 21. 1-17.
  • Czerniewicz, L. ve Brown, C. (2013). “The habitus of digital “strangers” in higher education” British Journal of Educational Technology. 44 (1). 44–53.
  • David, P., Kim, J.H., Brickman, J.S., Ran, W., Curtis, C.M. (2015). “Mobile phone distraction while studying”. New Media & Society. 17(10):1661–1679.
  • Dewey, J. (1922/ 1983). Human nature and conduct. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Ercan, F. (2011). “Sunuş: Ölçülmeyi kabul etmeyen bilim insanı olmalı!”. Metalaşma ve İktidarın Baskısındaki Üniversite. (Der: Fuat Ercan ve Serap Korkusuz Kurt). İstanbul: Sosyal Araştırmalar Vakfı. 13-20.
  • Ergül, H. (Der.). (2013). Sahanın sesleri: İletişim araştırmalarında etnografik yöntem. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
  • Eshet- Alkalai, Y. (2004). “Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era”. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 13(1). 93-106.
  • Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution. How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. New York: Oxford University.
  • Hargittai, E. (2001). Second-level digital divide: Mapping differences in people's online Skills. https://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0109/0109068.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 22.04.2016.
  • Hassan, R. (2003). The chronoscopic society: Globalization, time and knowledge in the network economy. New York: Peter Lang.
  • Hawk, B. ve Rieder, D. M. (2008). “Introduction: On Small Tech and Complex Ecologies”. Small Tech. The Culture of Digital Tools. (Ed: Byron Hawk, David M. Rieder, Ollie Oviedo). Electronic Mediations. University of Minnesota Press. ix- xxiii.
  • Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. (W. Lovitt, Çev.). NY: Garland.
  • Heidegger, M. (1992). Parmenides. (A. Schuwer ve R. Rojcewicz, Çev.). Indianapolis: Indiana University.
  • Hesse-Biber, S.; Rodriguez, D. ve Frost, N.A. (2015) “A qualitatively driven approach to multimethod and mixed methods research.” The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. (Ed: Sharlene Hesse-Biber ve R. Burke Johnson). New York: Oxford University. 3-20.
  • Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University.
  • Kember, S. ve Zylinska, J. (2012). Life after new media. Mediation as a vital process. Massachusetts: The MIT.
  • Kiomi Mori, C. (2011). “‘Digital inclusion’: Are we all talking about the same thing?”. ICTs and Sustainable Solutions for the Digital Divide: Theory and Perspectives. (Ed: Jacques Steyn ve Graeme Johanson). Hershey: Information Science Reference. 45- 64.
  • Lefebvre, H. (1958/ 2012). Gündelik hayatın eleştirisi I. (I. Ergüden, Çev.). İstanbul: Sel.
  • Lefebvre, H. (1968/ 2007). Modern dünyada gündelik hayat. (Çev: I. Gürbüz, Çev.). İstanbul: Metis.
  • Lefebvre, H. (1981/ 2015). Gündelik hayatın eleştirisi III: Moderniteden modernizme (gündelik hayatın meta-felsefesi). (Çev: I. Ergüden, Çev.). İstanbul: Sel.
  • Line, T; Jain, J. ve Lyons, G. (2011). “The role of ICTs in everyday mobile lives”. Journal of Transport Geography. 19. 1490–1499.
  • Livingstone, S. ve Helsper, E. (2010). “Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy”. New Media & Society.12(2): 309–329.
  • Livingstone, S. (2002) Young people and new media. Childhood and the changing media environment. London: Sage.
  • Mauss, M. (1936/ 2005). Sosyoloji ve antropoloji. (Ö. Doğan, Çev.). Ankara: Doğu Batı.
  • McLuhan, M. (1962/ 2001). Gutenberg galaksisi. Tipografik insanın oluşumu. (G. Çağalı Güven, Çev.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi.
  • McLuhan, M. (1964/ 2003). Understanding media: The extension of man. CA: Gingko.
  • Moores, S. (2000). Media and everyday life in modern society. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
  • Ong, W. J. (1999). Sözlü ve yazılı kültür. Sözün teknolojileşmesi. (S. Postacıoğlu Banon, Çev.). İstanbul: Metis.
  • Oskay, Ü. (1989). “Önsöz”. Marks, Freud ve günlük hayatın eleştirisi. “Sürekli kültür devrimine doğru”. İçinde. Bruce Brown. (Y. Alogan, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Poster, M. (2006). Information please. Culture and politics in the age of digital machines. Duke University.
  • Postill, J. (2012). Media and social changing Since 1979: Towards a diachronic ethnography of media and actual social changes. http://johnpostill.com/papers/ Erişim Tarihi: 09.12.2012.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). “Digital natives, nigital immigrants part 1”. On the Horizon. 9 (5). 1-6.
  • Rainie, L. ve Wellman, B. (2014). Networked. The new social operating system. Cambridge: The MIT.
  • Rasmussen, T. (2014). Personal media and everyday life: A networked lifeworld. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Reading, A. (2011). “Memory and digital media: Six dynamics of the globital memory field”. On Media Memory: Collective Memory in a New Media Age. (Ed: Motti Neiger, Oren Meyers ve Eyal Zandberg). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 241-252.
  • Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart. How to thrive online. Cambridge: The MIT.
  • Shariman, T.P.N.T., Razak, N.A., ve Noor, N.F.M. (2012). “Digital literacy competence for academic needs: An analysis of malaysian students in three universities”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 69: 1489 – 1496.
  • Slaughter, S. ve Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
  • Turkle, S. (1984/ 2005) The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Cambridge: MIT.
  • Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together. Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
  • Van Dijk, Jan A.G.M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. California: Sage.
  • Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2006). The network society. Social Aspects of New Media. London: SAGE Publications.
  • Van Dijk, J.A.G.M ve Van Deursen, A. J.A.M. (2014). Digital skills: Unlocking the information society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Wyatt, S. (2003). “Non-users also matter: The construction of users and non-users of the internet”. How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technologies. (Ed: Nelly Oudshoorn ve Trevor Pinch). Cambridge: The MIT. 67-79.

Narratives on Information and Communication Technologies by Academics in Social Sciences

Year 2017, Volume: 4 Issue: 2 - Digital Narratives, 326 - 351, 15.12.2017

Abstract

This study which constitutes a part of the completed doctoral dissertation titled "Usage Practices of Information and Communication Technologies by Academics of Social Sciences" (Çetinkaya, 2017) focuses on how academics working in the field of social sciences relate to information and communication technologies (ICTs) in their everyday lives. The main concern of the study is how academics’ reception of information and communication technologies (ICTs) transformed from past up to present. Throughout the research, narratives related to ICTs were examined to figure out the transformation of the academy and academics. In this context, Pierre Bourdieu’s habitus is one of the main concepts that accompanies the field study. The research data was obtained through qualitatively driven multimethod approach and diachronic ethnography. Fieldwork was conducted through semi-structured in-depth interviews, long-term participant observations and face-to-face open-ended surveys. As a result of the research, it was revealed that ICTs appear to be in the center of academic everyday life for many academics and are one of the main components of dominant academic habitus.


References

  • Archer, L. (2008). “Younger academics’ constructions of ‘authenticity’, ‘success’ and ‘professional identity’”. Studies in Higher Education. 33 (4): 385-403.
  • Boratav, K. (2013). Meslek olarak iktisat. Söyleşi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi. Katılım Tarihi: 17 Mayıs 2013.
  • Bourdieu, P. ve Passeron, J.C. (1970/ 2015). Yeniden üretim. Eğitim sistemine ilişkin bir teorinin ilkeleri. (A. Sümer, L. Ünsaldı ve Ö. Akkaya, Çev.). Ankara: Heretik.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1979/ 2015). Ayrım: Beğeni yargısının toplumsal eleştirisi. (D.F. Şannan ve A.G. Berkkurt, Çev.). Ankara: Heretik.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2016). Akademik aklın eleştirisi. Pascalca düşünme çabaları. (P. B. Yalım, Çev.). İstanbul: Metis.
  • Boyd, D. (2012). “Participating in the always-on lifestyle”. The Social Media Reader. (Ed: Michael Mandiberg). New York: New York University. 71 – 76.
  • Brosnan, M. J. (1998). Technophobia: The Psychological Impact of Information Technology. London: Routledge.
  • Castells, M. (2008). Enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür. Ağ toplumunun yükselişi. (E. Kılıç, Çev.). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
  • Çetinkaya, E. (2017). “Sosyal Bilimler Alanında Çalışan Akademisyenlerin Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Deneyimleri”. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
  • Costa, C. (2013). “The habitus of digital scholars”. Research in learning technology. 21. 1-17.
  • Czerniewicz, L. ve Brown, C. (2013). “The habitus of digital “strangers” in higher education” British Journal of Educational Technology. 44 (1). 44–53.
  • David, P., Kim, J.H., Brickman, J.S., Ran, W., Curtis, C.M. (2015). “Mobile phone distraction while studying”. New Media & Society. 17(10):1661–1679.
  • Dewey, J. (1922/ 1983). Human nature and conduct. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Ercan, F. (2011). “Sunuş: Ölçülmeyi kabul etmeyen bilim insanı olmalı!”. Metalaşma ve İktidarın Baskısındaki Üniversite. (Der: Fuat Ercan ve Serap Korkusuz Kurt). İstanbul: Sosyal Araştırmalar Vakfı. 13-20.
  • Ergül, H. (Der.). (2013). Sahanın sesleri: İletişim araştırmalarında etnografik yöntem. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
  • Eshet- Alkalai, Y. (2004). “Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era”. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 13(1). 93-106.
  • Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution. How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. New York: Oxford University.
  • Hargittai, E. (2001). Second-level digital divide: Mapping differences in people's online Skills. https://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0109/0109068.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 22.04.2016.
  • Hassan, R. (2003). The chronoscopic society: Globalization, time and knowledge in the network economy. New York: Peter Lang.
  • Hawk, B. ve Rieder, D. M. (2008). “Introduction: On Small Tech and Complex Ecologies”. Small Tech. The Culture of Digital Tools. (Ed: Byron Hawk, David M. Rieder, Ollie Oviedo). Electronic Mediations. University of Minnesota Press. ix- xxiii.
  • Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. (W. Lovitt, Çev.). NY: Garland.
  • Heidegger, M. (1992). Parmenides. (A. Schuwer ve R. Rojcewicz, Çev.). Indianapolis: Indiana University.
  • Hesse-Biber, S.; Rodriguez, D. ve Frost, N.A. (2015) “A qualitatively driven approach to multimethod and mixed methods research.” The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. (Ed: Sharlene Hesse-Biber ve R. Burke Johnson). New York: Oxford University. 3-20.
  • Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University.
  • Kember, S. ve Zylinska, J. (2012). Life after new media. Mediation as a vital process. Massachusetts: The MIT.
  • Kiomi Mori, C. (2011). “‘Digital inclusion’: Are we all talking about the same thing?”. ICTs and Sustainable Solutions for the Digital Divide: Theory and Perspectives. (Ed: Jacques Steyn ve Graeme Johanson). Hershey: Information Science Reference. 45- 64.
  • Lefebvre, H. (1958/ 2012). Gündelik hayatın eleştirisi I. (I. Ergüden, Çev.). İstanbul: Sel.
  • Lefebvre, H. (1968/ 2007). Modern dünyada gündelik hayat. (Çev: I. Gürbüz, Çev.). İstanbul: Metis.
  • Lefebvre, H. (1981/ 2015). Gündelik hayatın eleştirisi III: Moderniteden modernizme (gündelik hayatın meta-felsefesi). (Çev: I. Ergüden, Çev.). İstanbul: Sel.
  • Line, T; Jain, J. ve Lyons, G. (2011). “The role of ICTs in everyday mobile lives”. Journal of Transport Geography. 19. 1490–1499.
  • Livingstone, S. ve Helsper, E. (2010). “Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy”. New Media & Society.12(2): 309–329.
  • Livingstone, S. (2002) Young people and new media. Childhood and the changing media environment. London: Sage.
  • Mauss, M. (1936/ 2005). Sosyoloji ve antropoloji. (Ö. Doğan, Çev.). Ankara: Doğu Batı.
  • McLuhan, M. (1962/ 2001). Gutenberg galaksisi. Tipografik insanın oluşumu. (G. Çağalı Güven, Çev.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi.
  • McLuhan, M. (1964/ 2003). Understanding media: The extension of man. CA: Gingko.
  • Moores, S. (2000). Media and everyday life in modern society. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
  • Ong, W. J. (1999). Sözlü ve yazılı kültür. Sözün teknolojileşmesi. (S. Postacıoğlu Banon, Çev.). İstanbul: Metis.
  • Oskay, Ü. (1989). “Önsöz”. Marks, Freud ve günlük hayatın eleştirisi. “Sürekli kültür devrimine doğru”. İçinde. Bruce Brown. (Y. Alogan, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Poster, M. (2006). Information please. Culture and politics in the age of digital machines. Duke University.
  • Postill, J. (2012). Media and social changing Since 1979: Towards a diachronic ethnography of media and actual social changes. http://johnpostill.com/papers/ Erişim Tarihi: 09.12.2012.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). “Digital natives, nigital immigrants part 1”. On the Horizon. 9 (5). 1-6.
  • Rainie, L. ve Wellman, B. (2014). Networked. The new social operating system. Cambridge: The MIT.
  • Rasmussen, T. (2014). Personal media and everyday life: A networked lifeworld. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Reading, A. (2011). “Memory and digital media: Six dynamics of the globital memory field”. On Media Memory: Collective Memory in a New Media Age. (Ed: Motti Neiger, Oren Meyers ve Eyal Zandberg). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 241-252.
  • Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart. How to thrive online. Cambridge: The MIT.
  • Shariman, T.P.N.T., Razak, N.A., ve Noor, N.F.M. (2012). “Digital literacy competence for academic needs: An analysis of malaysian students in three universities”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 69: 1489 – 1496.
  • Slaughter, S. ve Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
  • Turkle, S. (1984/ 2005) The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Cambridge: MIT.
  • Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together. Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
  • Van Dijk, Jan A.G.M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. California: Sage.
  • Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2006). The network society. Social Aspects of New Media. London: SAGE Publications.
  • Van Dijk, J.A.G.M ve Van Deursen, A. J.A.M. (2014). Digital skills: Unlocking the information society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Wyatt, S. (2003). “Non-users also matter: The construction of users and non-users of the internet”. How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technologies. (Ed: Nelly Oudshoorn ve Trevor Pinch). Cambridge: The MIT. 67-79.
There are 54 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Communication and Media Studies
Journal Section Articles (Thematic)
Authors

Eda Çetinkaya Yarımçam

Publication Date December 15, 2017
Submission Date December 1, 2017
Acceptance Date December 1, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 4 Issue: 2 - Digital Narratives

Cite

APA Çetinkaya Yarımçam, E. (2017). Sosyal Bilimler Alanındaki Akademisyenlerin Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Anlatıları. Moment Dergi, 4(2), 326-351. https://doi.org/10.17572/moment.411844