Dijital Bilginin Epistemolojisi: Hesaplamalı Sosyal Bilimlerin Bilgi Üretimi Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, dijitalleşmeyle birlikte dönüşen bilgi üretim süreçlerini, hesaplamalı sosyal bilimlerin (HSB) ortaya koyduğu yeni epistemolojik yaklaşımlar bağlamında ele almaktadır. HSB, büyük veri setlerini işleyebilen yöntem ve algoritmalar aracılığıyla toplumsal olguların niceliksel ölçümüne imkân verirken, bilgi üretimini veri merkezli ve hesaplamalı bir düzleme taşımaktadır. Bu dönüşüm süreci, epistemolojik sınırlılıklar, normatif belirsizlikler, etik açmazlar ve metodolojik indirgemecilik gibi sorunları da beraberinde getirmektedir. Nitekim çalışma, hesaplamalı yöntemlerin sağladığı olanaklara da değinmekle birlikte, HSB’nin alternatif epistemolojisine eleştirel bir yerden de bakmaktadır. Hesaplamalı yöntemlerin sunduğu fırsatları yalnızca teknik avantajlar olarak değil, aynı zamanda sosyal bilimlerde alternatif bilgi rejimlerinin kurulması açısından da değerlendirmektedir. HSB’nin sunduğu dönüşüm, sosyal bilimlerdeki bilgi-iktidar ilişkilerini, politik konumlanışları, etik tartışmaları ve yöntemsel bulanıklıkları yeniden düşünmeyi gerekli kılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital bilgi
• epistemoloji
• hesaplamalı sosyal bilimler

The Epistemology of Digital Knowledge: The Impact of Computational Social Sciences on Knowledge Production

Öz

This study examines the transformation of knowledge production processes in the context of digitalization, focusing on the new epistemological approaches introduced by computational social sciences (CSS). This shift marks the rise of new knowledge forms based on correlations, patterns, and predictions—departing from traditional positivist epistemology. However, this process also brings epistemological limitations, normative ambiguities, ethical dilemmas, and methodological reductionism. While addressing the potentials offered by computational methods, the study also adopts a critical stance toward CSS’s alternative epistemology. It considers the opportunities of computational approaches not merely as technical advantages, but as pathways for constructing alternative knowledge regimes within the social sciences. The transformation driven by CSS necessitates a reconsideration of knowledge-power relations, political orientations, ethical debates, and methodological ambiguities in contemporary social research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital knowledge
• epistemology
• computational social sciences

Kaynakça

1. Abdelrahman, M., & Wang, Q. (2020). A review of deep learning approaches for automatic classroom engagement recognition. Computers & Education, 147.
2. Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired Magazine, 16(7), 16–07.
3. Ashley, K. D. (2017). Artificial intelligence and legal analytics. Cambridge University Press.
4. Avnoon, N., Kotliar, D. M., & Rivnai-Bahir, S. (2024). Contextualizing the ethics of algorithms: A socio-professional approach. New Media & Society, 26(10), 5962–5982.
5. Beer, D. (2019). The data gaze: Capitalism, power and perception. SAGE Publications Ltd.
6. Bergman, M. M., & Jean, N. (2021). Big data and the illusion of choice. Social Science Computer Review, 39(5), 866–880. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320936336
7. Blevins, C., & Mullen, L. (2015). Jane, John... Leslie? A historical method for algorithmic gender prediction. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 9(3). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/3/000223/000223.html
8. Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(Suppl. 3), 7280–7287. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.082080899

9. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821
10. Bowker, G. C., & Gitelman, L. (Eds.). (2013). “Raw data” is an oxymoron. MIT Press.
11. boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.
12. Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
13. Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford University Press.
14. Cantekin, C. (2024). Değişken şartlar altında atıksu arıtımında karbon ve besi maddesi gideriminin makine öğrenmesi yöntemleri ile modellenmesi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Maltepe Üniversitesi, Türkiye.
15. Coleman, J. S. (1965). The use of electronic computers in the study of social organisation. European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 6(1), 89–107.
16. Conte, R., & Paolucci, M. (2014). On agent-based modeling and computational social science. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 668.
17. Darian, S., Chauhan, A., Marton, R., Ruppert, J., Anderson, K., Clune, R., ... & Voida, A. (2023). Enacting data feminism in advocacy data work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 1–28.
18. Domingos, P. (2012). A few useful things to know about machine learning. Communications of the ACM, 55(10), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1145/2347736.2347755
19. Durán, J. M., & Formanek, N. (2018). Grounds for trust: Essential epistemic opacity and computational reliabilism. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 645–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9481-6
20. Elragal, A., & Klischewski, R. (2017). Theory-driven or process-driven prediction? Epistemological challenges of big data analytics. Journal of Big Data, 4, 1–20.
21. Epstein, J. M. (1999). Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity, 4(5), 41–60.
22. Eşidir, K. A. (2025). Makine öğrenimi modelleri ile yetişkin eğitimi analizi: Modellerin karşılaştırmalı performansı. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(2), 946–964.
23. Floridi, L. (2021). The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual design. Oxford University Press.
24. Füller, H. (2018). The politics of datafication: Algorithmic surveillance and the public sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 40(5), 745–758.
25. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press.
26. Gray, J., & Witt, A. (2021). A feminist data ethics of care for machine learning: The what, why, who and how. First Monday, 26(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i6.11071
27. Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2021). Machine learning for social science: An agnostic approach. Annual Review of Political Science, 24, 395–419.
28. Grondin, D., & Hogue, S. (2024). Person of interest as media technology of surveillance: A cautionary tale for the future of the national security state with diegetic big data surveillance, algorithmic security, and artificial intelligence. Television & New Media, 25(4), 334–351.
29. Grondin, D., & Hogue, S. (2024). Person of interest as media technology of surveillance: A cautionary tale for the future of the national security state with diegetic big data surveillance, algorithmic security, and artificial intelligence. Television & New Media, 25(4), 334-351.
30. Guetzkow, H. (1959). A use of simulation in the study of inter‐nation relations. Behavioral Science, 4(3), 183–191. Guggenheim, L., Jang, S. M., Bae, S. Y., & Neuman, W. R. (2015). The dynamics of issue frame competition in traditional and social media. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 207–224.
31. Guggenheim, L., Jang, S. M., Bae, S. Y., & Neuman, W. R. (2015). The dynamics of issue frame competition in traditional and social media. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 207-224.
32. Hagenaars, J. A., & McCutcheon, A. L. (Eds.). (2002). Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge University Press. Hannák, A., Wagner, C., Garcia, D., Mislove, A., Strohmaier, M., & Wilson, C. (2013). Bias in online freelance marketplaces: Evidence from TaskRabbit and Fiverr. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 527–538). ACM.
33. Hansen, J. T. (2004). Thoughts on knowing: Epistemic implications of counseling practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(2), 131–138.
34. Holme, P., & Liljeros, F. (2015). Mechanistic models in computational social science. Frontiers in Physics, 3, 78.
35. Humphreys, L. (2009). Mobile social networks and social practice: A case study of Dodgeball. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 341–360.
36. Inkster, B., Sarda, S., & Subramanian, V. (2018). An empirical study on the use of AI in mental health. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(9), 755.
37. Işıklı, Ş. (2014). Büyük veri, epistemoloji ve etik tartışmalar. AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 5(17), 89–122.
38. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı. (2024). Afet Koordinasyon Merkezi Rehberlik Kılavuzu. https://www.akillisehirler.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/fizibilite-rapor/2-Afet%20Koordinasyon%20Merkezi.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 29.05.2025
39. Ji, H. (2023). Robustness analysis on stock market prediction method. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 21, 791–801. https://doi.org/10.54097/hbem.v21i.14763
40. Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245), 255–260.
41. Kächele, M., et al. (2017). Multimodal emotion recognition in depression. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing.
42. Katz, D. M., Bommarito, M. J., & Blackman, J. (2017). A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court. PLOS ONE, 12(4), e0174698.
43. Keat, R., & Urry, J. (1994). Bilim olarak sosyal teori (N. Çelebi, Trans.). İmge Yayınevi.
44. Kiessling, B., Retsinas, G., & Christodoulakis, D. (2019). Applying deep learning to historical document layout analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computational History (pp. 1–6). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3351100
45. Kiessling, B., Retsinas, G., & Christodoulakis, D. (2019). Applying deep learning to historical document layout analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computational History (pp. 1–6). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3351100
46. Kitchin, R. (2014). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 2053951714528481. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481
47. Kniveton, D., Smith, C., & Wood, S. (2011). Agent-based model simulations of future changes in migration flows for Burkina Faso. Global Environmental Change, 21(S1), S34–S40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.006
48. Kollanyi, B., Howard, P. N., & Woolley, S. C. (2016, October). Bots and automation over Twitter during the second U.S. Presidential Debate. COMPROP Data Memo 2016.2/19 October 2016. http://politicalbots.org/?p=711
49. Koskinen, I. (2024). We have no satisfactory social epistemology of AI-based science. Social Epistemology, 38(4), 458–475.
50. Kuş, E. (2007). Sosyal bilim metodolojisinde paradigma dönüşümü ve psikolojide nitel araştırma. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 10(20), 19–41.
51. Lake, B. M., Lawrence, N. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2018). The emergence of organizing structure in conceptual representation. Cognitive Science, 42(Suppl. 3), 809–832.
52. Lazer, D. M., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Contractor, N., ... & Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507), 1060–1062.
53. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444.
54. Lee, C., Coe, C. L., & Ryff, C. D. (2017). Social disadvantage, severe child abuse, and biological profiles in adulthood. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 58(3), 371–386.
55. Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Computer codes and mobile bodies. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination (pp. 13–30). Routledge.
56. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith, A., & Beaton, M. (2013). Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center.
57. Mahdavinejad, M. S., Rezvan, M., Barekatain, M., Adibi, P., Barnaghi, P., & Sheth, A. P. (2018). Machine learning for Internet of Things data analysis: A survey. Digital Communications and Networks, 4(3), 161–175.
58. Markham, A. N. (2013). Undermining ‘data’: A critical examination of a core term in scientific inquiry. First Monday, 18(10). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i10.4868
59. Maruyama, M. (2021). Data-driven governance: Algorithmic decision-making and its implications. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101568.
60. Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine learning. McGraw-Hill.
61. Pasquinelli, M. (2017). Three thousand years of algorithmic rituals: The emergence of AI from the computation of space. e-flux, (82).
62. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
63. Mullainathan, S., & Spiess, J. (2017). Machine learning: An applied econometric approach.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 87–106.
64. Packer, J. (2013). Epistemology not ideology or why we need new Germans. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 10(2–3), 295–300.
65. Pan, X., Han, C. S., Dauber, K., & Law, K. H. (2007). A multi-agent based framework for the simulation of human and social behaviors during emergency evacuations. AI & Society, 22(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0126-1
66. Park, Y. S., Konge, L., & Artino Jr, A. R. (2020). The positivism paradigm of research. Academic Medicine, 95(5), 690–694. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
67. Picho, K., Maggio, L. A., & Artino, A. R. (2016). Science: the slow march of accumulating evidence. Perspectives on Medical Education, 5, 350–353.
68. Piech, C., Bassen, J., Huang, J., Ganguli, S., Sahami, M., Guibas, L. J., & Sohl-Dickstein, J. (2015). Deep knowledge tracing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 28, 505–513. https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2015/file/bac9162b47c56fc8a4d2a519803d51b3-Paper.pdf
69. Piña-García, C. A., Siqueiros-García, J. M., Robles-Belmont, E., Carreón, G., Gershenson, C., & López, J. A. D. (2018). From neuroscience to computer science: A topical approach on Twitter. Journal of Computational Social Science, 1, 187–208.
70. Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126.
71. Radicioni, T., Squartini, T., Pavan, E., & Saracco, F. (2021). Networked partisanship and framing: A socio-semantic network analysis of the Italian debate on migration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.04653. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.04653
72. Rahmani, A. M., Azhir, E., Ali, S., Mohammadi, M., Ahmed, O. H., Ghafour, M. Y., ... & Hosseinzadeh, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence approaches and mechanisms for big data analytics: A systematic study. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, e488.
73. Ranganathan, A., & Benson, A. (2020). A numbers game: Quantification of work, auto-gamification, and worker productivity. American Sociological Review, 85(4), 573–609.
74. Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation. Réseaux, 177(1), 163–196.
75. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
76. Schiller, S., Goul, M., Iyer, L., Sharda, R., Schrader, D., & Asamoah, D. (2015). Build your dream (not just big) analytics program. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 811–826.
77. Schmidhuber, J. (2015). Deep learning in neural networks. Neural Networks, 61, 85–117.
78. Schwartz, R., Dodge, J., Smith, N. A., & Etzioni, O. (2020). Green AI. Communications of the ACM, 63(12), 54–63.
79. Seaver, N. (2018). What should an anthropology of algorithms do? Cultural Anthropology, 33(3), 375–385.
80. Shah, D. V., Cappella, J. N., & Neuman, W. R. (2015). Big data, digital media, and computational social science: Possibilities and perils. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 6–13.
81. Shu, X. (2020). Knowledge discovery in the social sciences: A data mining approach. University of California Press.
82. Shu, X., & Ye, Y. (2023). Knowledge discovery: Methods from data mining and machine learning. Social Science Research, 110, 102817.
83. Smith, M. A., Rainie, L., Shneiderman, B., & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter topic networks: From polarized crowds to community clusters. Pew Research Center.
84. Somers, M. J. (2025). When epistemologies collide: Data science epistemology and organizational theory and research. Organizational Psychology Review, 20413866241308999.
85. Surden, H. (2014). Machine learning and law. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 87–115.
86. Şallı, Ş., & Kurnaz, Z. (2023). Sosyal bilimlerde paradigma değişimleri ve bilişimsel/hesaplamalı sosyal bilimler yöntemleri. Journal of Business and Communication Studies, 2(2[1]), 97–125.
87. Tufekci, Z. (2014). Big questions for social media big data: Representativeness, validity and other methodological pitfalls. In ICWSM '14: Proceedings of the 8th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
88. Tutar, H., & Ayaz, E. (2024). Hesaplamalı sosyal bilimlerden ne anlamalıyız? Bir literatür incelemesi. Kronotop İletişim Dergisi, 1(2), 190–209.
89. van der Aalst, W. M., Bichler, M., & Heinzl, A. (2017). Responsible data science. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59, 311–313.
90. Winsberg, E. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. University of Chicago Press.
91. Wu, Y. (2023). Job embeddedness review: Presentation, measurement and development. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences, 47(1), 169–174.
92. Zeng, J., & Glaister, K. W. (2018). Value creation from big data: Looking inside the black box. Strategic Organization, 16(2), 105–140.
93. Zhu, X., Sawhney, R., & Upreti, G. (2016). Determinants of employee voluntary turnover and forecasting in departments: A case study. Studies in Engineering and Technology, 3(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.11114/set.v3i1.1635
94. Ziems, C., Held, W., Shaikh, O., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., & Yang, D. (2023). Can large language models transform computational social science? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03514.
95. Zook, M., Barocas, S., boyd, d., Crawford, K., Keller, E., Gangadharan, S. P., ... & Pasquale, F. (2017). Ten simple rules for responsible big data research. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(3), e1005399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005399
96. Zou, J., & Schiebinger, L. (2018). AI can be sexist and racist—It's time to make it fair. Nature, 559(7714), 324–326. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05707-8
97. Żukiewicz, P., Zieliński, M., & Domagała, K. (2018). Social network analysis as a research method in political science: An attempt to use it in coalition research. Przegląd Politologiczny(3), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.14746/pp.2018.23.3.5