Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Görünür Olma Arzusu mu Mahremiyet Kaygısı mı? Gençlerde Dijital Mahremiyet Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

Year 2025, Issue: 53, 277 - 300, 20.06.2025
https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.1541000

Abstract

Araştırma, lise öğrencilerinin dijital mahremiyet konusundaki farkındalık ve kaygılarını öğrencilerin kendi bakış açısı ve deneyimlerini merkeze alarak incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nitel yöntem ve fenomenolojik desen benimsenerek gerçekleştirilen bu araştırmanın verileri, 2021- 2022 yılları arasında Eskişehir’de 3 farklı okul türünden toplam 42 öğrenciyle yapılan görüşmeler aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler içerik analizi yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, lise öğrencilerinin dijital mahremiyet konusunda çoğunlukla bilinçli olduklarını ve çevrimiçi platformlarda gizliliklerini korumak adına çeşitli taktik ve stratejiler kullandıklarını ortaya koymaktadır. Öğrencilerin sosyal medya kullanımları ve buradaki davranış biçimleri, büyük ölçüde mahremiyet ihlali endişeleri tarafından belirlenmektedir. Mahremiyet konusunda kaygılarını dile getiren öğrencilerin yanı sıra, çevrimiçi ortamlarda yeterince dikkatli davrandıkları inancıyla bu tür kaygıları olmadığını belirten öğrenciler de mevcuttur. Araştırma, gençlerin mahremiyetlerine kayıtsız kalmadığını, görünür olma isteği ile mahremiyet kaygıları arasında bir denge kurduklarını ortaya koymaktadır. Öğrenciler, paylaşımlarını herkese açık şekilde değil, genellikle arkadaş çevreleriyle sınırlandırarak veya belirli kişilere özel olarak yapmaktadır. Araştırma, gençlerin mahremiyet konusunda kayıtsız olmadığını, aksine dijital kimliklerini inşa ederken görünürlük ve gizlilik arasında bir uzlaşma arayışı içinde olduklarını göstermesi bakımından önemlidir.

Ethical Statement

“17.09.2020” tarihli ve “88074293–605.01-E.12930413” sayılı araştırma iznini vermiştir.

Supporting Institution

Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri (BAP) kapsamında desteklenmiştir.

Project Number

1909E169

References

  • Acquisti, A., Gritzalis, S., Lambrinoudakis, C. & di Vimercati, S. (2007). Digital privacy: Theory, technologies, and practices. New York: Auerbach Publicaions.
  • Akça, G. & Başer, D. (2013). Karanlığın yok oluşu. Gelişen teknolojinin gizlilik ve mahremiyet üzerindeki etkileri. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (26), 19- 42. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/musbed/issue/23549/250903.
  • Allen, A. L. (1988). Uneasy access: Privacy for women in a free society. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Andrejevic, M. (2007). Surveillance in the digital enclosure. The Communication Review 10(4), 295-317. doi: 10.1080/10714420701715365.
  • Aydın, B. (2022). Sanal mahremiyet algısının çöküşü: Tiktok uygulaması örneğinde bir inceleme. Uluslararası Sosyal Medya ve İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, (2), 71-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/smacjournal.50062.
  • Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday 11(9), 1-12. doi: 10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394.
  • Bauman, Z. & Lyon, D. (2013). Akışkan gözetim. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and method. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Can, İ. & Ulutaş, E. (2021). Teşhir toplumu: Bir duyu sosyolojisi denemesi. İstanbul: Ketebe Yayınları.
  • Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Dolgun, U. (2004). Gözetim toplumunun yükselişi: Enformasyon toplumundan gözetim toplumuna. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi 2(1), 55- 74. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/46430.
  • Dolgun, U. (2005). Enformasyon toplumundan gözetim toplumuna: 21. yüzyılda gözetim, toplumsal denetim ve iktidar ilişkileri. Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi.
  • Dolgun, U. (2008). Şeffaf hapishane yahut gözetim toplumu. Bursa: Ötüken Neşriyat.
  • Fischer-Hübner, S. (2001). IT-security and privacy: Design and use of privacy-enhancing security mechanisms. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Foucault, M. (2000). Büyük kapatılma. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books.
  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: The Overlook Press.
  • Gogus, A., & Saygın, Y. (2019). Privacy perception and information technology utilization of high school students. Heliyon, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01614.
  • Göregenli, M. (2015). Çevre psikolojisi: İnsan- mekân ilişkileri. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Guest, G., Bunce, A. & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59- 82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903.
  • Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
  • Hennik, M. & Kaiser, B. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523.
  • Hoofnagle, C., King, J., Li, S. & Turow, J. (2010). How different are young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies? Berkeley, CA: University of California.
  • Jarvis, J. (2011). Public parts: How sharing in the digital age ımproves the way we work and live. New York, NY: Simon& Schuster.
  • Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Ed.), Doing qualitative research içinde (s. 31–44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Lapenta, G. H., & Jørgensen, R. F. (2015). Youth, privacy and online media: Framing the right to privacy in public policy-making. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i3.5568.
  • Lewis, K., Kaufman, J. & Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 14(1), 79-100. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01432.x.
  • Lyon, D. (1994). The electronic eye: The rise of surveillance society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge.
  • Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith A. & Beaton, M. (2013). Teens, social media, and privacy. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
  • Magolis, D. & Briggs, A. (2016). A phenomenological investigation of social networking site privacy awareness through a media literacy lens. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 8(2), 22-34. doi: 10.23860/jmle-8-2-1.
  • Margulis, S. T. (1977). Conceptions of privacy: Current status and next steps. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 5-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01879.x.
  • Margulis, S. T. (2011). Three theories of privacy: An overview. S. Trepte & L. Reinecke (Ed.), Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web içinde (s. 9- 17). London: Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Marwick, A. E. & Boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New media & society, 16(7), 1051-1067. doi: 10.1177/1461444814543995.
  • Okmeydan, S. B. (2017). Postmodern kültürde gözetim toplumunun dönüşümü:‘Panoptikon’dan ‘sinoptikon’ve ‘omniptikon’a. AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 8(30), 45-69. doi: 10.5824/1309-1581.2017.5.003.x.
  • Öztürk, R. (2018). Görenin üstünlüğünden gören-görünen işbirliğine: Gözetlenen toplumda gönüllü gözetim. Yeni Medya, (4), 17-28. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1177465.
  • Papacharissi, Z. & P. L. Gibson. (2011). Fifteen Minutes of Privacy: Privacy, Sociality, and Publicity on Social Network Sites. S. Trepte & L. Reinecke (Ed.), Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web içinde (s. 75-89). London: Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. New York: Suny Press.
  • Quinn, K. & Epstein, D. (2018). # MyPrivacy: How users think about social media privacy. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on social media and society içinde (ss. 360-364). https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3217804.3217945
  • Rosen, J. (2005). The naked crowd: Reclaiming security and freedom in an anxious age. Random House Trade Paperbacks. http://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/rosen_2004.pdf.
  • Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2014). Privacy perception of adolescents in a digital world. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 34(5-6), 145-158.
  • Solove, D. J. (2002). Conceptualizing privacy. California Law Review, 90, 1087-1155. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications.
  • Strauß, S. & Nentwich, M. (2013). Social network sites, privacy and the blurring boundary between public and private spaces. Science and Public Policy, 40(6), 724-732. doi: 10.1093/scipol/sct072.
  • Stuart, A., Bandara, A. K. & Levine, M. (2019). The psychology of privacy in the digital age. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(11), 1- 14. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12507.
  • Sungur, M. & Aydın, D. (2021). Konya konutlarında (1920-1980) mekânsal mahremiyetin sosyal paradigmalar bağlamında incelenmesi. Türk İslâm Medeniyeti Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16(32), 387-414. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6527706.
  • Sütlüoğlu, T. (2015). Sosyal paylaşım ağlarında gençlerin sosyalleşme ve kimlik inşası süreçleri: Facebook örneği. Folklor/Edebiyat, 21(83), 125-147. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/255547.
  • Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), 20-36. doi: 10.1177/0270467607311484.
  • Utz, S. & Krämer, N. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited: The role of individual characteristics and group norms. Cyberpsychology: Journal of psychosocial research on cyberspace, 3(2), 2. http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009111001&article=2.
  • Van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
  • Vassilaki, P. & Ekim, E. (2015). Levels of privacy on the borders of public, semi public, private residential life (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Chalmers Unıversıty, İsveç.
  • Venkatesh, A. (2016). Social media, digital self, and privacy: A socio-analytical perspective of the consumer as the digital avatar. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(3), 378-391. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/686914.
  • Weber, R. H. (2015). The digital future–a challenge for privacy? Computer Law & Security Review, 31(2), 234- 242. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2015.01.003.
  • Webster, F. (2014). Theories of the information society. London: Routledge.
  • Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York, NY: Ig Publishing.
  • Yaman, D. & Kaya, S. (2018). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin sosyal medyada mahremiyet algılarının incelenmesi. Conference: International Symposium on Communication in the Digital Age, Mersin. 115-124.

The Desire For Visibility or Privacy Concern? An Assessment of Youth's Digital Privacy

Year 2025, Issue: 53, 277 - 300, 20.06.2025
https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.1541000

Abstract

The research examines high school students' awareness and concerns about digital privacy by focusing on students' perspectives and experiences. This research, employing a qualitative method and phenomenological design, collected data through interviews with 42 students from three different school types in Eskişehir between 2021 and 2022. The obtained data were then analyzed using the content analysis method. The research findings reveal that high school students are mostly conscious of digital privacy and use various tactics and strategies to protect their privacy on online platforms. Students' social media use and behaviors are largely determined by concerns about privacy violations. In addition to students who express privacy concerns, some students state that they do not have such concerns, believing that they are being careful enough in online environments. The research reveals that young people are not indifferent to their privacy and that they establish a balance between their desire to be visible and their privacy concerns. Students do not share their posts publicly but generally limit them to their circle of friends or privately to certain people. The research is important in that it shows that young people are not indifferent to privacy but, on the contrary, seek a compromise between visibility and privacy while constructing their digital identities.

Project Number

1909E169

References

  • Acquisti, A., Gritzalis, S., Lambrinoudakis, C. & di Vimercati, S. (2007). Digital privacy: Theory, technologies, and practices. New York: Auerbach Publicaions.
  • Akça, G. & Başer, D. (2013). Karanlığın yok oluşu. Gelişen teknolojinin gizlilik ve mahremiyet üzerindeki etkileri. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (26), 19- 42. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/musbed/issue/23549/250903.
  • Allen, A. L. (1988). Uneasy access: Privacy for women in a free society. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Andrejevic, M. (2007). Surveillance in the digital enclosure. The Communication Review 10(4), 295-317. doi: 10.1080/10714420701715365.
  • Aydın, B. (2022). Sanal mahremiyet algısının çöküşü: Tiktok uygulaması örneğinde bir inceleme. Uluslararası Sosyal Medya ve İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, (2), 71-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/smacjournal.50062.
  • Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday 11(9), 1-12. doi: 10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394.
  • Bauman, Z. & Lyon, D. (2013). Akışkan gözetim. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and method. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Can, İ. & Ulutaş, E. (2021). Teşhir toplumu: Bir duyu sosyolojisi denemesi. İstanbul: Ketebe Yayınları.
  • Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Dolgun, U. (2004). Gözetim toplumunun yükselişi: Enformasyon toplumundan gözetim toplumuna. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi 2(1), 55- 74. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/46430.
  • Dolgun, U. (2005). Enformasyon toplumundan gözetim toplumuna: 21. yüzyılda gözetim, toplumsal denetim ve iktidar ilişkileri. Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi.
  • Dolgun, U. (2008). Şeffaf hapishane yahut gözetim toplumu. Bursa: Ötüken Neşriyat.
  • Fischer-Hübner, S. (2001). IT-security and privacy: Design and use of privacy-enhancing security mechanisms. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Foucault, M. (2000). Büyük kapatılma. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books.
  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: The Overlook Press.
  • Gogus, A., & Saygın, Y. (2019). Privacy perception and information technology utilization of high school students. Heliyon, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01614.
  • Göregenli, M. (2015). Çevre psikolojisi: İnsan- mekân ilişkileri. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Guest, G., Bunce, A. & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59- 82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903.
  • Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
  • Hennik, M. & Kaiser, B. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523.
  • Hoofnagle, C., King, J., Li, S. & Turow, J. (2010). How different are young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies? Berkeley, CA: University of California.
  • Jarvis, J. (2011). Public parts: How sharing in the digital age ımproves the way we work and live. New York, NY: Simon& Schuster.
  • Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Ed.), Doing qualitative research içinde (s. 31–44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Lapenta, G. H., & Jørgensen, R. F. (2015). Youth, privacy and online media: Framing the right to privacy in public policy-making. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i3.5568.
  • Lewis, K., Kaufman, J. & Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 14(1), 79-100. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01432.x.
  • Lyon, D. (1994). The electronic eye: The rise of surveillance society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge.
  • Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith A. & Beaton, M. (2013). Teens, social media, and privacy. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
  • Magolis, D. & Briggs, A. (2016). A phenomenological investigation of social networking site privacy awareness through a media literacy lens. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 8(2), 22-34. doi: 10.23860/jmle-8-2-1.
  • Margulis, S. T. (1977). Conceptions of privacy: Current status and next steps. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 5-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01879.x.
  • Margulis, S. T. (2011). Three theories of privacy: An overview. S. Trepte & L. Reinecke (Ed.), Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web içinde (s. 9- 17). London: Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Marwick, A. E. & Boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New media & society, 16(7), 1051-1067. doi: 10.1177/1461444814543995.
  • Okmeydan, S. B. (2017). Postmodern kültürde gözetim toplumunun dönüşümü:‘Panoptikon’dan ‘sinoptikon’ve ‘omniptikon’a. AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 8(30), 45-69. doi: 10.5824/1309-1581.2017.5.003.x.
  • Öztürk, R. (2018). Görenin üstünlüğünden gören-görünen işbirliğine: Gözetlenen toplumda gönüllü gözetim. Yeni Medya, (4), 17-28. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1177465.
  • Papacharissi, Z. & P. L. Gibson. (2011). Fifteen Minutes of Privacy: Privacy, Sociality, and Publicity on Social Network Sites. S. Trepte & L. Reinecke (Ed.), Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web içinde (s. 75-89). London: Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. New York: Suny Press.
  • Quinn, K. & Epstein, D. (2018). # MyPrivacy: How users think about social media privacy. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on social media and society içinde (ss. 360-364). https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3217804.3217945
  • Rosen, J. (2005). The naked crowd: Reclaiming security and freedom in an anxious age. Random House Trade Paperbacks. http://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/rosen_2004.pdf.
  • Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2014). Privacy perception of adolescents in a digital world. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 34(5-6), 145-158.
  • Solove, D. J. (2002). Conceptualizing privacy. California Law Review, 90, 1087-1155. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications.
  • Strauß, S. & Nentwich, M. (2013). Social network sites, privacy and the blurring boundary between public and private spaces. Science and Public Policy, 40(6), 724-732. doi: 10.1093/scipol/sct072.
  • Stuart, A., Bandara, A. K. & Levine, M. (2019). The psychology of privacy in the digital age. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(11), 1- 14. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12507.
  • Sungur, M. & Aydın, D. (2021). Konya konutlarında (1920-1980) mekânsal mahremiyetin sosyal paradigmalar bağlamında incelenmesi. Türk İslâm Medeniyeti Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16(32), 387-414. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6527706.
  • Sütlüoğlu, T. (2015). Sosyal paylaşım ağlarında gençlerin sosyalleşme ve kimlik inşası süreçleri: Facebook örneği. Folklor/Edebiyat, 21(83), 125-147. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/255547.
  • Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), 20-36. doi: 10.1177/0270467607311484.
  • Utz, S. & Krämer, N. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited: The role of individual characteristics and group norms. Cyberpsychology: Journal of psychosocial research on cyberspace, 3(2), 2. http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009111001&article=2.
  • Van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
  • Vassilaki, P. & Ekim, E. (2015). Levels of privacy on the borders of public, semi public, private residential life (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Chalmers Unıversıty, İsveç.
  • Venkatesh, A. (2016). Social media, digital self, and privacy: A socio-analytical perspective of the consumer as the digital avatar. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(3), 378-391. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/686914.
  • Weber, R. H. (2015). The digital future–a challenge for privacy? Computer Law & Security Review, 31(2), 234- 242. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2015.01.003.
  • Webster, F. (2014). Theories of the information society. London: Routledge.
  • Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York, NY: Ig Publishing.
  • Yaman, D. & Kaya, S. (2018). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin sosyal medyada mahremiyet algılarının incelenmesi. Conference: International Symposium on Communication in the Digital Age, Mersin. 115-124.
There are 55 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Sociology (Other)
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Tuba Gün Çıngı 0000-0001-8412-7364

Fuat Güllüpınar 0000-0003-3661-7232

Project Number 1909E169
Early Pub Date June 14, 2025
Publication Date June 20, 2025
Submission Date September 16, 2024
Acceptance Date January 3, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Issue: 53

Cite

APA Gün Çıngı, T., & Güllüpınar, F. (2025). Görünür Olma Arzusu mu Mahremiyet Kaygısı mı? Gençlerde Dijital Mahremiyet Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi(53), 277-300. https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.1541000

Selcuk University Journal of Faculty of Letters will start accepting articles for 2025 issues on Dergipark as of September 15, 2024.