VERİ TEMELLİ SİYASET VE SİYASAL KATILIM: DİJİTAL KARAR ALMA SÜREÇLERİNE KURAMSAL BİR YAKLAŞIM

Abstract

Dijitalleşmenin hız kazanmasıyla birlikte veri, siyasal karar alma süreçlerinin temel belirleyicilerinden biri hâline gelmiş; kamu yönetimi, siyasal aktörler ve vatandaşlar arasındaki etkileşim veri temelli uygulamalar üzerinden yeniden şekillenmeye başlamıştır. Bu çalışma, veri temelli siyasetin siyasal katılım üzerindeki etkilerini dijital karar alma süreçleri bağlamında kuramsal bir perspektifle incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında veri temelli siyaset, dijital yönetişim, algoritmik karar alma, siyasal katılım ve dijital demokrasi kavramları güncel ulusal ve uluslararası literatür çerçevesinde ele alınmış; bu kavramlar arasındaki ilişkiler disiplinler arası bir yaklaşımla değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemi benimsenmiş olup doküman incelemesi ve literatür taraması tekniklerinden yararlanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, araştırmanın temel temaları doğrultusunda tematik analiz yöntemiyle değerlendirilmiştir. Büyük veri analitiği ve yapay zekâ destekli karar mekanizmalarının siyasal süreçlerde etkinliği artırma, katılım kanallarını çeşitlendirme ve politika üretimini veri odaklı hâle getirme potansiyeline sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Bununla birlikte algoritmik önyargılar, kişisel verilerin korunması, mahremiyet ve dijital eşitsizlik gibi sorunların demokratik yönetişim açısından önemli tartışma alanları oluşturduğu değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışmanın özgün değeri, veri temelli siyaset, dijital karar alma ve siyasal katılım arasındaki ilişkiyi bütüncül bir kuramsal çerçevede ele alarak dijital demokrasinin dönüşümünü güncel literatür ışığında değerlendirmesinden kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu yönüyle çalışma, gelecekte gerçekleştirilecek ampirik araştırmalar için kavramsal bir zemin sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Dijital Yönetişim
• Veri Temelli Siyaset
• Siyasal Katılım
• Veri Temelli Karar Alma
• Dijital Demokrasi

DATA-DRIVEN POLITICS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: A THEORETICAL APPROACH TO DIGITAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

Abstract

With the acceleration of digitalization, data has become one of the key determinants of political decision-making processes, while interactions among public administration, political actors, and citizens have increasingly been reshaped through data-driven practices. This study aims to examine the effects of data-driven politics on political participation from a theoretical perspective within the context of digital decision-making processes. The study examines the concepts of data-driven politics, digital governance, algorithmic decision-making, political participation, and digital democracy within the framework of current national and international literature, and evaluates the relationships among these concepts through an interdisciplinary approach. A qualitative research method was adopted, and document analysis and literature review techniques were employed. The findings were evaluated through thematic analysis in line with the main themes of the study. Big data analytics and artificial intelligence-supported decision-making mechanisms have the potential to increase efficiency in political processes, diversify channels of participation, and make policymaking more data-driven. However, issues such as algorithmic bias, personal data protection, privacy, and digital inequality constitute important areas of debate in terms of democratic governance. The originality of the study lies in examining the relationship among data-driven politics, digital decision-making, and political participation within a holistic theoretical framework and evaluating the transformation of digital democracy in light of current literature. In this respect, the study provides a conceptual foundation for future empirical research.

Keywords

• Data-Driven Politics
• Digital Governance
• Political Participation
• Data-Driven Decision-Making
• Digital Democracy

References

1. Beer, D. (2019). The data gaze: Capitalism, power and perception. SAGE Publications.
2. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
3. Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
4. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society: The ınformation age: Economy, society, and culture (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444319514
5. Coleman, S., Blumler, J. G. (2009). The ınternet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge University Press.
6. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
7. Eryılmaz, B. (2021). Kamu yönetimi: düşünceler, yapılar, fonksiyonlar, politikalar. Umuttepe Yayınları.
8. European Commission. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy artificial ıntelligence. European Commission.

9. Floridi, L., Taddeo, M. (2016). What is data ethics? Philosophical transactions of the royal society A. Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.
10. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S. and Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181
11. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts Press.
12. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y. and Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
13. Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data ınfrastructures and their consequences. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473909472
14. KVKK. (2016). Kanun No: 6698. Resmî gazete (29677, 7 Nisan 2016).
15. Margetts, H. (2017). Political behaviour and the acoustics of social media. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(4). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0086
16. Margetts, H., John, P., Hale, S. and Yasseri, T. (2015). Political turbulence: How social media shape collective action. Princeton University Press.
17. Meijer, A., Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308
18. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: The ınternet, society, and participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7428.001.0001
19. Nutley, S. M., Walter, I. and Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can ınform public services. Policy Press.
20. OECD. (2019). The path to becoming a data-driven public sector. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/059814a7-en
21. OECD. (2020). The OECD digital government policy framework: Six dimensions of a digital government. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f64fed2a-en
22. OECD. (2023). OECD digital government ındex 2023: Results and key findings. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1a89ed5e-en
23. Parlak, B., Sobacı, M. Z. (2012). Ulusal ve küresel perspektifte kamu yönetimi: Teori ve pratik. MKM Yayıncılık.
24. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and ınformation. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674736061
25. Sun, T. Q., Medaglia, R. (2019). Mapping the challenges of artificial intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.008
26. United Nations. (2024). United nations E-government survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development. United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789211067286
27. Valle-Cruz, D., Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazán, R. and Ruvalcaba-Gómez, E. A. (2020). Assessing the public policy-cycle framework in the age of artificial intelligence: From agenda-setting to policy evaluation. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101509
28. Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance and Society, 12(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
29. Wirtz, B. W., Müller, W. M. (2023). Artificial intelligence and public management: Current status and future research directions. International Public Management Journal, 26(5), 739–770.
30. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Public Affairs.