An Anthropomorphistic Approach to Measuring Civil Society Organization's Reputation: A Semantic Network Analysis

Abstract

The aim of the study is to reveal common meaning of reputation and disreputableness for civil society organizations (CSOs) by utilizing anthropomorphism. Accordingly, 212 individuals living in İzmir were asked to personify the CSOs they deemed reputable and disreputable, and provide adjectives that best described CSOs. In this study which was designed as descriptive research, semantic network analysis was employed and reputable and disreputable networks were visualized using a social network analysis software named Pajek. The relational analysis was performed using the measures of m-core, clique, articulation point, in-out degree, in-out closeness and betweenness. The first study to uncover the shared meaning of the CSO 's reputation adopting the anthropomorphism approach reveals both positive and negative personality traits such as being helpful, honest, reliable and self-seeking, trickster, liar, and untrustworthy. The results of the research can contribute to the development of an appropriate measure of CSO 's reputation for Turkish society.

Keywords

• civil society organization's (CSO) reputation,anthropomorphism,reputation measurement,semantic network analysis,social meaning

Sivil Toplum Kuruluşu İtibarının İnsan Biçimcilik Yaklaşımı ile Ölçümü: Bir Anlamsal Ağ Analizi

Abstract

Çalışma, sivil toplum kuruluşları (STK) için itibar ve itibarsızlığın ortak anlamını insanbiçimcilik yaklaşımından yararlanarak belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda İzmir’de yaşayan 212 kişiden itibarlı ve itibarsız olduklarını düşündükleri STK’ları kişileştirerek, onları tanımlayan sıfatlar vermeleri istenmiştir. Betimleyici bir araştırma olarak tasarlanan çalışmada, anlamsal ağ analizinden yararlanılmış, itibarlı ve itibarsız ağlar Pajek isimli bir sosyal ağ analizi yazılımı kullanılarak görselleştirilmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen ilişkisel analizde m-core, klik, eklemlenme noktası, gelen-giden derece, gelen-giden yakınlık ve aradalık merkeziliği ölçüleri kullanılmıştır. ‘Yardımsever’, ‘dürüst’, ‘güvenilir’ gibi olumlu; ‘çıkarcı’, ‘düzenbaz’, ‘güvenilmez’ ve ‘yalancı’ gibi olumsuz kişilik özelliklerinin öne çıktığı bu araştırma, STK’ itibarına dair paylaşılan anlamı insan biçimcilik yaklaşımıyla saptayan ilk çalışmadır. Araştırma sonuçlarının, Türk toplumuna uygun bir STK itibarı ölçümü geliştirilmesine katkı sağlayabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• sivil toplum kuruluşu (STK) itibarı,insan biçimcilik,itibar ölçümü,anlamsal ağ analizi,sosyal anlam

References

1. Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner and a person: three perspectives on the question of brand personality. F. R. Kardes & M. Sujan (Haz.), Advances in consumer research içinde (ss. 391-395). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
2. Aula, P., & Heinonen, J. (2016). The reputable firm: how digitalization of communication is revolutionizing reputation management. Switzerland: Springer.
3. Baygül, Ö. Ş. (2008). Kurumsal itibarın ölçümü: Türkiye’ye yönelik ölçek geliştirme çalışması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
4. Bennett, R. & Gabriel, H. (2000). Charity affiliation as a determinant of product purchase decisions, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9 (4), 255-70.
5. Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (2003). Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable organizations: an empirical study. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 276–289.
6. Bennett, R., & Rentschler, R. (2003). Foreword by the guest editors. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 207-210.
7. Benoit, W. L. (2013). Image repair theory. R. L. Heath (Haz.), Encyclopedia of public relations içinde (ss. 436-439). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
8. Berens, G., & Van Riel, C. B. (2004). Corporate associations in the academic literature: Three main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 161-178.

9. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305-314.
10. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892-895.
11. Bromley, D. B. (2001). Relationships between personal and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 316-334.
12. Brown, W. A. (2015). Strategic management in nonprofit organizations. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
13. Chen, W. (2017). A comparative study of funding shareholder litigation. Shanghai: Springer.
14. Chew, C. (2009). Strategic positioning in voluntary and charitable organizations. New York: Routledge.
15. Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 91-109.
16. Chun, R., & Davies, G. (2006). The influence of corporate character on customers and employees: exploring similarities and differences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 138-146.
17. Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1250-1262.
18. Cornelissen, J. (2014). Corporate communication, a guide to theory and practice. London: Sage.
19. Çabuk, D. (2017). Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren sivil toplum kuruluşlarının itibarını ölçmek. Global Media Journal: Turkish Edition, 8(15), 233-258.
20. Çarkoğlu, A., & Aytaç, S. E. (2016). Türkiye’de bireysel bağışçılık ve hayırseverlik. TÜSEV web sitesinden erişilen adres: http://www.tusev.org.tr/usrfiles/files/turkiyede_bireysel_bagiscilik_ve_hayirseverlik.pdf
21. Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R.V., & Roper, S. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitiveness. London: Routledge.
22. Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V., & Roper, S. (2004). A corporate character scale to assess employee and customer views of organization reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 125-146.
23. De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A. & Batagelj, V. (2011) Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Demir, F. O. (2010). Kurumsal itibar ölçümünde kişiselleştirme metaforu. Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, 9(10), 247-262.
25. Doerfel, M. L., & Barnett, G. A. (1999). A semantic network analysis of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Research, 25(4), 589-603.
26. Durkheim, É. (2005). Suicide: A study in sociology. Erişim adresi: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781134470235 (Orijinal çalışma 1951 yılında yayımlanmıştır).
27. Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370-388.
28. Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 127-139.
29. Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26(2), 143-155.
30. Ergüder, Ü. (2011). Önsöz. A. İçduygu, Z. Meydanoğlu, D. Ş. Sert (Haz.), Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum: Bir Dönüm Noktası CIVICUS Uluslararası Sivil Toplum Endeksi Projesi (STEP) Türkiye Ülke Raporu II içinde (ss. 5-6). İstanbul: TÜSEV Yayınları.
31. Ferreira, M. R., Carvalho, A., & Teixeira, F. (2017). Non-governmental development organizations (NGDO) performance and funds—a case study. Journal of Human Values, 23(3), 178-192.
32. Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The Reputation QuotientSM: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of brand management, 7(4), 241-255.
33. Fouss, F., Saerens, M., Shimbo, M. (2016). Algorithms and models for network data and link analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2014). Corporate communication. V. Bhatia, & S. Bremner (Haz.), The Routledge handbook of language and professional communication içinde (ss. 220-236). Routledge: Abingdon.
35. Gümüş, K. (2004). Yakın tarihimizde STK hareketinin gelişimi ve kamu sivil toplum kuruluşları ilişkisi. Savunuculuk ve Politikaları Etkileme Konferans Yazıları No: 3 içinde (ss. 1-35). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları Eğitim ve Araştırma Birimi.
36. Helm, S. (2005). Designing a formative measure for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(2), 95-109.
37. Helm, S., & Klode, C. (2011). Challenges in measuring corporate reputation. S. Helm, K. Liehr-Gobbers, & C. Storck (Haz.), Reputation management içinde (ss. 99-110). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
38. Hume, D. (1957). The natural history of religion. California: Stanford.
39. İçişleri Bakanlığı Dernekler Dairesi Başkanlığı. (t.y.). Derneklerin Faaliyet Alanlarına Göre Dağılımı. Erişim adresi: https://www.dernekler.gov.tr/tr/AnasayfaLinkler/derneklerin-faaliyet-alanina-gore.aspx
40. Jang, H. Y., & Barnett, G. A. (1994). Cultural differences in organizational communication: A semantic network analysis. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 44, 31-59.
41. Janson, J. (2014). The reputation playbook. Hampshire: Harriman House.
42. Jupp, V. (2006). Sociometry. V. Jupp (Haz.), The Sage dictionary of social research methods içinde (ss. 285-286). London: Sage.
43. Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, S. (2014). Methods of small group research. H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Haz.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology içinde (ss. 188-219). New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Kinzey, R.E. (2013). Promoting nonprofit organizations: a reputation management approach. New York: Routledge.
45. Klebanov, B. B., Kaufer, D., & Franklin, H. E. Y. (2010). A figure in a field: semantic field-based analysis of antithesis. Cognitive Semiotics, 6, 121-153.
46. Kong, E., & Farrell, M. (2010). The role of image and reputation as intangible resources in non-profit organisations: a relationship management perspective. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning içinde (ss. 245-252). Academic Publishing.
47. Kucuk, S. U. (2016). Brand hate: navigating consumer negativity in the digital world. Erişim adresi: http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319415185#.
48. Kwan, V. S. Y., Johnson, K., Neel, B., & Cohen, A. B. (2010). Anthropomorphism. Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology içinde (c. 1–2, ss. 118-119). John Wiley & Sons.
49. Lange, D., Lee, P. M., Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management 37 (1), 153-184.
50. Lee, P. M., Pollock, T. G., & Jin, K. (2011). The contingent value of venture capitalist reputation. Strategic Organization, 9(1), 33-69.
51. Martineau, P. (2002). The personality of the retail store. A. M. Findlay & L. Sparks (Haz.), Retailing: critical concepts içinde (ss. 98-113). London: Routledge.
52. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
53. Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52, 235-247.
54. Olmedo-Cifuentes, I., Martínez-León, I. M., & Davies, G. (2014). Managing internal stakeholders’ views of corporate reputation. Service Business, 8(1), 83-111.
55. Özden, H. Ö. (2004). Türk vakıf kurumunun duygusal ve felsefî temelleri. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(2), 339-349.
56. Padanyi, P., & Gainer, B. (2003). Peer reputation in the nonprofit sector: Its role in nonprofit sector management. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 252-265.
57. Podnar, K., Tuškej, U., & Golob, U. (2012). Mapping semantic meaning of corporate reputation in global economic crisis context: A Slovenian study. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 906-915.
58. Prell, C. (2012). Social network analysis: history, theory and methodology. London: Sage.
59. Puzakova, M., Rocereto, J. F., Kwak, H. (2013). Ads are watching me. International Journal of Advertising, 32:4, 513-538.
60. Rice, R . E ., & Danowski, J . A . (1993). Is it really just a like a fancy answering machine? Comparing semantic networks of different types of voicemail users . Journal of Business Communication, 30 (4), 369-397.
61. Roberts, S., & Rowley, J. (2008). Leadership: the challenge for the information profession. London: Facet Publishing.
62. Sarstedt, M., & Schloderer, M. P. (2010). Developing a measurement approach for reputation of non‐profit organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15, 276-299.
63. Schnegg, M., & Bernard, H. R. (1996). Words as actors: A method for doing semantic network analysis. Field Methods, 8(7), 7-10.
64. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage.
65. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.
66. Smith, R. (2014). Public relations: The basics. Abingdon: Routledge.
67. Sporns, O., Honey, C. J., & Kötte R. (2007). Identification and classification of hubs in brain networks. Plos One 2(10), 1-14.
68. Srivoravilai, N., & Melewar, T. C. (2008). Corporate reputation building: An Asian perspective. T. C. Melewar (Haz.), Facets of corporate identity, communication, and reputation içinde (ss. 211-227). New York: Routledge.
69. Torlak, Ö. & Tiltay, M. A. (2012). Kâr amaçsız örgütlerde kurumsal itibar yönetimi ve ölçümü. 17. Ulusal Pazarlama Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı içinde (ss. 247-260). Elhan Kitap.
70. Tshivase, D., & Kleyn, N. (2016). Stakeholder evaluations of corporate reputation: findings from industrial buyers in the South African steel industry. International Studies of Management & Organization, 46(4), 269-281.
71. Uçar, F., Gülmez, E., Mutlu, Ö., Erbaş, S., & Gez, K. (2015). Kar amacı gütmeyen kurumların kurumsal itibarı: Kızılay örneği. Selçuk İletişim, 8(4), 131-153.
72. Venable, B. T, Rose, G. M., Bush, V.D. & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The role of brand personality in charitable giving: an assessment and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (3), 295-312.
73. Voeth, M., & Herbst, U. (2008). The concept of brand personality as an instrument for advanced non-profit branding–an empirical analysis. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 19(1), 71-97.
74. Yang, J., & Mai, E. (2010). Experiential goods with network externalities effects: An empirical study of online rating system. Journal of Business Research, 63 (9-10), 1050–1057.
75. Yaşama Dair Vakıf (2013). Türkiye’de sivil toplumun gelişimi ve sivil toplum kamu işbirliğinin güçlendirilmesi projesi: sivil toplum kuruluşları için itibar yönetimi. Erişim adresi: http://en.yada.org.tr/pdf/4e0d78a5fa8bc17e5b8801779d4b2e88.pdf
76. Yaşama Dair Vakıf (2014). Sivil toplum kuruluşlarına yönelik algı ve yaklaşımlar. Erişim adresi: http://tr.yada.org.tr/pdf/4537ea420a0c48c9ca6acb81213hdsad2312da.pdf
77. Yaşar, M. R., & Açıkgöz, R. (2011). Yoksullukla mücadelede bütüncül bir politika: insani gelişme ve yardım merkezi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(36), 405-429.
78. Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79. Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232.
80. Wellman, B. (1988). Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance. B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Haz.), Social Structures: A Network Approach içinde (ss. 19–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81. Wen, J., & Song, B. (2017). Corporate ethical branding on Youtube: CSR communication strategies and brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17(1), 28-40.
82. Wetherell, C. (1998). Historical social network analysis. International Review of Social History, 43, 125-144.
83. Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business & Society, 41(4), 393-414.
84. Wilcox, J. B., Howell, R. D., & Breivik, E. (2008). Questions about formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1219-1228.