Year 2017, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 1 - 16 2017-04-15

SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ
ACCOUNTABILITY AS A POLITICAL ISSUE IN SOCIAL RESEARCH AND RESEARCH EXPERIENCES

Elif Madakbaş Gülener [1]

9 41

Hesapverebilirlik kavramı daha çok siyaset ve kamu yönetimi tartışmalarında karşımıza çıksa da sadece siyaset ve onla ilişkili olarak yönetimin değil pek çok başka pratiğin meşruiyet kaynaklarından biridir. Bunun ana nedeni ise hesapverebilirliğin “iktidar” ve “güven” ilişkisi temelinde tartışılmasıdır. Söz konusu ilişkilerin gündeme geldiği müzakere ve diyalog temelli konular, sosyal araştırmaların açıklanması noktasında da elverişlidir. Özellikle James Bohman, demokrasi ve sosyal araştırma arasındaki “iktidar” temelli geçişi sağlamada önemli bir isimdir. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada öncelikle kısaca politik bir pratik olarak hesapverebilirlikten bahsedilecek, sonrasında ise James Bohman’ın demokrasi tartışması aracılığıyla bunun sosyal araştırmalar için ne anlama geldiği anlaşılmaya çalışılacaktır. Diyalog ve müzakerenin söz konusu olduğu nitel araştırmalarda -özellikle görüşmeler gibi yüz yüze gerçekleşenlerde- hesapverebilirliğin anlamına değinilerek araştırma deneyimlerinin görüşme temelli nitel araştırmalarda hesap verebilirlik için bir araç olabileceği önerisinde bulunulacaktır.

Despite we come accross “accountability” as a concept in relation to politics

and public administration, accountability is one of the sources of legitimation

not only for political and managerial practices but also for various ones.

Discussion of accountability in terms of “power” and “trust” relations is the

main reason of it. Topics based on deliberation and dialogue regarding these

relations, are also available tools for interpretation of social sciences. James

Bohman, especially, is an eminent one in linking a “power” based forge

between democracy and social research. In this framework, first of all,

accountability is taken into account as a political practice and it is followed by

seeking for comprehensing its meaning in social sciences through Bohman’s

discussion of democracy. Finally it is asserted that research experiences can be

handled as means of accountability by mentioning its meaning in qualitative

researches -interviews as face to face ones, in particular- related to dialogue

and deliberation.

  • Ahmad, Reyaz (2016). “Re-Conceptualization of Accountability: From Government to Governance”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach&Studies, C.3, S.5, ss. 1-11. Auerbach, Carl F. ve Lousie B. Silverstein (2003). Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis, New York University Press, New York ve Londra. Ballinger, Claire (2008). “Accountability”, The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Edt: Lisa M. Given, C:1&2, Sage, Los Angeles ve Londra, pp.3-4. Barbour, Rosaline S. ve John Schostak (2005). “Interviewing and Focus Groups”, Research Methods in the Social Sciences, Edt: Bridget Somekh ve Cathy Lewin, Londra, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks ve New Delhi, ss. 41-48. Behn, Robert D. (2001). Rethinking Democratic Accountability, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Bloor, Michael ve Fiona Wood (2006). Keywords in Qualitative Methods: A Vocabulary of Research Concepts, Sage, Londra ve New Delhi. Bohman, James (2009). “Epistemic Value and Deliberative Democracy”, The Good Society, C.18, S.2, ss. 28-34. Bohman, James (2007a). Democracy Across Borders: From Demos to Demoi, MIT. Bohman, James (2007b). “Political Communication and Epistemic Value of Diversity: Deliberation and Legitimacy in Media Societies”, Communication Theory, S.17, ss. 348-355. Bohman, James (2005). “We, Heirs of Enlightenment: Critical Theory, Democracy and Social Science”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, C.13, S.3, ss. 353-377. Bohman, James (2004). “Realizing Deliberative Democracy as a Mode of Inquiry: Pragmatism, Social Facts, and Normative Theory”, Journal of Speculative Democracy, C.18, S.1, ss. 23-43. Bohman, James (2003). “Critical Theory as Practical Knowledge: Participants, Observers, and Critics”, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Edt: Stephen P. Turner ve Paul A. Roth, Blackwell, ss. 91-109. Bohman, James (2001). “Participants, Observers, and Critics: Practical Knowledge, Social Perspectives, and Critical Pluralism”, Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: The Transformation of Critical Theory (Essays in Honor of Thomas McCarty),Edt: William Rehg ve James Bohman, the MIT Press, Cambridge ve Londra. Bohman, James (2000). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy, MIT. Bohman, James (1999). “Democracy as Inquiry and Inquiry as Democratic: Pragmatism, Social Science, and Cognitive Divison of Labor”, American Journal of Political Science, C.43, N.2, ss. 590-607. Bohman, James (1997a). “The Public Spheres of the World Citizen”, Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, Edt: James Bohman ve Matthias Lutz-Bachman, MIT, ss. 179-200. Bohman, James (1997b). “Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities, Resources, and Opportunities”, Essays on Reason and Politics: Deliberative Democracy, Edt: James Bohman, ve William Rehg, MIT, Cambridge ve Londra. Bohman, James (1995). “Public Reason and Cultural Pluralism: Political Liberalism and the Problem of Moral Conflict”, Political Theory, C.23, S.2, ss. 253-279. Bohman, James (1993). New Philosophy of Social Science: Problems of Indeterminacy, MIT. Bovens, Mark. Thomas Schillemans ve Robert E. Goodin (2014). “Public Accountability”, The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, Edt: Bovens, Mark. Thomas Schillemans ve Robert E. Goodin, Oxford University Press, Oxford, ss. 1-22. Bovens, Mark (2010). “Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism”, West European Politics, C:33, S:5, ss. 946-967. Cheung, Philip (2007). Public Trust in Medical Research?: Ethics, Law and Accountability, Redcliffe Publishing, Oxford ve New York. Coşkun, Emel (2016). “ ‘Bunların Gerçek Olduğuna İnanıyor Musunuz?’: Araştırma Etiğine Dair ‘Yukarıdan’ Notlar”, Etnografik Hikayeler: Türkiye’de Alan Araştırması Deneyimleri, Edt: Rabia Harmanşah ve Z. Nilüfer Nahya, Metis, ss. 103-117. Dowling, Maura (2005). “Reflexivity”, The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Edt: Lisa M. Given, C:1&2, Sage, Los Angeles ve Londra, pp.747-748. Etherington, Kim (2004). Becoming a Reflexive Researcher: Using Ourselves in Research, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Londra ve Philadelphia. Fry, Sara T. (1981). “Accountability in Research: The Relationship of Scientific and HumanisticValues”, Advances in Nursing Science, C:4, S:1, ss. 1-13. Grabolle-Çeliker, Anna (2016). “Gelin, Anne, Yabancı ve Araştırmacı: Türkiye’deki Kürt İşgücü Göçü İncelemesinde Konumsallık”, Etnografik Hikayeler: Türkiye’de Alan Araştırması Deneyimleri, Edt: Rabia Harmanşah ve Z. Nilüfer Nahya, Metis, ss. 137-150. Gür, Faik (2015). “Araştırma Sürecini Açmak: Bir Vaka ve Sosyoloji Araştırması”, folklor/edebiyat, C:21, S:84, ss. 73-81. Frodeman, Robert (2011). “Interdisciplinary Research and Academic Sustainability: Managing Knowledge in an Age of Accountability”, Environmental Conversation, C:38, S:2, ss. 105-112. Haynes, Kathyryn (2012). “Reflexivity in QualitativeResearch”, Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, Sage, Londra ve New Delhi. Iphofen, Ron (2011). Ethical Decision-Making in Social Research: A Practical Guide, Palgrave MacMillan. Martin, Brian (1999). “Suppressing Research Data: Methods, Context, Accountability, and Responses”, Accountability in Research, C:6, S:4, ss. 333-372. McNeill, Patrick ve Steve Chapman (2005). Research Methods, 3. Baskı, Routledge, Londra ve New York. Mulgan, Richard (2003). Holding Power to Account, Palgrave. Nahya, Nilüfer Z. ve Rabia Harmanşah (2016). “Kendini ve Ötekini Yazmak: Alan Araştırması ve Deneyim”, Etnografik Hikayeler: Türkiye’de Alan Araştırması Deneyimleri, Edt: Rabia Harmanşah ve Z. Nilüfer Nahya, Metis, ss. 17-35. Piper, Heather ve Helen Simons (2005). “Ethical Responsibility in Social Research”, Research Methods in the Social Sciences, Edt: Bridget Somekh ve Cathy Lewin, Londra, Thousand Oaks ve Yeni Delhi, Sage Publications, ss. 56-64. Resnik, David B. (2012). “Ethical Virtues in Scientific Research”, Accountability in Research, C:19, S:6, ss. 329-243. Robertson, David (2004). “Accountability”, The Routledge Dictionary of Politics, Üçüncü Baskı,Routledge, Londra ve New York, s. 3. Ruane, Janet M. (2005). Essentials of Research Methods: A Guide to Social Science Research, Blackwell Publishing. Silverman, David ve Amir Marvasti (2008). Doing Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Guide, Sage, Los Angeles ve Londra. Stake, Robert E. (2010). Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work, The Guilford Press, New York ve Londra. Yin, Robert K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, The Guilford Press, New York ve Londra. “Difference Between Research and Inquiry”, MacQuarie University (Sydney/Australia), http://www.mq.edu.au/lih/altc/ug_research/diff_research_inquiry.htm, Erişim Tarihi:19.03.2017. “RCR Framework of Investigation”, Government of Canada, http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policypolitique/ interpretations/inquiry-enquetes/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2017.
Primary Language tr
Subjects Social
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Author: Elif Madakbaş Gülener

Bibtex @research article { icps498398, journal = {Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi}, issn = {}, eissn = {2149-8539}, address = {Politik Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Merkezi}, year = {2017}, volume = {3}, pages = {1 - 16}, doi = {10.25272/j.2149-8539.2017.3.1.01}, title = {SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ}, key = {cite}, author = {Madakbaş Gülener, Elif} }
APA Madakbaş Gülener, E . (2017). SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ. Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3 (1), 1-16. DOI: 10.25272/j.2149-8539.2017.3.1.01
MLA Madakbaş Gülener, E . "SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ". Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi 3 (2017): 1-16 <http://dergipark.org.tr/icps/issue/41258/498398>
Chicago Madakbaş Gülener, E . "SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ". Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi 3 (2017): 1-16
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ AU - Elif Madakbaş Gülener Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - doi: 10.25272/j.2149-8539.2017.3.1.01 DO - 10.25272/j.2149-8539.2017.3.1.01 T2 - Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 1 EP - 16 VL - 3 IS - 1 SN - -2149-8539 M3 - doi: 10.25272/j.2149-8539.2017.3.1.01 UR - https://doi.org/10.25272/j.2149-8539.2017.3.1.01 Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ %A Elif Madakbaş Gülener %T SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ %D 2017 %J Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi %P -2149-8539 %V 3 %N 1 %R doi: 10.25272/j.2149-8539.2017.3.1.01 %U 10.25272/j.2149-8539.2017.3.1.01
ISNAD Madakbaş Gülener, Elif . "SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ". Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi 3 / 1 (April 2017): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.25272/j.2149-8539.2017.3.1.01