AN EXPLORATORY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FOR DETERMINING SPIRITUAL VALUES: EXAMPLE OF SECURITY SECTOR

Yıl 2011, Sayı: 6, 123 - 156, 01.06.2011

İbrahim Sani Mert Ceyhun Uludağ

https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.106

Öz

Possibly no branch of social sciences has the lack of more information than the field spiritual assessment. Spirituality is being with the ‘self’ (spirit) inside the person, and mostly even the person himself can not clarify that ‘spirit’s status, needs and desires. This research has taken a spiritual journey with the members of securit sector in order to discover the spiritual values they had and how they integrate these values with their institution. Using the interpretative phenomenology and conversing with the participants within the spiritual assessment approach that Hodge (2001a) exposed, the research has reached the consequence that the securit sector’s fundementals of spirituality has been gained by the members in their early family era, and the further spiritual values to be set over these fundementals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Spirit, spirituality, spiritual values, spiritual ecogram, security sector

TİNSEL DEĞERLERİN BELİRLENMESİNE YÖNELİK KEŞFEDİCİ NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA: GÜVENLİK HİZMETİ ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Sosyal Bilimlerin belki de hiçbir alanında tinsel değerlendirmede olduğu kadar bilgi açığı görülmemektedir. Tinsellik, kişinin içindeki ‘öz’ (tin) ile var olmaktadır ve çoğu zaman bu ‘tin’in durumunu, ihtiyaç ve isteklerini kişi kendisine dahi açıklayamamaktadır. Bu araştırma, güvenlik sektöründe çalışanlarının tinsel değerlerini ve bu değerleri kurumları ile nasıl bütünleştirdiklerini keşfetmek amacıyla, çalışanlarla tinsel bir seyahate çıkmaktadır. Araştırma, yorumlayıcı fenomenolojiyi kullanarak ve Hodge (2001a)’nin belirlediği tinsel değerlendirme yaklaşımı çerçevesinde katılımcılarla sohbetler yaparak, güvenlik hizmetindeki tinsellik temelinin, çalışanların erken aile döneminde edindikleri değerlerle atıldığı ve daha sonra edinilecek değerlerin bu temel üzerine kurulduğu sonucuna ulaşmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tin, tinsellik, tinsel değerler, tinsel ekogram, güvenlik sektörü

Kaynakça

• Alford, H. J. ve Naughton, M. (2001). Managing as if Faith Mattered:Christian Social Principles in the Modern Organization. Notre Dame Ind.: University of Notre Dame Pres.
• Anderson, H. ve Goolishan, H. (1999). “The Client as Expert:A not Knowing Approach to Therapy.” Therapy as Social Construction.(Der.) S. McNamee ve K. Gordon, London: Sage Publications. 25-39.
• Baş, T., Akturan, U., Ataçkarapınar, M., Atak, İ., Bağcı, F. Çamır, M., Dinçer, D., Domaç, B., Esen, A., Güler, A., Hatemoğlu, G., Mizan E., Özmaldar B., Semiz, Y., Tosun, F., Tahminciler, E., Uludağ, C., Usta, Y., Uyar, E. Ö., Ünverdi K. B. ve Yıldız, D. (2008). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri:NVivo 7.0 ile Nitel Veri Analizi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
• Bullis, R. K. (1996). Spirituality in Social Work Practice. North American Association of Christians in Social Work. Botsford: Taylor & Francis.
• Case, R. C. ve Sherr, M. E. (2005). Exploring How Social Work Administrators Integrate Spirituality in The Workplace. North American Association of Christians in Social Work. (Erişim Tarihi 10 Temmuz 2010) (http://www.nacsw.org/ChamiecCaseSherrSpiritualityinWorkplace.pdf).
• Clarke, I. (2001). “Psychosis and Spirituality:Finding a Language.” Clinical Psychology Forum, 149: 19-22.
• Conger, J. A., (1994). Spirit at Work: Discovering the Spiritualty in Leadership. 1.Bası. Jossey-Bas. Pres: San Francisco.
• Doğan, B. (2007). Örgüt Kültürü. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
• Fuller, R. (2001). Spiritual But not Religious. New York: Oxford University Pres.
• Gibbons, P. (2000). Spirituality at Work: Definitions, Measures, Assumptions, and, Validity Claims. Work And Spirit:A Reader of New Spiritual Paradigms for Organizations. (Der.) Biberman J. ve Whitty M. Tonawanda: University of Toronto Pres.
• Hegel, G. W. H. (1995). Tarihte Akıl, (Çev. Önay SÖZER). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yay.
• Hodge, D. R. (2000). “Spiritual Ecomaps:A New Diagrammatic Tool for Assessing Marital and Family Spirituality.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26: 229-240.
• Hodge, D. R. (2001a). “Spiritual Assessment: A Rewiew of Major Qualitative Methods and a New Framework for Spirituality.” Social Work, 46(3): 203-214.
• Hodge, D. R. (2001b). “Spiritual Genograms: A Generational Approach to Assessing Spirituality.” Families in Society, 82: 35-48.
• Hodge, D. R. (2005a). “Spiritual Ecograms: A New Assessment Instrument for Identifying Clients’ Spiritual Strenghts in Space and Across Time.” Families in Society, 86: 287-296.
• Hodge, D. R. (2005b). “Spiritual Lifemaps: A Client-Centered Pictorial Instrument for Spiritual Assessment, Planning and Intervention.” Social Work, 50: 77-87.
• Howard, C. N., McMinn, R. M., Bissell, D. L., Faries, R. S. ve VanMeter, B. J. (2000). “Spiritual Directors and Clinical Psychologists:A Comparison of Mental Health and Spiritual Values.” Journal of Psychology and Theology, 28(4): 308-320.
• Krill, D. F. (1990). Practice Wisdom. Sage Human Service Guides. Vol.62. London: Sage Publications.
• Mayers, C., Leavey, G., Vallianatou, C. ve Baker, C. (2007). “How Clients with Reliious or Spiritual Beliefs Experience Psychological Help-Seeking and Theraphy:A Qualitative Study.” Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 14: 317-327.
• Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. J. ve Ferguson, J. (2003). “Workplace Spirituality and Employee Work Attitudes:An Exploratory Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(4): 426-447.
• Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure In Fives:Designing Effective Organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Mitchell, S. (1988). Tao Te Ching-A New English Version. London: Harper and Row.
• Nee, W. (1968). “Divorce and Women’s Spirituality.” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 22(3/4): 179-188.
• Özdemir, A.A., Özkalp, E. ve Sungur, Z. (2008). Çalışma Yaşamında Tinsel Değerler. 16. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiler Kitabı. Antalya. 151-157.
• Piedmont, R. L. (1999). “Does Spirituality Represent the Sixth Factor of Personality? Spiritual Transcendence and the Five-Factor Model.” Journal of Personality, 67(6): 985-1013.
• Rey, L. D. (1997). “Religion as Invisible Culture: Knowing about and Knowing with.” Journal of Family Social Work, 2(2): 159-177.
• Stewart, C. ve Koeske, F. G. (2006). “A Preliminary Construct Validation of the Multidimensional Measurement of Religious/Spirituality Instrument:A Study of Southern USA Samples.” The International Journal fort he Psychology of Religion, 16(4): 181-196.
• Schwartz, S.H. (1999). “A Theory of Values and Dom Implications for Work.” Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1): 23-47.
• Twigg, N. W. ve Parayitam, S. (2006). “Spirit at Work:Spiritual Typologies as Theory Builders.” Journal of Organisational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 10(2): 117-133.
• Wax, S. (2005). Spirituality at Work. Goodwork Project Report Series No.41 Harvard University.
• Wig, N. N. (1999). “Mental Health and Spiritual Values: A View from East.” International Review of Pyschiatry, 11: 92-96.
• Wyld, D. C., Cappel, S. D. ve Hallock, D. E. (1992). “What Moves the Invisible Hand:The Unaddressed Linkages Between the Psychological Study of Religion and Managerial Behaviour.” Management Research News, 15(3): 1-8.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.