Çalışma Hayatındaki Kadın ve Erkeklerin Benlik Tanımlamaları Nasıldır?

Öz

Bu araştırmada çalışma hayatındaki kadın ve erkeklerin kendilerini nasıl tanımladıkları, kendilerine ilişkin algıları ve farkındalıkları karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmıştır. Buradaki anahtar unsur, kültür ve birey arasındaki etkileşimin önemli bir tartışma konusu olan benlik kavramıdır. Bu bağlamda, çalışan kadın ve erkeklerin benlik tanımlamalarının nasıl olduğu ve bu tanımlamaların bağımlı ve bağımsız benlik ekseninde değerlendirilmeleri, araştırmanın ana sorunsalıdır. Sembolik etkileşimci perspektiften hareketle şekillendirilen yirmi ifade testi aracılığıyla toplanan veriler, içerik analizine tabi tutulmuş ve yazındaki “Referans Çerçevesi” temel alınarak incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, kadın ve erkek katılımcıların benlik tanımlamalarının birbirlerine oldukça benzer özellikler gösterdikleri belirlenmiştir. Toplulukçu bir kültürel bağlamdaki her iki grubun da bağımsız benlik tipolojilerine yakın oldukları saptanmıştır. Öte yandan bağımsız benlik kadar güçlü olmasa da bağımlı benlik açısından da her iki grubun da kendilerini işe ilişkin tanımlamalarla ifade ettikleri saptanmıştır. Bağımsızlık yönü karşılıklı bağımlılık yönünden güçlü çıkan hem kadın hem de erkek katılımcıların aidiyet ve uyumlaşma yönlerindense özgür ve ayrık olma yönlerinin daha baskın olduğu ifade edilebilir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Benlik, kültür, cinsiyet, 20 ifade testi

A Study on Urbanization Trends of the Tribe Members settled in the City: Şanlıurfa Case

Öz

In the current research, self-descriptions, self-perceptions and selfawareness of working men and women have been researched in a comparative way. The main point of mentioned investigation is self-concept which is one of the main discussions of interaction between individual and culture. The purpose of the current research is to examine differences between men and women’s self-descriptions and to investigate self-descriptions from the view of independent and dependent self construals. The data collected by utilizing 20 statement test from the view of symbolic internationalist perspective, was analyzed with content analyzing method and categorized with referential frame. According to the results, both male and female participants describe themselves in similar ways. Even participants work and live in a collectivist cultural context but they all have a tendency on describing themselves with independent self-construal. After describing themselves with personal traits, both participant groups describe themselves with work roles, statues and responsibilities. Their tendency on independency is more dominant than committing and adjusting to a social context

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Self-concept, culture, gender, 20 statement test

Kaynakça

1. Acher, John, “Revisiting Class: Lessons from Theorizing Race and Gender in Orga- nizations”. Working Paper, No:5, Boston, MA: Center for Gender in Organizati- ons, Simmons Graduate School of Management, 1999.
2. Brewter Marilynn ve Chen Ya-Ru, “Where are Collectives in Collectivism? To- wards Conceptual Clarification of Individualism and Collectivism”, Pschologi- cal Review, 114, 2007, 131-151.
3. Carpenter Sandra ve Karakitapoğlu Aygün Zahide, “Importance and Descriptive- ness of Self-Aspects: A Cross-Cultural Comparison”. Cross-Cultural Research, Vol 39 No 3, 2005, 293-321.
4. Carpenter Sandra ve Meade-Pruit Maria, “Does The Twenty Statement Test Eli- cit Self-Concept Aspects: That are Most Descriptive?”, World Cultures eJournal, Vol 16 No 1, 2008, art 3.
5. Chen Serena, Bouncher Helen ve Tapias Molly, “The Relational Self Revealed: In- tergrative Conceptualization and Implications for Interpersonal Life”, Psychlo- gical Bulletin, 132, 2006, 151-179.
6. Couch, Carl, “Self-identification and Alienation”, Sociological Quarterly, Vol 7 No 3, 1967, 255-267.
7. Cross Susan, ve Madson Laura, “Models of The Self: Self-Construals and Gen- der.”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol 122 No 1, 1997, 5.
8. Ercan Hülya, “İlişkisel-Bireyci-Toplulukçu Benlik Ölçeği’nin Psikometrik Özellik- leri ve Uyarlama Çalışması”, KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Vol 13 No 21, 2011, 37-45.

9. Ercan Hülya, “Genç Yetişkinlerde Benlik Kurgusu Üzerine Bir Çalışma”, Zeitsc- hrift für die Welt der Türken, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2013.
10. Erez Miriam, ve Earley Christopher, Culture, Self-identity, and Work. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
11. Gabriel Shira ve Gardner Wendi, “Are There “His” and “Hers” Types of Inter- dependence? The Implications of Gender Differences in Collective Versus Relational Interdependence for Affect, Behavior, and Cognition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 77 No 3, 1999, 642-55.
12. Gerrig Richard ve Zimbardo Philip, Psikoloji ve Yaşam, Çev. Gamze Sart, Nobel Yayıncılık, 2012.
13. Green Eva ve Paez Dario, “Variation of Individualism and Collectivism within and between 20 Countries”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psycholohgy, Vol 36 No 3, 2005, 321-339.
14. Hofstede Geerth, Culture Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage Publications, London, 1980.
15. Hofstede Geerth, Cultures and Organisations, McGraw-Hill, London, 1991.
16. Holsti Ole, Content Analysis for The Social Sciences and Humanities, Menlo Park, Addison-Wesley, CA, 1969.
17. Hornby Pat ve Symon Gillian, “Tracer Studies”, in Cassell, C., Symon, G. (Eds),Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage,
18. Kabasakal Hayat ve Bodur Muzaffer, Leadership, Values and Institutions: The Case of Turkey, Working Paper, GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Beha- vior Effectiveness) Project, Wharton Business School, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
19. Kağıtçıbaşı, Çiğdem (1996), Özerk ve İlişkisel Benlik: Yeni Bir Sentez, Türk Psikolo- ji Dergisi, 11, 1996, 36-44.
20. Kağıtçıbaşı, Çiğdem (2000), Kültürel Psikoloji: Kültür Bağlamında İnsan ve Aile, İstanbul, Evrim Yayınevi, 2000.
21. Kagitcibasi Cigdem, “Autonomy and Relatedness in Cultural Context: Implica- tions for Self and Family”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol 36 No 4, 2005, 403-422.
22. Kağıtçıbaşı, Çiğdem (2012), Benlik, Aile ve İnsan Gelişimi, Koç Üniversitesi Yayın- ları.
23. Kalat, James, Introduction to Pscyhology, Wadsworth Publishing, 8th Edition, 2008.
24. Karakitapoğlu-Aygün Zahide, “Self, Identity, Emotional Well-Being Among Turkish University Students”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol 138 No 5, 2004, 457-478.
25. Kihlstrom John, ve Cantor Nancy, “Mental Representation of the Self”. In L. Ber- kowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 17, pp 48). New York: Academic Press, 1984.
26. Kuhn Manford ve McPartland Thomas, “An Empirical Investigation of Self- Attitudes”, American Sociological Review, Vol 19 No 1, 1954, 68-76.
27. Luborsky Mark, Qualitative Research in Ageing Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
28. Ma Vaunne ve Schoeneman Thomas, “Individualism versus Collectivism: A Comparison of Kenyan and American Self-concepts”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol 19, 1997, 261-273.
29. Madson Laura ve Trafimow David, “Gender Comparison in the Private, Collecti- ve and Allocentric Selves”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 141 No 4, 2001, 551-559
30. Markus Hazel ve Kitayama Shinobu, “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cog- nition, Emotion and Motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol 98 No 2, 1991, 224- 253.
31. Matsumoto David, “Culture and Self: An Emprical Assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s Theory of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals”, Asi- an Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 2, 1999, 298-310.
32. Matsumoto David, “Individual and Cultural Differences in Status Differentiation: The Status Differentiation Scale”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol 38, 2007, 413-431.
33. Oyserman Daphna, Coon Heather ve Kemmelmier Markus, “Rethinking Indivi- dualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta- Analyses”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol 128 No 1, 2002, 3-72.
34. Özdemir, Yalçın, “Ergenlik Döneminde Benlik Kurgusu Gelişiminin Anababanın Çocuk Yetiştirme Stilleri Açısından İncelenmesi”, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi,
35. Rattan Sukhjeet “Self, Culture and Anxious Experience”, J Adult Dev, Vol 18, 2011, 28-36.
36. Rees Anne ve Nicholson Nigel, “The Twenty Statement Test”. In C. Cassell and G. Symon (Eds.), Organizational Research Methods: A Practical Guide. 1994, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
37. Sargut Selami, Kültürlerarası Farklılaşma ve Yönetim, İmge Kitapevi, Ankara, 2001.
38. Schwartz Shalom, “Universals in The Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries”, in M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 25, pp.1–65, New York: Academic Press, 1992.
39. Sherman Steve, Judd Charles ve Bernadette Park, “Social Cognition”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol 40, 1989, 281-326.
40. Sparrow Paul ve Wu Pei-Chuan, “Does National Culture Really Matter?”, Emplo- yee Relations: The International Journal, Vol 20 No 1, 1998, 25–56.
41. Somech Anit, “The Independent and the Interdependent Selves: Different Mea- ning in Different Cultures”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol 24, 2000, 161-172.
42. Takan Yohtaro ve Osaka Eiko, “An Unsupported Common View: Comparing Japan and the U. S. on Individualism Collectivism”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 2, 1999, 311.
43. Thomas David, Au Kevin, ve Ravlin Elizabeth, “Cultural Variation and The Psycho- logical Contract”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol 24, 2003, 451-471.
44. Triandis Harry, Bontempo Robert, Villareal Marcelo, Asai Masaaki ve Lucca Nydia, “Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Self- ingroup Relationships”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 54, 1988, 323–338.
45. Triandis Harry, “The Self and Social Behaviour in Differing Cultural Contexts”, Psychological Review, 1989, 506–520.
46. Triandis Harry, “Cross-cultural Studies of İndividualism and Collectivism. In J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989 (pp. 41 - 133 ). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990.
47. Uskul Ayse, Hynie Michaela ve Lalonde Richard, “Interdependence as a Mediator Between Culture and Interpersonal Closeness for Euro-Canadians and Turks”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol 35 No 2, 2004, 174-191.
48. Wasti Arzu ve Erdil Selin, “Bireycilik ve Toplulukçuluk Değerlerinin Ölçülmesi: Benlik Kurgusu ve Indcol Ölçeklerinin Türkçe Geçerlemesi”, Yönetim Araştır- maları Dergisi, Vol 7 No 1-2, 2007, 39-66.
49. Yamagishi Toshio, Hashimoto Hirofumi ve Schug Joanna, “Preferences Versus Strategies as Explanations for Culture-Specific”, Behavior, Psychological Science, Vol 16 No 6, 2008, 579-584.
50. Yıldırım Engin, “Örgüt Kültürü ile İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi Arasındaki İlişki Üzerine Kısa Bir Not”, Çalışma Yaşamında Dönüşümler-Örgütsel Bakış edit. Aşkın Keser, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara, 2005.