PUBLIC POLICIES FROM POLITICAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE: EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS

Öz

Due to various political, social, and environmental parameters, public policy making and administration is getting more complex. Therefore, various theoretical approaches and methodologies are generated to understand and explain the political issues. Resembling to lenses, epistemology and ontology help the researchers determine the way they look at knowledge and objects. Three major approaches, Positivism, Interpretivism, and Realism, and their assumptions are epistemologically and ontologically evaluated. Post-positivism is presented before a comparative evaluation of approaches to the market economy in political science is discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Epistemology, Ontology, Positivism, Interpretivism, Realism, Post-Positivism, Market Economy

SİYASET BİLİMİ PERSPEKTİFİNDEN KAMU POLİTİKALARI: EPİSTEMOLOJİK VE ONTOLOJİK DEĞERLENDİRMELER

Öz

Kamu politikaları yapımı ve yönetiminde, politik, sosyal ve çevresel birçok parametre etkili olduğundan, daha karmaşık hale gelmiştir. O yüzden birçok teorik yaklaşım ve metodoloji ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu çalışmada, öncelikle bilgi kuramına bakış açısını belirleyen ve bir lens görevi yapan epistemoloji ve ontolojinin neler olduğuna değinilecektir. Üç temel yaklaşım olan; Pozitivizm, İnterpretivizm ve Realizm'e epistemolojik ve ontolojik olarak bakılacak ve özelliklerinden genel hatlarıyla bahsedilecektir. Daha sonra, Post-pozitivizm anlatılacak, karşılaştırmalı bir değerlendirme yapılarak siyaset bilimi literatüründe yer alan pazar piyasasına (market economy) bu perspektiften bakılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Epistemoloji, Ontoloji, Pozitivizm, Đnterpretivizm, Realizm, Post-Pozitivizm, Pazar Ekonomisi

Kaynakça

1. Akarsu, B. (1975). Felsefe terimleri sözlüğü. Ankara, TR: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.Ayers, M. (1993). Locke: Epistemology and ontology. London, UK; New York, US: Routledge.
2. Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inguiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research 10 (3), 378-395.
3. Burrell, G. ve Morgan, G.(1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London, UK: Heineman.
4. Campbell, D. T., ve Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
5. DeLeon, P. (1988). Advice and consent: The development of the policy sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
6. Dolu, O. (2010). Suç Teorileri: Teori, Araştırma ve Uygulamada Kriminoloji, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
7. Emeklier, B. (2011). Uluslararası Đlişkiler Disiplininde Epistemolojik Paradigma Tartışmaları: Postpozitivist Kuramlar. Bilge Strateji, 2 (4), 139-184.
8. Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. (C. Storrs, Trans.). London: Pitman Publishing.

9. Fischer, F. (1980). Politics, values, and public policy: The problem of methodology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
10. Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago, IL: WadsworthThomson Learning.
11. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Fischer, F.(2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sydney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, policy, and methods (pp.223-236). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
13. Geertz, C. (1972). Notes on the Balinese cockfight. Daedalus, 101 (1), 1-37.
14. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
15. Geertz, H. & Geertz, C. (1975). Kinship in Bali. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16. Goles, T. ve Hirschheim, R. (2000). The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead…long live the paradigm: The legacy of Burrell and Morgan. Omega, 28, 249-268.
17. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
18. Gül, Z. (2011). Kamu Politikasında Kurumsallık (Institutionalism) Teorisi, A. Kaptı ( Ed.) Kamu Politika Süreci: Teorik Perspektifler, ss.71-84. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
19. Gül, Z. (2011). Kamu Politika Sürecine Teorik Bakış ve Kritik Bir Değerlendirme, A. Kaptı ( Ed.) Kamu Politika Süreci: Teorik Perspektifler, ss.225-246. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
20. Hekim, H. (2011). Kamu Politikasında Post-Pozitivizm, A. Kaptı (Ed.) Kamu Politika Süreci: Teorik Perspektifler, ss.46-58. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
21. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
22. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23. Kolakowski, L. (1972). Positivist philosophy: From Hume to the Vienna Circle. Harmondsworth, Penguin.
24. Lane, R. (1996). Positivism, Scientific Realism and Political Science. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 8 (3), 361-382.
25. Marsh, D. & Furlong, P. (2002). A skin not a sweater: Ontology and epistemology in political science. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (2 nd ed.) (pp.17-41). Hampshire, UK; New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.
26. Marsh, D. & Furlong, P. (2002). A skin not a sweater: Ontology and epistemology in political science. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (2nd ed.) (pp.17-41). Hampshire, UK; New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.
27. Marsh, D. & G. Stoker. (2002). Conclusion. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (2nd ed.) (pp. 311-317). Hampshire, UK; New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.
28. Marsh, D. & G. Stoker. (2002). Conclusion. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (2nd ed.) (pp.311-317). Hampshire, UK; New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.
29. Merriam-Webster. (2011). Epistemology. Erişilme tarihi 05.05.2011, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/epistemology.
30. Merriam-Webster. (2011). Ontology. Erişilme tarihi 05.05.2011, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/ontology.
31. Munger, M. C. (2000). Analyzing policy: Choices, conflicts, and practices. New York: W.W. Norton.
32. Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four: A novel. London, UK: Seeker and Warburg.
33. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE.
34. Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
35. Popper, K. (1969). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Kegan and Paul.
36. Rhoads, S. E. (1985). The economist's view of the world: Government, markets, and public policy. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Ritzer, G. (2005). Encyclopedia of social theory . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
38. Rochefort, D. A. & Cobb, R. W. (1993). Problem definition, agenda access, and policy choice. Policy Studies Journal, 21(1), 56-71.
39. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
40. Sesli Sözlük. (2011). Epistemology. Erişilme tarihi 002011. http://www.seslisozluk.com/search/foundationalism#epistemology
41. Sesli Sözlük. (2011). Ontology. Erişilme tarihi 002011. http://www.seslisozluk.com/search/foundationalism#ontology
42. Stone, D. A. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton.
43. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York; London: Harper.
44. Turner, J. H. (1987) The Origins of Positivism: The Contributions of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, In G. Ritzer & B. Smart (Eds.), Handbook of Social theory (pp.30-42). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
45. Weimer, D. L. & Vining, A. R. (2005). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice, (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
46. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting Interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
47. Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, D.C. : Georgetown University Press.
48. Yanow, D. (2003). Constructing “race” and “ethnicity”: Category making in public policy and administration. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
49. Yanow, D. (2007). Qualitative-Interpretive methods in policy research. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M.S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp.405-415). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.