SOSYAL ARAŞTIRMALARDA POLİTİK BİR MESELE OLARAK HESAPVEREBİLİRLİK VE ARAŞTIRMA DENEYİMLERİ

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 1 - 16, 15.04.2017

Elif Madakbaş Gülener

https://doi.org/10.25272/j.2149-8539.2017.3.1.01

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hesapverebilirlik, James Bohman, Nitel Araştırma, Araştırma Deneyimleri

ACCOUNTABILITY AS A POLITICAL ISSUE IN SOCIAL RESEARCH AND RESEARCH EXPERIENCES

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Accountability, James Bohman, Qualitative Research, Research Experiences

Kaynakça

• 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.