Artificial Intelligence Ethics and Inclusivity: The Limits of Institutional Discourse in Turkey

Öz

This study aims to evaluate the artificial intelligence (AI) ethics principles and policy documents published by public institutions in Turkey within the framework of the principle of inclusivity. Conceptually, the study is informed by postcolonial theoretical approaches, which have gained increasing prominence in recent AI ethics literature. It considers technological ethical frameworks not merely as technical arrangements but also as carriers of social, political, and cultural power relations. The research was conducted using the qualitative content analysis method, examining five policy documents issued by Turkish public institutions to explore how AI ethics discourse is reflected in local policy texts. The findings of the analysis are organized under three main themes: “silence and representational deficiencies,” “nationalism and the nationalization of ethical discourse,” and “instrumentalization of ethical discourse.” The results reveal that the principles of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” are largely presented at a normative and symbolic level in these documents, while concrete implementation mechanisms are largely absent. This indicates that the discourse of AI ethics in Turkey has not yet attained an institutionalized structure in relation to social equality and is shaped in parallel with the country’s broader political climate.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial intelligence ethics
• inclusion
• diversity
• digital inequality
• Turkey.

Yapay Zekâ Etiği ve Kapsayıcılık: Türkiye’de Kurumsal Söylemin Sınırları

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de kamu kurumlarınca yayımlanan yapay zekâ (YZ) etik ilkeleri ve politika belgelerini, kapsayıcılık ilkesi çerçevesinde değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Kavramsal olarak çalışma, YZ etiği literatüründe son yıllarda giderek öne çıkan postkolonyal kuramsal yaklaşımdan beslenmekte ve teknolojik etik çerçeveleri yalnızca teknik düzenlemeler değil, aynı zamanda toplumsal, politik ve kültürel güç ilişkilerinin taşıyıcısı olarak ele almaktadır. Nitel içerik analizi yöntemiyle yürütülen araştırmada, YZ etiği söyleminin Türkiye örneklemi bağlamında yerel politika belgelerine nasıl yansıdığı kamu kurumlarınca yayımlanmış beş belge analiz edilerek araştırılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda elde edilen bulgular, çalışmada “sessizlik ve temsil eksiklikleri”, “ulusalcılık ve etik söylemin millîleştirilmesi” ve “etik söylemin araçsallaştırılması” olmak üzere üç ana tema altında toplanmıştır. Bulgular, belgelerde “çeşitlilik, hakkaniyet ve kapsayıcılık” ilkelerinin çoğunlukla normatif ve sembolik düzeyde yer aldığını; ancak somut uygulama mekanizmalarının büyük ölçüde eksik bırakıldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu durum, Türkiye’de YZ etiği söyleminin toplumsal eşitlik bağlamında, ülkenin politik iklimi ile paralel olarak, henüz kurumsal bir yapıya kavuşmadığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay zekâ etiği
• kapsayıcılık
• çeşitlilik
• dijital eşitsizlik
• Türkiye.

Kaynakça

1. Bélisle-Pipon, J.-C., Monteferrante, E., Roy, M.-C., & Couture, V. (2023). Artificial intelligence ethics has a black box problem. AI & Society, 38, 1507–1522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01380-0
2. Birhane, A. (2020). Algorithmic colonization of Africa. SCRIPTed, 17(2), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.2966/scrip.170220.389.
3. Böcü, G., & Al-Jizawi, N. (2023). Repressing in the name of? Externalization dynamics in Turkey’s use of digital repression against refugees. Democratization, 31(5), 998–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2217090
4. Cachat Rosset, G., & Klarsfeld, A. (2023). Diversity, equity, and inclusion in artificial intelligence: An evaluation of guidelines. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 37(1), Article 2176618. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2023.2176618
5. Chen, W. & Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide: Within and between countries. IT and Society, 1(7), 39–45.
6. Chi, N., Lurie, E., & Mulligan, D. K. (2021). Reconfiguring diversity and inclusion for AI ethics. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 447–457). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462622
7. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.
8. Cupać, J., Schopmans, H., & Tuncer-Ebetürk, İ. (2024). Democratization in the age of artificial intelligence: Introduction to the special issue. Democratization, 31(5), 899–921. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2024.2338852

9. Dall’Agnola, J. (2024). Illiberal technologies: Linking tech companies, democratic backsliding, and authoritarianism. Journal of Illiberalism Studies, 4(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.53483/XCQS3577
10. Dastin, J. (2018, 11 Ekim). Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/insight-amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK0AG/
11. Dignum, V. (2018). Ethics in artificial intelligence: Introduction to the special issue. Ethics and Information Technology, 20, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9450-z
12. Dinçer, P. (2021). E-demokrasi çerçevesinde e-katılım ve toplumsal cinsiyet ilişkisi. In A. Saylam (Ed.), Kamu yönetiminde elektronik vatandaş katılımı (pp. 215–241). Gazi Kitabevi.
13. Dwertmann, D. J. G., Nishii, L. H., & van Knippenberg, D. (2016). Disentangling the fairness and discrimination and synergy perspectives on diversity climate: Moving the field forward. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1136–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316630380
14. Edgerton, D. E. H. (2007). The contradictions of techno-nationalism and techno-globalism: A historical perspective. New Global Studies, 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-0004.1013
15. Esen, B. & Gümüşçü, Ş. & Yavuzyılmaz, H. (2023). Türkiye’nin Yeni Rejimi: Rekabetçi Otoriterlik. İletişim.
16. Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2017). Incorporating ethics into artificial intelligence. Journal of Ethics, 21(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-017-9252-2
17. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM/2021/206 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0206.
18. Floridi, L. (2023). The ethics of artificial intelligence: Principles, challenges, and opportunities. Oxford University Press.
19. Gerdes, A. (2018). An inclusive ethical design perspective for a flourishing future with artificial intelligent systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 9(4), 677–689.
20. Habermas, J. (1970). Technology and science as 'ideology'. In Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics (pp. 81-122). Beacon Press.
21. Hardesty, L. (2018, 11 Şubat). Study finds gender and skin-type bias in commercial artificial intelligence systems. MIT News. https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-finds-gender-skin-type-bias-artificial-intelligence-systems-0212
22. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. W. (2014). Aydınlanmanın diyalektiği: Felsefi fragmanlar (N. Ülner & E. Ö. Karadoğan, Trans.). Kabalcı Yayıncılık.
23. Huang, C., Zhang, Z., Mao, B., & Yao, X. (2023). An overview of artificial intelligence ethics. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 4(4), 799–814. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAI.2022.3194503
24. James, J. (2009). From the relative to the absolute digital divide in developing countries. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76(8), 1124–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.01.004
25. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 Kamu Görevlileri Etik Kurulu. (2024). Yapay zekâ sistemlerinin kullanımında kamu görevlilerinin uyması gereken etik davranış ilkeleri (İlke Kararı No: 2024/108). https://www.etik.gov.tr/icerikler/2024-108-sayili-ilke-karari-yapay-zeka-sistemlerinin-kullaniminda-kamu-gorevlilerinin-uymasi-gereken-etik-davranis-ilkeleri/.
26. Kendall, L. (2000). “Oh no! I’m a nerd!: hegemonic masculinity on an online forum”. Gender & Society, 14 (2), 256-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124300014002003
27. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu (2024). Yapay zekâya genel bakış (bülten). https://kvkk.gov.tr/SharedFolderServer/CMSFiles/d4a738b6-5a86-454f-8788-b97758cab0da.pdf.
28. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu (2025). Yapay zekâ alanında kişisel verilerin korunmasına dair tavsiyeler. https://kvkk.gov.tr/SharedFolderServer/CMSFiles/25a1162f-0e61-4a43-98d0-3e7d057ac31a.pdf.
29. Kondra, S., Medapati, S., Koripalli, M., Nandula, S. R. S. C., & Zink, J. (2025). AI and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI): Examining the potential for AI to mitigate bias and promote inclusive communication. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2023.2176618
30. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage.
31. Krisher, T. (2023, Aralık 12). Tesla was running on Autopilot moments before deadly Virginia crash, sheriff’s office says. NBC4 Washington. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/tesla-was-running-on-autopilot-moments-before-deadly-virginia-crash-sheriffs-office-says/3492662/
32. Krueger, B. S. (2002). Assessing the potential of internet political participation in the United States: A resource approach. American Politics Research, 30(5), 476–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X02030005002
33. Kwet, M. (2019). Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race & Class, 60(4), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396818823172
34. Leavy, S. (2018). Gender bias in artificial intelligence: The need for diversity and gender theory in machine learning. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering (pp. 14–16).
35. Lee, T. N. (2018). Detecting racial bias in algorithms and machine learning. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(3), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-06-2018-0056
36. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2023). Eğitimde yapay zekâ politika belgesi ve eylem planı (2025-2029). https://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_06/17092340_egitimdeyapayzekapolitikabelgesiveeylemplani202520291.pdf.
37. Mohamed, S., Png, M.-T., & Isaac, W. (2020). Decolonial AI: Decolonial theory as sociotechnical foresight in artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 33(4), 659–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00405-8
38. Mossberger, K. (2009). Toward digital citizenship: Addressing inequality in the information age. In A. Chadwick & P. Howard (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 173–185). Routledge.
39. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson.
40. Polat, R. K. (2005). The internet and political participation: Exploring the explanatory links. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 435–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323105058251
41. Polat, R. K. (2012). “Digital exclusion in Turkey: a policy perspective”, Government Information Quarterly, 29, 589-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.002
42. Roche, C., Lewis, D., & Wall, P. J. (2021). Artificial intelligence ethics: An inclusive global discourse? In Proceedings of the 1st Virtual Conference on Implications of Information and Digital Technologies for Development. Science Foundation Ireland, CRT-AI, Trinity College Dublin.
43. Said, E. W. (1977). Orientalism. The Georgia Review, 31(1), 162-206.
44. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı & Cumhurbaşkanlığı Dijital Dönüşüm Ofisi. (2021). Ulusal yapay zekâ stratejisi (2021-2025). https://cbddo.gov.tr/SharedFolderServer/Genel/File/TR-UlusalYZStratejisi2021-2025.pdf.
45. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı & Cumhurbaşkanlığı Dijital Dönüşüm Ofisi. (2024). Ulusal yapay zekâ stratejisi 2024-2025 eylem planı. https://cbddo.gov.tr/SharedFolderServer/Genel/File/UlusalYapayZekaStratejisi2024-2025EylemPlani.pdf.
46. Schiff, D., Borenstein, J., Biddle, J., & Laas, K. (2021). AI ethics in the public, private, and NGO sectors: A review of a global document collection. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 2(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2021.3052127
47. Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Barcelona, Spain.
48. Siau, K., & Wang, W. (2020). Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics: Ethics of AI and ethical AI. Journal of Database Management, 31(2), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.4018/JDM.2020040105
49. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 24-28). Macmillan Education.
50. Tavory, I. & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press.
51. Törenli, N. (2006). The ‘other’ faces of digital exclusion: ICT gender divides in the broader community. European Journal of Communication, 21(4), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323106070010
52. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
53. van Deursen, A. & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009). Improving digital skills for the use of online public information and services. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.11.002
54. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009). Digital divide in Europe. In A. Chadwick & P. Howard (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 288–304). Routledge.
55. White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053
56. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2024). Yükseköğretim kurumları bilimsel araştırma ve yayın faaliyetlerine üretken yapay zeka kullanımına dair etik rehber. https://eski.yok.gov.tr/Documents/2024/yapay-zeka-kullanimina-dair-etik-rehber.pdf.
57. Zowghi, D., & Bano, M. (2024). AI for all: Diversity and inclusion in AI. AI and Ethics. 4, 873-876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00485-8