Kenti İletişimden Okumak: Kentsel İletişim Çalışmalarına Yönelik Bibliyometrik ve Sistematik Literatür Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışma iletişim literatüründe etkisi giderek belirginleşmeye başlayan ve Türkiye’de ne Ulakbim Doçentlik Temel Alanlarında ne de Dergipark çalışma alanlarında yer verilmeyen kentsel iletişim alanını tanıtmak, kenti iletişim bağlamında inceleyen çalışmaların bir ortak başlıkta değerlendirilmesini sağlamak ve ileride yapılacak araştırmalara ön ayak olmak amacıyla hazırlanmıştır. Bu nedenlerle çalışma bibliyometrik ve sistematik literatür analizi olarak tasarlanmıştır. Çalışmada güvenilirlik, yaygınlık ve nitelik gözetilerek Web of Science veri tabanında iletişim temel alanında yer alan çalışmalar incelenmiş ve toplamda 49 çalışmaya ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmalar, ilk önce temel verilere ulaşmak amacıyla Web of Science’ta analiz edilmiş, ardından VOSviewer ile yaygınlık, anahtar kelime, ortak kaynakça ve atıf analizlerine yer verilmiştir. Son olarak makalelerin içeriği ve kullanılan araçlardan çıkan temel veriler ışığında, MAXQDA programı aracılığıyla içerik kodlaması gerçekleştirilmiş, veriler dört temel kategoriye ayrılmış (kenti ele alış biçimi, yöntem, ayrım ve medya incelemesi) her kategori kendi içerisinde kod ve alt kodlara ayrılarak çalışmaların ortak özellikleri ortaya konmuştur. Çalışmanın sonucunda görülmüştür ki kentsel iletişim, kenti çok farklı yönleri ile ele alan, yöntem çeşitliliği olan ve hatta kendine ait yöntem önerisi olan, teorik olarak çok farklı disiplinlerden beslenen, her geçen gün yeni tartışma konularının ortaya çıktığı dinamik bir disiplindir. Amerika ve Avrupa’da önemi giderek artarken Türkiye’de de olguya ilişkin çalışmaların artması ve kentsel iletişim başlığı altında birleşmesi ve iletişim bilimi altında disiplinleşmesi gerekmektedir. Bu gereklilik sadece bilimsel gelişim için değil daha yaşanabilir, sürdürülebilir ya da akıllı kentlerin inşasında iletişimcilerin aktif katılımı sağlamak için de bir zorunluluktur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel İletişim
• Sistematik Literatür Analizi
• mekân
• içerik analizi
• bibliyometrik analiz

Reading from Urban Communication: Bibliometric and A Systematic Approach to Urban Communication Studies Literature Analysis

Öz

This study aims to conceptualize and position the field of urban communication, which is gradually gaining visibility in the literature but is not yet included in either the Ulakbim Associate Professorship Core Areas or Dergipark’s designated research fields. It seeks to provide a framework for evaluating studies that examine cities from a communication perspective under a common heading and to lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, the study was designed as a bibliometric and systematic literature review. In this study, with careful attention to reliability, scope, and quality, relevant publications in the core area of communication were identified in the Web of Science database, resulting in a total of 49 studies. First, these studies were analyzed in the Web of Science to extract basic data, and then VOSviewer was used to conduct analyses of prevalence, keywords, co-citations, and references. Finally, based on the data obtained from the articles and the analytical tools employed, a content coding process was carried out using MAXQDA. The data were categorized into four main categories—approaches to urban issues, methodological approaches, social differentiation, and media analysis. Each category was further divided into specific codes and sub-codes to reveal the common features across the studies. The results show that urban communication is a dynamic field that examines the city from diverse perspectives, employs a wide range of methods (and even proposes its own methodological approaches), and is theoretically supported by various disciplines. As new topics of discussion continue to emerge, the field is attracting increasing interest in the US and Europe. However, it is also essential for more research on this phenomenon to be conducted in Turkey, and for such studies to be brought together under the heading of urban communication and institutionalized within communication studies. This need is not only critical for academic development but also for ensuring the active participation of communication scholars in building more livable, sustainable, and smart cities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban Communication
• Systematic Literature Analysis
• Content Analysis
• Bibliometric Analysis
• space

Kaynakça

1. Aiello, G. (2021a). Communicating the “world-class” city: a visual-material approach. Social Semiotics, 31(1), 136-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1810551
2. Aiello, G. (2021b). The visible city. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 18(4), 421-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2021.1995618
3. Aiello, G., & Tosoni, S. (2016). Going about the city: methods and methodologies for urban communication research. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1252-1262.
4. Alevizou, G. (2020). Civic media and technologies of belonging: where digital citizenship and ‘the right to the city’ converge. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 16(3), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp_00029_1
5. Bishop, S. C. (2017). (Un)documented immigrant media makers and the search for connection online. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(5), 415-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2017.1351618
6. Chandler, C. (2023). Jane Jacobs’ smart-home enthymemes: ambiguous urban appeals in Google’s Toronto smart city. Western Journal of Communication, 87(5), 706-726. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2022.2146460
7. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 Costera Meijer, I. (2010). Democratızıng journalısm? Journalism Studies, 11(3), 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700903500256
8. Cuesta Moreno, O. J. (2018). Contributions from communication to the inclusion of people with disabilities in urban life. CHASQUI-REVISTA LATINOAMERICANA DE COMUNICACION, 136, 321-333.

9. Çamdereli, M., Er, S., & Zeytin, H. İ. (2006). Bir kentsel simge olarak İBB logosu nasıl okunuyor? Kocaeli Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Araştırma Dergisi, 8, 9-20.
10. Demir, M. (2010). Kentsel iletişim ve kamusal insan kavramları perspektifinde yaşanılır mekan olgusu ve kamusal alanların organizasyonu; Antik Çağ’da ve günümüzde Bergama örneği. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
11. Dickinson, G., & Aiello, G. (2016). Being through there matters: materiality, bodies, and movement in urban communication research. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION, 10, 1294-1308.
12. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
13. Drucker, S., & Gumpert, G. (2016). The communicative city redux. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1366-1387.
14. Georgiou, M. (2017a). Conviviality is not enough: a communication perspective to the city of difference. Communication, Culture & Critique, 10(2), 261-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12154
15. Georgiou, M. (2017b). Is London open? mediating and ordering cosmopolitanism in crisis. International Communication Gazette, 79(6-7), 636-655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048517727175
16. Gonzalez, A., Davis, S., & Kim, J.-W. (2021). La Gordiloca and the vicissitudes of social media journalism on the U.S. – Mexico border. Communication Monographs, 88(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1865554
17. Gumpert, G., & Drucker, S. (2007). Diaspora: an urban communication paradigm. Içinde O. Bailey & M. Georgiou (Ed.), Transnational Lives and the Media: Re-Imagining Diasporas (1. bs, ss. 195-211). Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Halegoua, G. R., & Lingel, J. (2018). Lit up and left dark: failures of imagination in urban broadband networks. New Media & Society, 20(12), 4634-4652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818779593
19. Humphreys, L. (2007). Mobile social networks and social practice: a case study of dodgeball. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 341-360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00399.x
20. Jeffres, L. W., & Lin, C. A. (2006). Metropolitan websites as urban communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 957-980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00303.x
21. Jeffries, F. (2011). Communication commoning amidst the new enclosures. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 35(4), 349-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859911416502
22. Krajina, Z. (2021). De-westernizing mediated city research: display and decay in Zagreb’s urban signage. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 18(4), 429-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2021.1998564
23. Leupold, A., Klinger, U., & Jarren, O. (2018). Imagining the city. Journalism Studies, 19(7), 960-982. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1245111
24. Levy, H., & Diamanti, E. (2023). Spray without politics? contrasting street-based perceptions and computer vision framings of graffitied Rome. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 29(3), 766-784. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565231155076
25. Lokot, T. (2021). Ukraine is Europe? complicating the concept of the ‘European’ in the wake of an urban protest. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 18(4), 439-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2021.1995619
26. Makagon, D. (2010). Bring on the shock troops: artists and gentrification in the popular press. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 7(1), 26-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420903527772
27. Makagon, D., & Gould, M. R. (2016). Learning the city through stories: audio documentary as urban communication pedagogy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1263-1276.
28. Malinowski, L. (2020). Engendering progress, contesting narratives: women’s labor rhetorics at the 1907 Chicago Industrial Exhibit. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 50(4), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2020.1748215
29. Matsaganis, M. D. (2016). Multi- and mixed-methods approaches to urban communication research: a synthesis and the road ahead. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1331-1350.
30. McQuire, S. (2019). One map to rule them all? Google Maps as digital technical object. Communication and the Public, 4(2), 150-165. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047319850192
31. McQuire, S. (2021). Y architecture, media and spaces of urban communication. İçinde S. McQuire & S. Wei (Ed.), Communıcatıve Cıtıes And Urban Space (ss. 28-22). Routledge.
32. Ni, L., Dai, Y., & Liu, W. (2022). Dynamics between fragmentation and unity: identity and nonprofit relationship management in the Asian American Community. Public Relations Review, 48(2), 102157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102157
33. Ni, L., Xiao, Z., Liu, W., & Wang, Q. (2019). Relationship management as antecedents to public communication behaviors: Examining empowerment and public health among Asian Americans. Public Relations Review, 45(5), 101835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101835
34. Ong, J. C. (2017). Queer cosmopolitanism in the disaster zone: ‘My Grindr became the United Nations’. International Communication Gazette, 79(6-7), 656-673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048517727177
35. Önay Doğan, B. (2012). Kentsel iletişim stratejisi oluşturmada reklam uygulamalarının rolü ve etkisi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
36. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The Prisma 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
37. Pauwels, L. (2016). Visually researching and communicating the city: a systematic assessment of methods and resources. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1309-1330.
38. Poorisat, T., Boster, F. J., & Salmon, C. T. (2019). Predicting activism for a social cause. communication studies, 70(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1504808
39. Reershemius, G. (2019). Lamppost networks: stickers as a genre in urban semiotic landscapes. Social Semiotics, 29(5), 622-644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1504652
40. Shin, Y. (2020). What can tripartite semantic network analysis do for media framing research? Communication & Society, 33(1), 121-137. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.33.35280
41. Shin, Y. J. (2009). Understanding spatial differentiation of social ınteraction: suggesting a conceptual framework for spatial mediation. Communication Theory, 19(4), 423-444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01350.x
42. Soydaş, N., & Üstünbaş, B. (2020). Kent kimliğinin yansıtılmasında müzelerin kentsel iletişim bağlamında değerlendirilmesi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34, 377-398. https://doi.org/10.31123/akil.780956
43. Tellan, D. (2012). Mimarlık ve modernite: bir eleştiri. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, 134, 120-123.
44. Torres-Carrion, P. V., Gonzalez-Gonzalez, C. S., Aciar, S., & Rodriguez-Morales, G. (2018). Methodology for systematic literature review applied to engineering and education. 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1364-1373. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363388
45. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053-1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7
46. Waymer, D., & Hill, T. E. (2024). Arts promotion and Black urban displacement: Exploring the paradox of the positive in government public relations and urban renewal discourse. Public Relations Review, 50(2), 102439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102439
47. Yang, T., Ticona, J., & Lelkes, Y. (2021). Policing the Digital Divide: Institutional Gate-keeping & Criminalizing Digital Inclusion. Journal of Communication, 71(4), 572-597.
48. Yavuz, N. (2022). Systematic literature review in social sciences. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1134606
49. Yongjun, S. (2016). Connecting political communication with urban politics: a Bourdieusian framework. International Journal of Communication, 10, 508-529.
50. Yuksel Ozmen, S., Birsen, H., Birsen, O., Ozgun Citak, Ş., & Ogur, O. (2017). Cittaslow: urban concept in a different perspective and analysing of Turkish cittaslow cities’ documentaries. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/2578
51. Zhou, H. (2021). Drone media in the perspective of urban communication A digitalized seeing method. Içinde S. McQuire & S. Wei (Ed.), Communicative Cities and Urban Space (ss. 210-221). Routledge.
52. Zorin, K. (2023). Local media as fractals of social and media systems. Theoretical and Practical Issues of Journalism, 12(3), 490-506. https://doi.org/10.17150/2308-6203.2023.12(3).490-506
53. Zuykina, K. L., & Anikina, M. E. (2024). ). Urban communication in Moscow district Telegram channels: visual dimension. Theoretical and Practical Issues of Journalism, 13, 236-256.