Araştırma Makalesi
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Kaynak Göster

Dijital Heterotopya Olarak Change.Org: Foucaultcu Bir Yaklaşım

Yıl 2021, Cilt 8, Sayı 2, 239 - 260, 25.11.2021
https://doi.org/10.24955/ilef.958572

Öz

Teknolojik gelişmeler ve özellikle İnternet, kültür ve toplum kavrayışını büyük oranda şekillendirmektedir. Dijital kültür ile politika, ekonomi, iktisadi faaliyetler ve ticaretin yeni biçimleri ortaya çıkmaya başlamıştır. Dijital iletişim araçları, sadece kamuların birbirleriyle iletişim kurmaları için değil, aynı zamanda toplumsal sorunlara karşı örgütlenebilmeleri için de etkili platformlar sağlamaktadır. Bu bakımdan, dijital aktivizm fiziksel olmayan toplulukların ve yeni örgütlenme biçimlerinin ortaya çıkabilmesi için imkân sunmaktadır. Çevrimiçi imza kampanyası platformu olan ve dünya çapında birçok kampanyanın başlatıldığı Change.org en etkili dijital aktivist platformların arasında yer almaktadır. Literatürde Change.org’u etkili bir dijital aktivist platform olarak inceleyen birçok araştırma bulunmasına rağmen, söz konusu platformu heterotopik bir alan olarak tanımlayan bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma Change.org’un Michel Foucault’nun yaklaşımından temellenen bir kavram olan dijital heteretopya olarak nasıl incelenebileceğini ortaya koymaya amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma yöntemi olarak betimsel vaka incelemesi yöntemi kullanılmış ve analiz için dört kategori belirlenmiştir. Çalışma; kendi topluluk kuralları ile birlikte alternatif alanları aynı anda hem yansıtan hem de üreten, farklı alanları, olayları ve konuları tek bir yerde bir araya getiren Change.org’un dijital heterotopya örneği olarak değerlendirilebileceğini ortaya koymuştur.

Kaynakça

  • Aktaş, M. and Akçay, E. 2019. “Digital Savunuculuk Örneği Olarak ‘Özgecan Yasası’ Change.Org İmza Kampanyası”. Moment Dergi, 6 (2): 305-336. https://doi.org/10.17572//mj2019.2.305336
  • Beckett, E Agharad, Bagguley Paul and Tom Campbell. 2017. “Foucault, Social Movements and Heterotopic Horizons: Rupturing the Order of Things”. Social Movement Studies 16 (2): 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2016.1252666
  • Berg, L Bruce. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn-Bacon.
  • Clark, Rosemary. 2016. “Hope in A Hashtag: The Discursive Activism of #WhyIstayed”. Feminist Media Studies 16 (5): 788-804. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2016.1138235
  • Change.org Impact Report. 2018. Accessed date 19 August 2020. https://static.change.org/brand-pages/impact/reports/2019/change.org_Impact_Report_english_FINAL.pdf
  • Change.org. 2020. Detailed Information about Change.org. Accessed date: 20 August 2020, https://www.change.org/
  • Darwish, Ashraf and Lakhtoria Kamaljit. 2011. “The Impact of the New Web 2.0 Technologies in Communication, Development and Revolutions of Societies”. Journal of Advances in Information Technology 2 (4): 204-216.
  • Eisenhardt, M Kathleen. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research”. The Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532-550.
  • Foucault, Michel. 1986. “Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias”. Diacritics 16 (1): 2227.
  • Foucault, Michel. 2002. The Order of Things. New York: Routledge.
  • George, J Jordana and Dorothy E Leidner. 2019. “From Clicktivism to Hacktivism: Understanding Digital Activism”. Information and Organization 29: 1-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.04.001
  • Göker, Göksel. 2017. “Dijital Heterotopiyalar: Başka bir Bağlamda Yeni Medya”. Selçuk İletişim 9 (7): 64-88. doi: 10.18094/si.57679
  • Halpin, Darren, Vromen Ariadne, Vaughan Michael and Mahin Raissi. 2018. “Online Petitioning and Politics: The Development of Change.Org in Australia”. Australian Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 428-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2018.1499010
  • Hetherington, Kevin. 1991. The Badlands of Modernity: Heterotopia and Social Ordering. London: Routledge.
  • Huang, Shih-Wen, Suh Minhyang, Hill M Benjamin and Gary Hsieh. 2015. “How Activists Are Both Born and Made: An Analysis of Users on Change.org”. CHI 2 Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 18 – 23, 2015, Seoul, Republic of Korea (pp.211-220). Accessed date 12 August 2020 https://dl.acm.org/conference/chi/proceedings
  • Jackson, Sue. 2018. “Young Feminists, Feminism and Digital Media”. Feminism & Psychology 28 (1): 32-49. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0959353517716952
  • Johnson, Peter. 2006. “Unravelling Foucault’s “Different Spaces”. History of the Human Sciences 19 (4): 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695106069669
  • Joyce, C Mary. 2010. Introduction: How to Think About Digital Activism. In: Mary C Joyce (ed.) Digital Activism Decoded, 1-15. New York: Debate Press.
  • Kahn, Richard and Douglas Kellner. 2004. “New Media and Internet Activism. From the Battle of Seattle to Blogging”. New Media & Society 6(1): 87-95. DOI: 10.1177/1461444804039908
  • Kavada, Anastasia. 2010. “Activism Transforms Digital: The Social Movement Perspective”. In: Mary C Joyce (ed.) Digital Activism Decoded, 101-119. New York: Debate Press.
  • Kumar, Ranjit. 2011. Research Methodology: A Step-by-step Guide for Beginners. London: SAGE
  • Lee, Yu-Hao and Gary, Hsieh. 2013. “Does Slacktivism Hurt Activism? The Effects of Moral Balancing and Consistency in Online Activism”. In: CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, April 27 – May 2 2013. Paris, France (pp.811-820). Accessed date 13.August 2020 https://chi2013.acm.org/
  • Lin, Zonghxuan and Yang Liu. 2020. “A Digital Promised Land? Digital Landscape as a Heterotopia for Disabled People in China”. Information, Communication & Society 23 (8): 1220-1234. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1776366
  • Lllia, Laura. 2002. “Passage to Cyberactivism: How Dynamics of Activism Change”. Journal of Public Affairs 3 (4): 326-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.161
  • McNutt, G John. 2018. “Advocacy, Social Change and Activism”. In: John G McNutt (ed.) Technology, Activism and Social Justice in a Digital Age, 9-22. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Minoceher, Xerxes. 2019. “Online Consumer Activism: Challenging Companies with Change.org”. New Media & Society 21 (3): 620-638. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444818803373
  • Noshokaty A, Deng S and Kwak HD (2016) “Success Factors on Online Petitions: Evidence from Change.Org”. In: 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 5 January-8 January 2016, Koloa, USA (pp.1979-1985). Accessed date 12 August 2020 https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2016/12OmNrMHOd6
  • Saldanha, Arun. 2008. “Heterotopia and Structuralism”. Environment and Planning 40: 2080- 2096. https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fa39336
  • Scholtz, Trebor. 2010. “Its Transformations and Effect on Digital Activism”. In: Mary Joyce (ed.) Digital Activism Decoded, 17-33. New York: Debate Press.
  • Smith, C Eric. 2014. Foucault’s Heterotopia in Christian Catacombs: Constructing Spaces and Symbols in Ancient Rome. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Sudradjat, Iwan. 2012. Foucault, the Other Spaces and Human Behavior. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 36: 28-34. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.004
  • Teblunthuis, Nathan, Shaw Aaron and Benjamin M Hill. 2017. “Density Dependence Without Resource Partitioning: Population Ecology on Change.org”. In: CSCW 2017, 25 February-1 March 2017,Portland, USA (pp. 323-326) Accessed date 12 August 2020 https://discover.gcu.ac.uk/discovery/fulldisplay/alma991002474680503836/44GLCU_INST:44GLCU_VU2
  • Turley, Emma and Jenny Fisher. 2018. “Tweeting Back While Shouting Back: Social Media and Feminist Activism”. Feminism & Psychology 28(1): 128-132. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0959353517715875
  • Wilteborn, Saskia. 2014. “Forced Migrants, Emotive Practice and Digital Heterotopia”. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture 5(1): 73-85. DOI: 10.1386/cjmc.5.1.73_1
  • Yin, K Robert. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. California: SAGE

Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach

Yıl 2021, Cilt 8, Sayı 2, 239 - 260, 25.11.2021
https://doi.org/10.24955/ilef.958572

Öz

Technological developments and especially the Internet have shaped the understanding of culture and society. New forms of politics, economy, business and trade have emerged with digital culture. Digital communication tools have provided effective platforms for people not only to communicate with each other, but also to organize against societal problems. In this context, digital activism has provided opportunities for non-physical gatherings and new modes of organizing. As an e-petition platform, Change.org including various campaigns worldwide, is one of those effective digital activist platforms. Although there are several studies analyzing Change.org as an effective digital activist platform, the extant literature does not include studies that focus on the platform as a heterotopic site. In this context, the current study aims to find out how to understand Change.org as an example of digital heterotopia based on Michel Foucault’s approach. Descriptive case study analysis was selected as the research technique and four categories were identified to analyze the case in a detailed way. The study revealed that Change.org can be considered as an epitome of digital heterotopia which reflects and creates the alternative spaces at the same time, and juxtaposes several spaces, events and issues in a single space with its own community rules.

Kaynakça

  • Aktaş, M. and Akçay, E. 2019. “Digital Savunuculuk Örneği Olarak ‘Özgecan Yasası’ Change.Org İmza Kampanyası”. Moment Dergi, 6 (2): 305-336. https://doi.org/10.17572//mj2019.2.305336
  • Beckett, E Agharad, Bagguley Paul and Tom Campbell. 2017. “Foucault, Social Movements and Heterotopic Horizons: Rupturing the Order of Things”. Social Movement Studies 16 (2): 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2016.1252666
  • Berg, L Bruce. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn-Bacon.
  • Clark, Rosemary. 2016. “Hope in A Hashtag: The Discursive Activism of #WhyIstayed”. Feminist Media Studies 16 (5): 788-804. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2016.1138235
  • Change.org Impact Report. 2018. Accessed date 19 August 2020. https://static.change.org/brand-pages/impact/reports/2019/change.org_Impact_Report_english_FINAL.pdf
  • Change.org. 2020. Detailed Information about Change.org. Accessed date: 20 August 2020, https://www.change.org/
  • Darwish, Ashraf and Lakhtoria Kamaljit. 2011. “The Impact of the New Web 2.0 Technologies in Communication, Development and Revolutions of Societies”. Journal of Advances in Information Technology 2 (4): 204-216.
  • Eisenhardt, M Kathleen. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research”. The Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532-550.
  • Foucault, Michel. 1986. “Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias”. Diacritics 16 (1): 2227.
  • Foucault, Michel. 2002. The Order of Things. New York: Routledge.
  • George, J Jordana and Dorothy E Leidner. 2019. “From Clicktivism to Hacktivism: Understanding Digital Activism”. Information and Organization 29: 1-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.04.001
  • Göker, Göksel. 2017. “Dijital Heterotopiyalar: Başka bir Bağlamda Yeni Medya”. Selçuk İletişim 9 (7): 64-88. doi: 10.18094/si.57679
  • Halpin, Darren, Vromen Ariadne, Vaughan Michael and Mahin Raissi. 2018. “Online Petitioning and Politics: The Development of Change.Org in Australia”. Australian Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 428-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2018.1499010
  • Hetherington, Kevin. 1991. The Badlands of Modernity: Heterotopia and Social Ordering. London: Routledge.
  • Huang, Shih-Wen, Suh Minhyang, Hill M Benjamin and Gary Hsieh. 2015. “How Activists Are Both Born and Made: An Analysis of Users on Change.org”. CHI 2 Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 18 – 23, 2015, Seoul, Republic of Korea (pp.211-220). Accessed date 12 August 2020 https://dl.acm.org/conference/chi/proceedings
  • Jackson, Sue. 2018. “Young Feminists, Feminism and Digital Media”. Feminism & Psychology 28 (1): 32-49. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0959353517716952
  • Johnson, Peter. 2006. “Unravelling Foucault’s “Different Spaces”. History of the Human Sciences 19 (4): 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695106069669
  • Joyce, C Mary. 2010. Introduction: How to Think About Digital Activism. In: Mary C Joyce (ed.) Digital Activism Decoded, 1-15. New York: Debate Press.
  • Kahn, Richard and Douglas Kellner. 2004. “New Media and Internet Activism. From the Battle of Seattle to Blogging”. New Media & Society 6(1): 87-95. DOI: 10.1177/1461444804039908
  • Kavada, Anastasia. 2010. “Activism Transforms Digital: The Social Movement Perspective”. In: Mary C Joyce (ed.) Digital Activism Decoded, 101-119. New York: Debate Press.
  • Kumar, Ranjit. 2011. Research Methodology: A Step-by-step Guide for Beginners. London: SAGE
  • Lee, Yu-Hao and Gary, Hsieh. 2013. “Does Slacktivism Hurt Activism? The Effects of Moral Balancing and Consistency in Online Activism”. In: CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, April 27 – May 2 2013. Paris, France (pp.811-820). Accessed date 13.August 2020 https://chi2013.acm.org/
  • Lin, Zonghxuan and Yang Liu. 2020. “A Digital Promised Land? Digital Landscape as a Heterotopia for Disabled People in China”. Information, Communication & Society 23 (8): 1220-1234. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1776366
  • Lllia, Laura. 2002. “Passage to Cyberactivism: How Dynamics of Activism Change”. Journal of Public Affairs 3 (4): 326-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.161
  • McNutt, G John. 2018. “Advocacy, Social Change and Activism”. In: John G McNutt (ed.) Technology, Activism and Social Justice in a Digital Age, 9-22. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Minoceher, Xerxes. 2019. “Online Consumer Activism: Challenging Companies with Change.org”. New Media & Society 21 (3): 620-638. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444818803373
  • Noshokaty A, Deng S and Kwak HD (2016) “Success Factors on Online Petitions: Evidence from Change.Org”. In: 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 5 January-8 January 2016, Koloa, USA (pp.1979-1985). Accessed date 12 August 2020 https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2016/12OmNrMHOd6
  • Saldanha, Arun. 2008. “Heterotopia and Structuralism”. Environment and Planning 40: 2080- 2096. https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fa39336
  • Scholtz, Trebor. 2010. “Its Transformations and Effect on Digital Activism”. In: Mary Joyce (ed.) Digital Activism Decoded, 17-33. New York: Debate Press.
  • Smith, C Eric. 2014. Foucault’s Heterotopia in Christian Catacombs: Constructing Spaces and Symbols in Ancient Rome. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Sudradjat, Iwan. 2012. Foucault, the Other Spaces and Human Behavior. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 36: 28-34. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.004
  • Teblunthuis, Nathan, Shaw Aaron and Benjamin M Hill. 2017. “Density Dependence Without Resource Partitioning: Population Ecology on Change.org”. In: CSCW 2017, 25 February-1 March 2017,Portland, USA (pp. 323-326) Accessed date 12 August 2020 https://discover.gcu.ac.uk/discovery/fulldisplay/alma991002474680503836/44GLCU_INST:44GLCU_VU2
  • Turley, Emma and Jenny Fisher. 2018. “Tweeting Back While Shouting Back: Social Media and Feminist Activism”. Feminism & Psychology 28(1): 128-132. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0959353517715875
  • Wilteborn, Saskia. 2014. “Forced Migrants, Emotive Practice and Digital Heterotopia”. Crossings: Journal of Migration & Culture 5(1): 73-85. DOI: 10.1386/cjmc.5.1.73_1
  • Yin, K Robert. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. California: SAGE

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Sosyal
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Ilgar SEYİDOV
ATILIM ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İŞLETME FAKÜLTESİ
0000-0001-8420-1413
Türkiye


Ebru AKÇAY Bu kişi benim
ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İLETİŞİM FAKÜLTESİ
0000-0002-4792-9680
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 25 Kasım 2021
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021, Cilt 8, Sayı 2

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { ilef958572, journal = {Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi}, issn = {2148-7219}, eissn = {2458-9209}, address = {}, publisher = {Ankara Üniversitesi}, year = {2021}, volume = {8}, pages = {239 - 260}, doi = {10.24955/ilef.958572}, title = {Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach}, key = {cite}, author = {Seyidov, Ilgar and Akçay, Ebru} }
APA Seyidov, I. & Akçay, E. (2021). Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach . Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi , 8 (2) , 239-260 . DOI: 10.24955/ilef.958572
MLA Seyidov, I. , Akçay, E. "Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach" . Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi 8 (2021 ): 239-260 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ilef/issue/65903/958572>
Chicago Seyidov, I. , Akçay, E. "Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach". Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi 8 (2021 ): 239-260
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach AU - Ilgar Seyidov , Ebru Akçay Y1 - 2021 PY - 2021 N1 - doi: 10.24955/ilef.958572 DO - 10.24955/ilef.958572 T2 - Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 239 EP - 260 VL - 8 IS - 2 SN - 2148-7219-2458-9209 M3 - doi: 10.24955/ilef.958572 UR - https://doi.org/10.24955/ilef.958572 Y2 - 2021 ER -
EndNote %0 Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach %A Ilgar Seyidov , Ebru Akçay %T Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach %D 2021 %J Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi %P 2148-7219-2458-9209 %V 8 %N 2 %R doi: 10.24955/ilef.958572 %U 10.24955/ilef.958572
ISNAD Seyidov, Ilgar , Akçay, Ebru . "Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach". Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi 8 / 2 (Kasım 2021): 239-260 . https://doi.org/10.24955/ilef.958572
AMA Seyidov I. , Akçay E. Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach. Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi. 2021; 8(2): 239-260.
Vancouver Seyidov I. , Akçay E. Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach. Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi. 2021; 8(2): 239-260.
IEEE I. Seyidov ve E. Akçay , "Exploring Change.Org as a Digital Heterotopia: A Foucauldian Approach", Ankara Üniversitesi İlef Dergisi, c. 8, sayı. 2, ss. 239-260, Kas. 2021, doi:10.24955/ilef.958572