Kentsel ve Kırsal Yoksullukta Yaşam Koşulları, Ebeveynlik ve Çocukların Günlük Aktiviteleri

Öz

Yoksulluk, çocukların gelişimi için birçok alanda önemli bir risk faktörüdür. Ancak, kentsel ve kırsal yoksulluk, yaşam koşulları açısından farklılık gösterdiği için farklı risk faktörleri ile ilişkilidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, kentsel ve kırsal yoksullukta yaşam koşullarının, ebeveynlik davranışlarının ve çocukların günlük aktivitelerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Çalışmanın katılımcıları, kentsel ve kırsal alanların dezavantajlı bölgelerinde yaşayan 275 anneden oluşmaktadır. Çalışma verisi, anketler ve açık uçlu sorular ile toplanmıştır. Çalışma bulgularına göre, kentsel yoksullukta gelirihtiyaç oranı, baba eğitim seviyesi, gıda güvencesizliği, ev ortamının uyarıcılığı (eğitici materyal ve aktiviteler), mahallenin fiziksel imkânları (market, kreş, sağlık merkezi gibi), mahalle stresi (kavga, gürültü vb.) ve annelerin çocuklarının eğitimine dair beklentileri daha fazla; kırsal yoksullukta ise mahalledeki sosyal ilişkiler ve fiziksel özellikler (güvenlik, temizlik) ile komşulardan alınan sosyal destek daha fazladır. Ayrıca, kırsal bölgelerde yaşayan anneler yaşadıkları mahallenin imkanlarının (örn., çocuk parkı) çocuk gelişimindeki önemini daha sık rapor etmişlerdir. Sohbetlerinin içerikleri incelendiğinde ise, kentsel yoksulluktaki anneler nasihat verme ve eğitici aktiviteler hakkında çocukları ile daha fazla konuşurken, kırsal yoksullukta yaşayan anneler ise gelecek ve ev işleri hakkında çocukları ile daha fazla sohbet etmektedirler. Ayrıca, kentsel bölgelerde yaşayan çocuklar tabletlerle, kırsal bölgelerdeki çocuklar ise hayvanlarla ve tarlada daha sık zaman geçirmektedirler. Çalışma bulguları, Türkiye’de kentsel ve kırsal yoksulluğun çocuk yetiştirme koşulları ve ebeveynlik açısından benzerlik ve farklılıklarını göstermesi açısından önemlidir. Elde edilen bulguların, kentsel ve kırsal yoksulluğun çocuklar üzerindeki etkilerini inceleyen çalışmalar için yol gösterici olması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel yoksulluk
• kırsal yoksulluk
• ebeveynlik
• ev ortamı
• mahalle özellikleri

The Living Conditions, Parenting and Children’s Daily Activities in Urban and Rural Poverty

Öz

Poverty is a risk factor for children’s development in several domains. However, since urban and rural poverty differ in terms of living conditions, they are related to different risk factors. The current study aims to compare the living conditions of urban and rural poverty, parenting behaviors, and children’s daily activities. The participants were 275 mothers living in disadvantaged urban and rural regions. The data were collected via scales and openended questions. The results indicated that income-to-needs ratio, fathers’ education level, food insecurity, home stimulation (educational materials and activities), physical resources (i.e., market, kindergarten, hospital) in the neighborhood, neighborhood stress (i.e., fighting, noise), and mothers’ expectations for their children’s educational attainment were higher in urban poverty, whereas, social relations and physical qualities (i.e., security, cleanliness) of the neighborhood and support from neighbors were higher in rural poverty. Additionally, mothers from rural regions reported the importance of neighborhood quality in child development more frequently. When the content of the conversations with children was examined, mothers from urban poverty talked to their children about advice and stimulating activities more frequently, whereas mothers from rural poverty talked about future and household chores more frequently. Moreover, children living in urban poverty were playing with tablets, whereas children living in rural poverty were spending time on farms and interacting with animals. The findings are important in terms of indicating the similarities and differences in child-rearing conditions and parenting in urban and rural poverty. The results are expected to guide future studies regarding the role of urban and rural poverty in children’s development.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban poverty
• rural poverty
• parenting
• home environment
• neighborhood quality

Kaynakça

1. Alemdar, T., Demirdöğen, A. ve Ören, M. N. (2012, EyLüL, 5-7). Kırsal Yoksulluk ölçüm sorunu ve TürkİYe. 10. Ulusal Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi, 322-329. KonYa, TürkİYe. google scholar
2. ALkire, S. ve Santos, M. E. (2014). Measuring acute povertY in the deveLoping worLd: Robustness and scope of the muLtidimensionaL povertY index. World Development, 59, 251-274. http://dx.doi.Org/l0.1016/j.worLddev.2014.01.026 google scholar
3. BaYdar, N. ve Bekar, O. (2007). Early childhood HOME-TR observation and interview scales. http://portaL.ku.edu.tr/*ECDET/index.htm adresinden 28 Mart 2022 tarihinde alınmıştır. google scholar
4. BaYdar, N., KuntaY, A., Goksen, F., YagmurLu, B. ve CemaLciLar, Z. (2010). Türkiye'de erken çocukluk gelişim ekolojileri araştırması (Proje No: 106K347). TÜBİTAK. google scholar
5. Bornstein, M. H. (2012). CuLturaL approaches to parenting. Parenting: Science and Practice, 12 (2-3), 212-221. doi:10.1080/15295192.2012.683359 google scholar
6. Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., HesLington, M., Gini, M., SuwalskY, J. T., Venuti, P., de FaLco, S., Giusti, Z. ve Zingman de GaLperîn, C. (2008). Mother-chiLd emotionaL availability in ecoLogicaL perspective: Three countries, two regions, two genders. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 666-680. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.666 google scholar
7. Bourguignon, F. ve ChakravartY, S. R. (2019). The measurement of muLtidimensionaL povertY. S. R. ChakravartY (Ed.), Poverty, social exclusion and stochastic dominance (s. 83-107) içinde. Springer. google scholar
8. BradLeY, R. H. ve CaLdweLL, B. M. (1984). The HOME InventorY and familY demographics. Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 315-320. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.2.315 google scholar

9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of chiLd rearing: ProbLems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34(10), 844-850. google scholar
10. Bronfenbrenner, U. ve Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecoLogy of deveLopmentaL process. W. Damon ve R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. I: Theoretical models of human development (s. 993-1028) içinde. John WiLeY & Sons, Inc. google scholar
11. Carr, A. ve Pike, A. (2012). MaternaL scaffoLding behavior: Links with parenting stYLe and maternaL education. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 543-551. doi:10.1037/a0025888 google scholar
12. Champion, T. ve Hugo, G. (2017). Introduction: Moving beYond the urban-ruraL dichotomy T. Champion ve G. Hugo (Ed.), New forms of urbanization, (s. 3-24) içinde. RoutLedge. google scholar
13. Demir, E. K. ve ŞendiL, G. (2008). EbeveYn Tutum Ölçeği (ETÖ). Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 11 (21), 15-25. google scholar
14. Durgun, Ö. (2011). TürkİYe’de Yoksulluk ve çocuk Yoksulluğu üzerine bir inceleme. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 6(i), 143-154. google scholar
15. Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of chiLdhood povertY. American Psychologist, 59(2), 77-92. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77 google scholar
16. Evans, G. W., BoxhiLL, L. ve Pinkava, M. (2008). Poverty and maternaL responsiveness: The roLe of maternaL stress and sociaL resources. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(3), 232-237. doi:10.1177/0165025408089272 google scholar
17. Evans, G. W., GonneLLa, C., MarcYnYszYn, L. A., GentiLe, L. ve SaLpekar, N. (2005). The roLe of chaos in povertY and chiLdren's socioemotionaL adjustment. Psychological Science, 16(7), 560-565. https://doi.Org/l0.111l/j.0956-7976.2005.01575.x google scholar
18. Ewart, C. K. ve SuchdaY, S. (2002). Discovering how urban povertY and vioLence affect heaLth: Development and vaLidation of a Neigh-borhood Stress lndex. Health Psychology, 21(3), 254-262. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.21.3.254 google scholar
19. Ferguson, K. T., CasseLLs, R. C., MacALLister, J. W. ve Evans, G. W. (2013). The phYsicaL environment and chiLd deveLopment: An internationaL review. International Journal of Psychology, 48(4), 437-468. http://dx.doi.org/l0.1080/00207594.2013.804190 google scholar
20. Foster, T. D., FroYen, L. C., Skibbe, L. E., BowLes, R. P. ve Decker, K. B. (2016). Fathers’ and mothers’ home Learning environments and chiLdren’s earlY academic outcomes. Reading and Writing, 29(9), 1845-1863. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-9655-7 google scholar
21. Fotso, J. C. (2006). ChiLd heaLth inequities in deveLoping countries: Differences across urban and ruraL areas. International Journal for Equity in Health, 5, 9. doi:10.1186/l475-9276-5-9 google scholar
22. Hair, N. L., Hanson, J. L., WoLfe, B. L. ve PoLLak, S. D. (2015). Association of chiLd povertY, brain deveLopment, and academic achievement. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(9), 822-829. doi: 10.100l/jamapediatrics.2015.1475 google scholar
23. Kızıltaş, E. ve Ertör, E. (2018). Okul öncesi eğitim alan çocukların akıllı telefon kullanımı ile ilgili aile görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 1-18. google scholar
24. Koç, G. (2017). The Relationship between culture specific parenting and conduct problems and internalization of rules of children from disadvantaged bachgrounds. [YaYimLanmamış Yüksek Lisans tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi. google scholar
25. Kotchick, B. A., DorseY, S. ve HeLLer, L. (2005). Predictors of parenting among African American singLe mothers: PersonaL and contextuaL factors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 448-460. https://doi.Org/l0.111l/j.0022-2445.2005.00127.x google scholar
26. Lampard, J. E., Voigt, M. D. ve Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Urban and ruraL parenting. L. BaLter (Ed.), Parenthood in America: An encyclopedia, (s. 442-444) içinde. ABC-CLIO Press. google scholar
27. Loucaides, C. A., ChedzoY, S. M. ve Bennett, N. (2004). Differences in phYsicaL activitY LeveLs between urban and ruraL schooL chiLdren in CYprus. Health Education Research, 19(2), 138-147. doi:10.1093/her/cYg014 google scholar
28. Magnuson, K. A. ve Duncan, G. J. (2002). Parents in povertY. M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting volume 4: Social conditions and applied parenting, (s. 95-122) içinde. Lawrence ErLbaum Associates. google scholar
29. MathenY Jr, A. P., Wachs, T. D., Ludwig, J. L. ve PhiLLips, K. (1995). Bringing order out of chaos: PsYchometric characteristics of The Confusion, Hubbub, and Order ScaLe. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16(3), 429-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(95)90028-4 google scholar
30. Matthews, H., TaYlor, M., Sherwood, K., Tucker, F. ve Limb, M. (2000). Growing-up in the countryside: ChiLdren and the ruraL İDyLL. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), 141-153. https://doi.org/l0.1016/S0743-0167(99)00059-5 google scholar
31. McCracken, J. D. ve Barcinas, J. D. T. (1991). Differences between ruraL and urban schooLs, student characteristics, and student aspirations in Ohio. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7(2), 29-40. google scholar
32. Miser, T. M. ve Hupp, J. M. (2012). The influence of socioeconomic status, home environment, and chiLdcare on chiLd Language abiLities. Current Psychology, 31(2), 144-159. doi: 10.1007/s12144-012-9139-0 google scholar
33. Nacak, M., Yağmurlu, B., DurgeL, E. ve van de Vijver, F. (2011). Metropol ve Anadolu'da ebeveYnlik: Biliş ve davranışlarda şehrin ve eğitim düzeYİnin rolü. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 26(67), 85-100. google scholar
34. Okur-Ataş, Ş. ve Berument, S. K. (2023). SchooL readiness of Turkish chiLdren Living in povertY: The mediating roLes of home environment and maternaL behaviors. Early Education and Development, 34(8), 1779-1798. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2022.2127291 google scholar
35. Özdemir, Y., SağkaL, A. S., SaLman-Engin, S., Çevik, A. Ç. ve Gür, G. (2020). TürkİYe’de birlikte ebeveYnlik deneYİmleri: Nitel bir çalışma. Nesne Dergisi, 8(16), 43-48. doi: 10.7816/nesne-08-16-04 google scholar
36. Özdirenç, M., Özcan, A., Akin, F. ve GeLecek, N. (2005). PhYsicaL fitness in ruraL chiLdren compared with urban chiLdren in Turkey. Pediatrics International, 47(i), 26-31. https://doi.Org/l0.111l/j.1442-200x.2004.02008.x google scholar
37. PaLavan, Ö. ve Donuk R. (2016). KırsaL kesimde görev Yapan öğretmenLerin sorunLarı. UşaK Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 109-128. https://doi.org/l0.29065/usakead.232430 google scholar
38. Paterson, G. ve Sanson, A. (1999). The association of behaviouraL adjustment to temperament, parenting and famiLY characteristics among 5-Year-oLd chiLdren. Social Development, 8(3), 293-309. https://doi.org/l0.111l/l467-9507.00097 google scholar
39. PaûL, C., Fonseca, A. M., Martîn, I. ve Amado, J. (2003). PsYchosociaL profile of rural and urban eLders in PortugaL. European Psychologist, 8(3), 160-167. https://doi.Org/l0.1027/l016-9040.8.3.160 google scholar
40. Pinderhughes, E. E., Nix, R., Foster, E. M., Jones, D. ve Conduct ProbLems Prevention Research Group. (2001). Parenting in context: Impact of neighborhood povertY, residentiaL stabiLitY, pubLic services, sociaL networks, and danger on parentaL behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 941-953. https://doi.Org/l0.111l/j.1741-3737.2001.00941.x google scholar
41. RavaLLion, M., Chen, S. ve SangrauLa, P. (2007). New evidence on the urbanization of gLobaL povertY. Population and Development Review, 33(4), 667-701. https://doi.Org/l0.111l/j.1728-4457.2007.00193.x google scholar
42. Roscigno, V. J., Tomaskovic-DeveY, D. ve CrowleY, M. (2006). Education and the inequaLities of pLace. Social Forces, 84(4), 2121-2145. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0108 google scholar
43. RusseLL, M., Harris, B. ve GockeL, A. (2008). Parenting in povertY: Perspectives of high-risk parents. Journal of Children and Poverty, 14(i), 83-98. https://doi.org/l0.1080/l0796120701871322 google scholar
44. Schmidt, K. L., MerriLL, S. M., GiLL, R., MiLLer, G. E., Gadermann, A. M. ve Kobor, M. S. (2021). SocietY to ceLL: How chiLd poverty gets “Under the Skin” to influence chiLd deveLopment and LifeLong heaLth. Developmental Review, 61, ArticLe 100983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dr.2021.100983 google scholar
45. Sevinç, G., Davran, M. K. ve Sevinç, M. R. (2018). Türkiye’de kırdan kente göç ve göçün aiLe üzerindeki etkiLeri. İKtisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(6), 70-82. https://doi.org/l0.25204/iktisad.330930 google scholar
46. Sümer, N., Harma, M. ve SoLak, N. (2013). İşsiz yaşam: İşsizliğin ve iş güvencesizliğinin birey ve aile üzerindeKi etKileri. Koç Üniversitesi YayınLarı. google scholar
47. Vernon-Feagans, L., GaLLagher, K. C. ve Kainz, K. (2010). The transition to schooL in rural America. J. L. Meece ve J. S. EccLes (Ed.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling, and human development (s. 163-184) içinde. RoutLedge. google scholar
48. Votruba-DrzaL, E. (2003). Income changes and cognitive stimulation in Young children's home Learning environments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(2), 341-355. https://doi.Org/l0.111l/j.1741-3737.2003.00341.x google scholar
49. WagLe, U. (2002). Rethinking povertY: Definition and measurement. International Social Science Journal, 54(171), 155-165. doi: 10.1111/1468-2451.00366 google scholar
50. Weber, B., Jensen, L., MiLLer, K., MosLeY, J. ve Fisher, M. (2005). A criticaL review of ruraL povertY Literature: Is there truLY a ruraL effect? International Regional Science Review, 28(4), 381-414. https://doi.org/l0.1177/0160017605278996 google scholar
51. WehLer, C. (1994, Ocak, 21-22). The use and refinement of CCHIP surveY items for a general population surveY [Sunum]. Food and Consumer Service, United States Department of AgricuLture Conference on Food SecuritY Measurement and Research, Washington, D.C., ABD. google scholar
52. WehLer, C. A., Scott, R. I. ve Anderson, J. J. (1992). The communitY childhood hunger Identification project: A model of domestic hunger-demonstration project in SeattLe, Washington. Journal of Nutrition Education, 24, 29S-35S. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3182C12) 80135-X google scholar
53. YagmurLu, B. ve Sanson, A. (2009). The roLe of chiLd temperament, parenting and cuLture in the deveLopment of prosociaL behaviors. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(2), 77-88. doi:10.1080/00049530802001338. google scholar
54. Zezza, A. ve Tasciotti, L. (2010). Urban agricuLture, povertY, and food securitY: EmpiricaL evidence from a sampLe of deveLoping countries. Food Policy, 35(4), 265-273. doi:10.1016/j.foodpoL.2010.04.007 google scholar